Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any reasonable capitalist should acknowledge the fact that the government and capitalism are inherently linked. You cannot have a functioning capitalist system without a legitimate government that has adequate state capacity to enforce property rights, at the very minimum.
without state sponsored genocide, without state sponsored death squads, it's questionable whether capitalism would have survived ... it took much violence, state-sponsored, to keep capitalism alive this long.
I’m in the Liberal camp - a moderate. There’s quite a few of us. Life in general I would say we are the norm with at least what Reddit represents with USA, Canada, UK, etc. I’m using liberal liberally too (ha ha). That it encompasses both liberals and conservatives who are pro liberal democracies and for the sake of this sub, governments that favor market economies known as capitalism.
What you may be experiencing is known as group polarization. If we were on Reddit at large I would say that was the case. Where our comments naturally attract opposing opinions of other people and also when you discuss people naturally anchor into opposing oppositional positions. So people seem way more oppositional then they really are. People assume I’m an ancap on here all the time and I am far from it.
Liberal is a political ideology, conservative is a cultural term. Conservatives of Saudi Arabia are vastly different than conservatives in the uk and conservatives in the uk are different than USA conservatives. People also confuse progressives and liberals as being the same. When a lot of progressives you see are socialists.
Conservatism is culturally dependent, yes. But that doesn't mean it is not a political ideology.
>As a political ideology, conservatism is defined by the desire to conserve, reflected in a resistance to, or at least a suspicion of, change. However, while the desire to resist change may be the recurrent theme within conservatism, what distinguishes conservatism from rival political creeds is the distinctive way in which this position is upheld, in particular through support for tradition, a belief in human imperfection, and the attempt to uphold the organic structure of society. Conservatism nevertheless encompasses a range of tendencies and inclinations. The chief distinction within conservatism is between what is called traditional conservatism and the New Right. Traditional conservatism defends established institutions and values on the ground that they safeguard the fragile ‘fabric of society’, giving security-seeking human beings a sense of stability and rootedness. The New Right is characterized by a belief in a strong but minimal state, combining economic libertarianism with social authoritarianism, as represented by neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Conservatism and Neoconservatism. (Heywood, 2017)
Edit: since many of the countries Reddit is dominated on are founded on "Liberal" ideals it is common then for their "conservatives" to be various forms of tradition liberals like in the USA with Classical Liberals or even the extreme with Jeffersonian Liberals like the radical on this sub that goes by the username similar to Jefferson.
I remember like a year ago a right-wing libertarian complained about this problem with this sub. There's a few in here like that person who you can talk to and get to some understanding even if you disagree. But there's a lot more who are how you and that last describe.
Anarcho-whateverism of any stripe is a protest position. It's not real. I've found the whole discussion of polycentric, market production of law and public goods by certain academics to be interesting, but I haven't yet found it convincing.
What does annoy me is when I see endless criticism of ancap this or that given by some revolutionary techno-Makhnovist critical anarcho-distribusyndicalist lecturing about how it fantastic or unrealistic it is without the slightest bit of irony or self-awareness.
I support a capitalist economic system, but recognize that there is a role for government to play as well: national defense, policing, independent judicial system. Some regulation of natural monopolies. Publicly funded education. Some infrastructure. Etc.
I think most reasonable capitalists would agree with me on this. And I am fine with taxes, as the saying goes they are the price of civilization. I know that if I lived in a society with no government, I would have a far lower standard of living than I enjoy today.
If you think about it, ancaps would bring about socialism faster than your standard capitalists, because they actually advocate for a weaker bourge state.
If ancapism was workable in real world conditions, I would agree. The single time there has been an ancap in power, he just turned out to be a standard neo-liberal that heavily uses the state to oppress the opposition lol
That's because ancap is anarchy, somthing ancaps haven't realized on a whole yet is it require revolution.
You cannot capture the state and expect it to go away like communist do.
Lastly you are being uncharitable to javier miellie.
One ancap in gov. Can hardly do anything unless you expect the president to go dictatorship.
>You cannot capture the state and expect it to go away like communist do.
How would you expect to implement ancapism on a country?
>One ancap in gov. Can hardly do anything unless you expect the president to go dictatorship.
And yet he has no problem directing the military and police to crack down on protestors against shock therapy. It’s weird that someone supposedly against the government oppression has no problem using the government to oppress anyone that speaks out against him.
>1. Revolution and or secession
Pretty vague. What tools and systems do you think will let a group of ancap leaders take over a country or sucede and fight off the current state?
2. It's the state, the state is gonna state -idc what he calls himself -if not him someone else
So he’s a hypocrite and not actually pushing for an ancap society.
1. Use you imagination, many tools to use and go about it.
2. You're focusing on the man, when the man does not matter.
The the state is an entity onto itself.
Whether he is being honest or lieing matters not when he doesn't have the power to enact his ideas.
>1. Use you imagination, many tools to use and go about it.
You’re the one who believes in it, you tell me.
>2. You're focusing on the man, when the man does not matter. The the state is an entity onto itself.
Except he himself ordered several crackdowns by the police. He doesn’t control the entire state himself but he does directly control parts of it that he’s directly using to suppress his opposition.
2.
"Take the throne to act, and you'll find the throne acts upon you"
Someone else with different ideology would have been elected and done the same. Which is my point.
From monarchies to liberals to socialists and communists, all act the same when in power.
Hence y I'm an Anarchist. But considering you're an ML, I doubt you agree.
I've explained myself enough.
Yeah I thought I was confused. Who the duck thinks Reagan and Thatcher represent ancaps.
These are statists who don't even understand what a government is.
Exactly. Ancapism in practice is just mass privatization but then needs mass militarization to suppress opposition to the horrors of shock therapy. Ancaps are the only ones who don’t understand how horrible anarchocapitalism would be, even if it worked lol
That's okay. If removal of government 100% naturally and without any coercion results in socialism, I'm all for it and I think most other Ancaps would be too. We just think capitalism is the natural economic model (which makes sense if you regard the history of humanity).
What? You think some guy in the 1500s just made up all of it? Humans have been acquiring property and freely trading it with others for mutual benefit since they've been on this planet...
>Are there any capitalists here that recognize the role that goverment plays in facilitation of the market?
Yes, there are tons of us. You’re just seeing what you want to see.
I'm not being hostile. I'm just saying whenever I get responses about, say, unions, almost all of them say it's okay to organize but that there should basically be no laws protecting the rights of the workers.
I'm an ancap I guess. But it's not as if we take our positions lightly or haven't been serious about choosing the right ones. I also understand that it seems we have different operating definitions for the word "capitalism" as well.
I suppose my question is; how do you feel about this observation of yours?
I believe economies control governments and technology & natural resources control economies. Globalization is a product of the natural evolution of industry: sophisticated companies finding the best capitalistic market in collaboration with parallel companies in every nation. Will this have an influence on governments in the future making them global, also? What would that look like? To give an example, perhaps to stem the massive immigration crisis, the EU & Britain will construct unified immigration laws between themselves & African nations that would expedite facilitating immigrants to safe housing & economic situations in Europe Britain, Africa & elsewhere that they would best thrive. Can you see this as the beginning of global government & can you understand how much push back would be generated from all kinds of capitalists & nationslists? Regardless of the push back, I see this as an inevitable step in the evolution of national governments.
Nationalism is dying & capitalism, as practiced currently, is dying. A futuristic government will contain hybrids of what we have today mixed with influencers like climate change, economies, dwindling resources, including water, growing pandemics & a need to overhaul global monetary systems.
You’re really just talking about Singapore here. Promoting cosmopolitanism as a solution to address violent nationalistic racial tensions, climate conscious policies as they’re super vulnerable to climate change and have no natural resources including water, technocratic governance to provide political stability, dirigiste economic model out of pragmatism, etc.
I certainly lean towards the Austrian School of Economics. I absolutely am not an anarcho-capitalist though.
Government certainly can and should play a role in some aspects of markets. I just favor a rather limited approach.
Ancaps seem to believe the power of the government hinders the broader possibilities of capitalism, that government power is making it worse…. Somehow ignoring who influences positions of power for policy.
Like if the super wealthy and corporations are willing and able to indirectly influence the way things operate… why on earth do you believe it would be better if they could just do the same thing, but more directly and without any checks or balances to answer to?
Few if any people on this sub are capitalists. Capitalists are people whose own significant amounts of productive property. There are people on here that defend capitalism, but the overwhelming majority of them are not themselves capitalists. They are either workers or petty-bourgeois, the later of which is a capitalist in the strictest sense of the definition, but they are not part of the capitalist ruling class, the *haute bourgeoisie*.
This sub generally has incredibly dumb posts from both sides, so I don’t generally have long conversations on them. This sub consists of 15 year olds who call themselves ancaps and think they will totally own socialists. You will find debates with normal capitalists, but will need to dig through a lot of trash.
We also have schizophrenics like u/jefferson1793
" If you're paid starvation wages busting your ass and have nowhere else to go, you should maybe beg smarter and stop being a worthless loser. 1+1=2"
That shit was kind of funny but also kind of sad.
Unions are just for whiny babies who lost their finger in the factory. If you're 11 years old and pulled only 2 cents for your 90 hour part time job, then maybe you should just do better. It's not my fault your father died in the mine.
Maybe next time, get a better parent. He couldn't leave you with anything because he was a bum.
This is a Capitalism versus Socialist. Do you have any idea which side you are on and the reason? If so why don't you tell us the reason? How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
I am convinced you have parkinsons and are slowly withering away in a retirement home rambling about socialism online because your children ghosted you.
don't be totally stupid. This is a Capitalism University Socialism. Why don't you think about which you are and the reason and then try to present the reason here in writing. How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
Well, the most charitable interpretation is that trying to alleviate issues and externalities is actually just going to hurt people. The worst interpretation is true social Darwinism. Fuck the working poor and the so called undeserving. No matter the margin.
That charitable version just seems a bit too convenient. It’s more of a _wish of futility_ to absolve them of their animalistic values, than an actual valid argument supporting said futility.
If they were being honest, they’d say that helping people, and _without ruining the economy_, is actually feasible, but not desirable. Of course, they will never say this out loud. Even anonymously.
For them, this value they hold is a hard thing to face when you’re the one not desiring to help others. If they can’t make a case for it being infeasible, they come face to face with what they are. So they stick and move, stick and move. The cognitive dissonance is sad, exhausting, and an obstacle to progress.
The other line is, "im cool with (billionaires and true capitalist) helping people and all, but not if it's not a 100% voluntary transaction."
Well, that's funny. The capitalist profits off of the inelastic nature of people involuntarily (for the most part) needing to work for them, usually at such a disadvantage that they cant negotiate living standard for labor, thus often directly creating the externalities that need to be addressed and then while in the best position to do so, doesn't want to help solve those problem often at all, but maybe sometimes only if he can come out with his reputation as virtuous volunteer. All the while convincing the common man that by advocating for such that he is yet again more virtuous for defending his liberty for when he one day holds the position. (when the common man has no means to address the issue and likely never will regardless)
This is all admittedly a wild oversimplification, but still.
It does seem to skew in that direction, doesn't it?
I think many may argue in favor of more extreme positions while still accepting some middle ground personally -- they're mostly strong laissez faire libertarians who still support having a government around to protect property (and pretty much nothing else).
Very few of us capitalists (technically I still maintain a capitalist position, even though I'm at odds with the overwhelming majority of the capitalists on this sub) tend to argue from a leftist position.
I mean, at the same time, we have actual case studies and don’t need theory to defend ourselves. To an extent, you may not even need moral arguments like communists or ancaps do, just objective ones. “Look, my model has brought about prosperity, social development, etc. Yours has not. Who cares if it’s more moral. End of discussion.”
That's not a fair argument because it shuts down an argument. What's the fucking point of this sub if you're not even going to argue in good faith.
Feudalism "worked" before imperial mercantillism
mercantillism worked before capitalism
Should we not have progressed forth from there?
Shit capitalism even started off as a moral argument too.
Especially since radical libertarianism or anarchy hasn't even been tried.
To an extent, yes. We’ve had variants of communism tried from anarcho syndicalism to Stalinism. A few kinds of anarchism have been tried, some of which are still operating today. Obviously, it wasn’t like these communes were making semiconductors or mass manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs, but they functioned at the basic level. Many cities de facto operate in anararchy(as often, the state is too weak to project any power within its borders). We’ve seen the results of neoliberalism and the massive dissatisfaction it has caused under Thatcher and Reagan, and the rise of illiberal political candidates on the right and left. I don’t think we need to “experiment” by going any further right similar to how the left have tried going further left. These are real human lives being dealt with at the end of the day, and “progress” can often be regressive. See the Great Leap Forward under Maoism, Russia’s neoliberalization, etc.
And the basis of capitalism was primarily a critique of the inefficiencies of mercantilism and how things could be so much better without it. By morality, economic systems claim the “moral” high ground by claiming they can allocate scarce resources better to satiate human wants and needs. As in, “under XYZ system, people will be less hungry. This is right, while your system has more people starving, so it is wrong.”
Ok, sure, but the issue is that Liberals are just as imperialistic, dogmatic, and domineering as the other ideologies.
Sure I get that not everyone wants to try ancap, BUT yall won't even let us go our own way peacefully.
So to us, it starts as a moral argument. Now we also believe it would be more effective than liberalism as well,
I would say liberals are even condescending and arrogant, and want to dominate, they willfully will not allow others to try their systems.
If we cannot run the state and we cannot change the state.
What option do we have but to destroy the state.
Well, yes. Every economic system thrives better when a world order is attached to it. It doesn’t matter if it’s liberalism, dirigisme, or Stalinism, scaling is everything in economics. States that can escape the grasp of the world order end up being threats to its legitimacy especially when they succeed, like the rise of East Asia that has forced Western nations to violate even more liberal economic norms like free trade to protect their industries. But now we’re getting into IR, and the prevailing theory is that domestic politics is irrelevant in determining whether or not a political entity would pursue hegemony. It is in the interest of a confederation of anarchist communes to pursue global hegemony to keep itself safe just as it is for some hypernationalist dictatorship.
The biggest issue when it comes to anarchism is its poor ability to organize. Spain comes to mind where anarchist popular militias got crushed by professional armies with planes, tanks, and experienced commanders. Objectively though, life was pretty good in Catalonia. Some parts had even abolished currency and wage labor.
> Look, my model has brought about prosperity, social development, etc.
You mean a Singaporean model? Don't they have like 32% poverty? Not much in the way of "prosperity" there.
> Who cares if it’s more moral.
Dude... morality of economics is the *most important part*
1/10 are low income. Even lower are in poverty. There’s an incredible free K-12 education system with some of the best universities in Asia, universal healthcare, universal subsidized public housing, etc. Even if you are in poverty, you will be taken care of, which is more than I could say about the US or a lot of Western countries. The World Bank has 0 Singaporeans living below the global poverty line of below $2.15 a day. Singapore’s GDP per capita is higher than all but Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway’s, and Switzerland’s, per the International Monetary Fund.
Economics is about what will ensure the most prosperity and greatest level of societal development given limited resources. I don’t think it matters how you get there, having lived in several Southeast Asian countries, the US, and the UK when I did study abroad for a semester. I’d much rather live in whatever country can assure me the most comfortable life, even if they have high taxes or “violate property rights” in the name of ensuring everybody can have a home, or if the country is ran by an unchanging technocratic bureaucracy like Singapore instead of a democratically elected populist like Donald Trump or Meloni.
Irrelevant, considering the alternative is migrant workers not getting remittance money and us still living in slums instead of public housing. The economic policy of a nation as small and vulnerable as Singapore has to be centered around the prosperity and welfare of its own citizens first and foremost.
>The economic policy of a nation as small and vulnerable as Singapore has to be centered around the prosperity and welfare of its own citizens first and foremost.
There it is.
Yeah, you either exploit your own citizens, or the citizens of other countries. One is more harmful to overall economic and societal development than the other. What Singapore did to get to where it is now was by far much cleaner than the methods the West used to develop themselves through brutal colonialism along with exploitation of their domestic workforce. Or the Asian countries who sold out their populations for cheap labor and rely on remittances for their economy like Bangladesh and the Philippines. But hey, it worked out great for the West, now they can sit on their high horses and shit on the Global South for using less exploitative methods than they did to economically develop.
Nope. It's not exploitation if the proceeds of the work is returned to the workers. Looking at the communist countries Vietnam and China, even though there was initial exploitation, it was done so to develop their own means of production, and it was returned to the people through increased material conditions.
Even NK has this to some level, though it's not in the form of increased material conditions, it's in the form of sovereignty and security from invasion.
Nothing like that will ever happen in Singapore. The proceeds of the migrant workers will be concentrated in the "citizens" and the return of the proceeds to the migrant workers will be prevented through the guise of "meritocracy".
Oh, so then it isn’t exploitation since the proceeds of migrant workers in Singapore will go towards remittances that will increase the material conditions of them and their families back home. Vietnam used this to their advantage quite well; it earns the populace 19 billion dollars a year in remittances, and as you mentioned, look at how this has helped them.
Either way, there is no market for cheap mass manufacturing in Singapore like there is in China or South Asia. Nor would it be as beneficial to Singapore as simply training the populace to give the West a run for their money in the white collar world.
Capitalism ALWAYS requires a government to enforce private property. Anyone who thinks private property can function without some form of monopoly on authority and laws are completely delusional.
Actual anarchism is the dismantling of all power structures not just government
>For me the only kind of viable anarchism is one that is built around private property
How can you have anarchism based on private property? How can capitalism function without a power enforcing private property?
That only at best establishes the first part of your original claim, and it doesn't even do that. Capitalism HAS always required government to enforce private property. And all current capitalists societies use governments to enforce private property. How does it follow that private property cannot function without some form of monopoly on authority and laws?
> How does it follow that private property cannot function without some form of monopoly on authority and laws?
Well, in your own words:
>Capitalism HAS always required government to enforce private property. And all current capitalists societies use governments to enforce private property.
If something is literally the case everywhere in history and currently, then that is the reality.
Who is doing "no true scotsman", now, huh?
That is the reality. We aren't debating how things are or how things have always been. We are debating how things could be, conceptually. Pointing out that X has never existed without Y doesn't prove that X *cannot* exist without Y. That's patently absurd. Just go back in time and use that argument before some major technological innovation. We have never been able to travel from New York to San Francisco in under eight hours. Therefore, we cannot travel from New York to San Francisco in under eight hours. Why couldn't there be private companies that offer systems of laws and protection of private property as a service?
> Capitalism ALWAYS requires a government to enforce private property.
It literally doesn't and the phrase "enforce rights" is dumb, as in stupid.
You can defend rights you don't enforce them you noodle.
To defend is to enforce. Unless defense somehow doesn't involve force?
It is funny how ancaps pretend they don't support the use of force. Even I as an anarchist admit that defending anarchism would require force.
I support the use of force, not violence, compulsion, but not coercion in order to protect property (there is no meaningful or comprehensive distinction between "private" or "personal" property).
Do you think that when I am out on a walk in the wilderness, and I pluck a berry from a bush, and I put it in my mouth, that I am violently preventing other people on the other side of the planet from having access to said berry? Is that not coercively restricting access to natural resources?
>I support the use of force, not violence, compulsion, but not coercion in order to protect property
How's that supposed to work exactly? Force without violence?
>Do you think that when I am out on a walk in the wilderness, and I pluck a berry from a bush, and I put it in my mouth, that I am violently preventing other people on the other side of the planet from having access to said berry?
No, I do that all the time. If someone else puts up a fence and buys that land and says you aren't allowed to go eat that Berry, then you can be fined or jailed for that. That's force.
>Is that not coercively restricting access to natural resources?
If the land is private, you are trespassing, then technically you are a criminal and stealing from a private landowner. But that is what you support.
supporters of capitalism are not "capitalists", but liberals. [Liberalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xAqZJTIsIA) being the political ideology of capitalism and it emerged against feudalism to secure private property rights
Even owning some shares of a company doesn't necessarily make you "capitalist" unless you can sustain solely on that income. As for economics, the current economic ideology is "[Neoliberalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vS4eKwCEC0)", deregulation and privatization sanctafied.
It was first developed by the Chicago Boys in 70s Chile, under US backed dictator Pinochet. [More on this, here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0)
**Edit**: What is wrong with me, I completely missed the point of the question. Yes, it seems most people here are liberals and many are capitalists proper. But this is normal [given how the media portrays the world.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKNNiYQFp4)
Your definition of capitalism is off. A capitalist owns and /or seeks to acquire more of one or more of the means of production. That's all that's required. So yes, owning stocks makes you a capitalist. Owning a rental property makes you a capitalist. Being a small business owner makes you a capitalist.
I think the difference between my and your definition is part of the reason why a lot of socialists seem to be puzzled that most people support capitalism. It's because they are capitalists, and they are infact voting in their own self-interest.
I didn't give a definition of capitalism. I said "unless you can sustain solely on that income" as a shareholder, which implies you are also a worker to survive. The divide between worker and business class is not binary and often times overlaps. And yes, the people that support capitalism are liberals, the people that are capitalists are also liberals.
If your main focus is on cultural topics, not necessarily, though they don't advocate for monarchism as the conservatives of the 16th century, for example.
The base of liberalism is in private property relations and entrenching them in constitutionalism. A key point to keep in mind is that liberal democracies don't mind dropping the optics if [private property rights might be threatened, no matter where in the world.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI&t=284s)
I will also remind you that liberals did support slavery and certainly supported segregation up until few decades ago.
I'm not a 100% sure, but I believe the prefix of "liberal" in liberal conservative was dropped around the time of the New Deal when the Democrats and Republicans flipped their ideology.
Essentially, until that time Democrats had the ideology of the modern Republican party and advocated for cutting taxes on companies and the rich and had strictly anti-worker/labor outlook on the world.
The thing about liberalism is that it was created as a way for private property to become a thing. [It's preservation is what liberalism cares about, and both modern liberals and conservatives pay attention to this first and foremost, culture second](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xAqZJTIsIA&t=64s) as a way of mutual controlled opposition for the sake of capital preservation from leftist movements.
This is why the modern strategy in US politics is for the Democrats to win and maintain the gains made by the Republican party without actually reversing them. The Democrats use the Republican party as a boogeyman for strategic goals, not because the Republican party is not worse or a threat, it very much is, but that's precisely the point. The enemy of liberalism is the working class, not the business class.
[And yes, liberals are not leftists, please stop insulting socialists and communists by clumping them with liberals](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PiIPig20CRw)
I largely agree with you other than that there are practical class distinctions as well and owning a vacuum store or a rental property doesn't put you into that class - it's more of a sort of prerequisite. Capitalism is about power and control of industry and trade, and establishing capital as being the thing that grants you power and control. Owning a pissant little company or a single rental property doesn't give you any real greater access to levers of power, you're interests aren't the same as Amazon or Blackrock. And I'd disagree that owning some small amount of stock makes you a capitalist - I'd argue you'd need an ownership stake for that label to apply, otherwise it's essentially no different than owning a pokemon card.
A lot of people here will insist that "capitalist" has a second meaning of "defender of capitalism", and it seems at least some dictionaries do mention that meaning, though it sounds strange to me.
Liberals is one ideology that defends capitalism, there is also conservatism, fascism, etc.
It does seem that centre- och centre-right people are rare on the sub, despite it being common in the larger world.
> A lot of people here will insist that "capitalist" has a second meaning of "defender of capitalism", and it seems at least some dictionaries do mention that meaning, though it sounds strange to me.
It has that meaning *here* because that's a convenient label so we don't have to type out "defender of capitalism on /r/CapitalismVSocialism" all the damn time.
> It does seem that centre- och centre-right people are rare on the sub, despite it being common in the larger world.
Indeed, speaking as a leftist ~~capitalist~~ supporter of capitalism fully aware of the irony of the label, the overwhelming majority of defenders of capitalism on /r/CapitalismVSocialism are strongly right wing.
Depends on what you mean and also which fascism you look at. Spanish fascism ie had almost no element of criticism of capitalism, and very much defended capitalism in Spain against factions that wanted to abolish it like anarchists and communists.
This seems to be a retreat from your claim of all fascism, right?
Regardless, I’m not well versed on Spain’s fascism and would like you to source for my own edification.
As far as Italian and Nazi fascism your claim is not true. Keep in mind, I’m not in the camp that says fascism = socialism. But to gain popularity among the masses Mussolini and Hitler appealed to the working and middle class with socialist type narratives. Those narratives were often anti-capitalism.
Also, capitalism is very individualistic. It is private ownership of the means and is not collectivism. Fascism is therefore naturally anti-capitalism which I can source. My favorite example is how the Nazi’s printed on their currency, “common good before private good”.
Conservatism prior to the liberal revolutions was about preserving the status quo at the time, that was feudalism. Nowadays it's capitalism, so they seek to preserve that. The difference between the modern public perception of what is a liberal and what is a conservative remains in the realm of social and cultural issue and less on the fundamental basis of the economic system on which the whole superstructure society is based on.
In Marxism this is the Base and Superstructure, fyi
As a minarchist I personally would believe in a VERY limited government for:
>human/civil rights
yes
>infrastructure
Possibly, but not necessarily.
>anti-trust/prevention of monopoly
Nope.
>monetary stability
Hell fucking no.
>regulations to ensure that the externalities (among other things) don't get out of hand.
Probably not, but would need specifics.
let's say there's a gizmo monopoly, but I want to open a competing gizmo business. Explain to me where the fuck I get my supply of gizmos. If I open a gizmo factory, the supplier for the dohickies to make the gizmos is under exclusive contract with the monopoly.
Or if I start mining and assembling my own gizmos in my back shed and selling them at my shop, bam I get sued for IP theft in a case that will bankrupt me in legal fees before I make it to court, where I'm likely to lose.
Use a little bit of critical thinking and imagination of the myriad possible ways businesses shut down competition besides regulatory capture involving the government.
>bam I get sued for IP theft
I personally don't believe in IP.
>that will bankrupt me in legal fees before I make it to court, where I'm likely to lose.
Legal fees would be a hell of a lot less in a free market with little to no regulations.
>Use a little bit of critical thinking and imagination
You're not completely wrong, but a perfect society probably doesn't exist. A free market gives you the best chance for the most equitable economy possible. You have a hammer sickle next to your username....THAT to me a symbol of all industries being a true monopoly where it's illegal for ANYBODY to compete. If that is not your viewpoint apologies for my wrong assumption.
Corporations sure as shit do believe in IP
> Legal fees would be a hell of a lot less in a free market with little to no regulations
nonsense. First off why would they be, second the reason costs skyrocket in cases like this is because the coproations can make them interminable and if you lose you're fucked.
As for the hammer and sickle you're not describing what I believe and that's not even close to what the symbol means. At it's core it just represents solidarity between workers and peasants.
You say you want the most equitable economy possible but in relation to what? There isn't a naturally ordered default benchmark. If you're talking about more equitable than current US economy, you are sorely mistaken that a libertarian fantasyland where government does nothing but the bare minimum would at all be more 'fair.' Maybe if you start from complete scratch, just dump a bunch of kids on an island with the fountainhead or whatever as a rulebook you might be able to call that equitable, but if you did the same thing and gave them rules for a socialist democracy that would surely work better. The libertarian island is just going to devolve into quasi feudalism with one person owning everything and thus in charge of everything, but it would be on the basis of having a bunch of capital as opposed to divine mandate.
Honestly, if your model lacks successful case studies and only has theories to back it up, it’s not worth discussing.
If we all went by what has yielded the best economic, societal, and developmental outcomes, we’d all be like Singapore.
I'm a progressive capitalist, NATO supremacist, and game theory enthusiast. I'm not AnCap, and I generally like the neoliberal federal government and its resulting world order. I also accept that moderate regulation can be beneficial, and that sometimes deregulation can be harmful.
I will read up on that more as I only understand vaguely that Austrian economics seems to be largely against governments and markets colliding, but you might have a point.
Austrian school is mostly about subjective value, efficiency of markets (where things can actually be priced), emergent order and computation, the study of disequilibrium, and minimum intervention of the govt in the economy (mainly because it usually causes massive disequilibrium).
But they still recognize that there are externalities, natural monopolies that need managed, etc.
Even if we are libertarians or ancaps, we'll take ANY free market western capitalism over socialism, and will protect it as such, and defend it against totalitarians of any sort, whether they be monarchists or socialists.
In reality, when we say "capitalism", we really mean liberalism, in other words, protections of individual rights, private property, the free market and equal rights under the law. This tent includes all liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else on the spectrum who is not a collectivist of any kind, in other words your every day western citizen.
For us "liberals", the argument is never about socialism vs. capitalism, it's really about the level of capitalism in society, we view anti-capitalism and any type of collectivism that is anti-property or anti-individualism as the end of civilization and the end of humanity.
In this sub we're forced to consider totalitarianism as an alternative to liberalism, it's an exercise of philosophy and theory and has little practical use. Enjoy it.
There are conceptions of different distributions that even include democracy and markets that aren't totalitarianism. I think the problem comes in with completely inelastic markets like housing or medicine. Not only that, but those are glaring issues. There is also the private accumulation of assets represented by the ownership of labor. It's a leeching effect. Wealth begets wealth. Ownership begets ownership. Is there mobility? Yeah. Do markets effectively deal with some problems? Sure. Does that mean there needs to be massive private ownership of labor? Not necessarily. How do you get rid of the massive inequality resulting from the power dynamic? You either do or you don't, but there are many different ways of getting there.
It's not either free market capitalism or totalitarianism, complete central planning. Shoot the successful citizens into the river. It's not complete inequality or complete equality of outcomes.
There is an entire spectrum of possibilities. I value many freedoms. The freedom to have an underclass of hardworking people that serves to produce for a handful of capital owners is not ideal in my personal opinion. It's not out of self-interest if i was really heavy on self interest id just be a capitalist and happily profit off of the labor of others for my own gain. I could happily live the life I have now, a modest public worker doing an essential job at a living wage without having to gain anything or steal anything from anyone. I just think philosophically we can't rely on the charity of (likely sociopaths) to solve issues of human suffering and choose undemocratically how to distribute the resources our production and technology creates for us.
I don't think labor can be worth 1200-2500 or even hundreds of thousands of times worth more than anybody else's. That's just silly. No doubt some jobs and roles in society are more dangerous or skillful, or even flat out more important than others, maybe even by some multiples. I'm not going to argue that, but it's worth thousands of lifetimes of others? Highly doubt.
That's a power thing. The type of power that corrupts. That's the right place and right time and right set of circumstances kind of thing. Nearly verges on rule by divine rights argument. A different kind of feudal arrangement. Especially with the super relaxed attitude on the "deserving and undeserving." Some people are flat out better people than others. I don't think any self-respecting person would argue otherwise. The power dynamics at play today do not represent the value created they represent ownership of the value created. I'm skeptical of the 1:1 relationship purported to be inherent there
At a minimum, robust worker protections, consumer protections, and a strong social net that covers the bases where markets fail and strong arm the populace. At best, something else where we harness the massive production base we have to alleviate as much suffering as possible while still allowing liberty and meaning for individuals. The freedom to pursue happiness. Spend more time on this limited planet, enjoying it with those we love. To not let chance itself determine the fate of us to the degree that we can.
Your first point regarding getting rid of inequality, this was my very point regarding human nature and thriving civilization. One can be equal but not free, or can be free but unequal, humans are very different from each other in all attributes. Equality as an end ideal makes no sense from a liberal perspective, it would literally spell the end of liberalism, by definition.
Democracy should always be a part of any western system, however we prefer not to use the term due to the weird nature of the philosophy where the more of it you have, the worse off you are but also the less you have, the worse off you are. This, like capitalism, is the debate of generations, how much capitalism and how much democracy do we want, but it's clear to most that you can't get too extreme in any direction with either democracy or capitalism (although ancaps and ancoms would disagree).
Your point regarding charity, it's been shown to work wonders and is infinitely more preferable to forced labour or forced equality, and certainly better than ending private property or wealth accumulation by individuals, it is afterall what built the modern world. I understand the Marxist notion of building a collectivist state free utopia after wealth has already been created, but again, that wealth will not be given up willingly so violence must come, and of course the redistribution of wealth via the academic elite would be far worse than even a mildly skilled businessman does on a daily basis by paying workers right now.
Your last paragraph brings to mind the Star Trek future, where people just go about their business doing whatever they please, but it's unrealistic to say the least, not to mention that it's fantasy. Reducing suffering is something we're very good at, the more capitalism has spread, the less poverty there is, the more wealth there is, the more free time to pursue whatever goals there is. In any time in history, unless you were from the elite class and were supported by someone else, like Marx for example, you had no time to do anything at all, the pool of people where genius could thrive was tiny compared to today where a genius born to factory workers can change the world. This was impossible in the past, in any era.
As far as "self-made", that is a dumb term, not sure why people use it. Elon, Jeff, the Apple guy, these guys may be billionaires, they may have uses infrastructure, but they have paid back whatever it is that you think they owe a million times over, by giving millions of people world wide huge value, not even counting the jobs and salaries of their own employees, of which the billionaire himself takes but a tiny portion.
That's reddit for you. It's usually the extremes.
I've learned I'm more capitalist than I thought. I'm just really frustrated with the US implementation of capitalism that is anywhere from blithely naive to sinfully malicious.
I think you need a free market to sell goods and let people live their lives, but a heavy dose of government regulation to keep business from preying on the average person.
You also need an emotionally mature, practical population with the best interests of the society in mind, and sadly, we don't have that here.
Do capitalists require a “purity test?” If one were to distill capitalism down to its kernel, the system defends private ownership of the MOP. Libertarian capitalists rightly or wrongly believe markets self regulating (in the long run, we’re all dead, IMO) whereas “liberals” accept/require some regulation due to capitalism’s “excesses.”
There is nothing wrong with the Austrian school. And the Austrian is not Anarcho Capitalism. It recognizes that government should be as small as possible. The larger a government gets, the more Authoritarian and corrupt it becomes. This Bureaucratic state becomes the de facto ruler. This is because they are unaccountable to the people.
>Are there any capitalists here that recognize the role that goverment plays in facilitation of the market?
Yeah, I'm a liberty-leaning moderate. I'm also a big fan of some of the cheaper regulatory programs, like whoever is responsible for nutritional labels.
No reddit sub is going to be even remotely close to proportional to real people living real lives. This actually may one of the first times I've posted in this sub because I simply don't care enough most of the time. I'll defend the average non-politically obsessed person all day long though.
>anti-trust/prevention of monopoly,
There are reasons to believe that a sufficiently robust free market is enough to stop predatory monopolies.
As a more general answer to your question, part of it is that people are more passionate about their more extreme beliefs.
Most people who care enough to engage in these conversation are extremists on both sides.
9/10 people you work with or walk by on the street is a capitalist. They just don’t make it their entire personality.
>It seems like most capitalist in this sub are not only capitalists. They are specifically 100% free market anti goverment, anarcho types generally leaning toward the austrian school of economics
That certainly is the heritage of this sub, and its earliest users (on the cap side). But these days, it doesnt represent all of us.
Lots of us (like myself) are more mainstream capitalists. And especially those of us based in Europe (Afaik).
> seems like the type of capitalism we know requires a goverment to enforce property rights, human/civil rights, infrastructure, anti-trust/prevention of monopoly, monetary stability, and regulations to ensure that the externalities (among other things) don't get out of hand
I would say that this is fair representation of the mainstream neoclassical view. More or less. Although a bit of an oversimplification.
You did not form a complete sentence, so it was difficult for me to understand your point. I do not promote cosmopolitanism as a solution for violent national xenophobia. I seek ways to deal with the immigration problem so as to alleviate abuse, deaths, forced resettlements, overcrowding, unemployment, intolerance & hate. This means assisting & facilitating those in war torn areas to safer habitat. It appears the EU & Britain have no plan except sending those who arrive back to countries of origin where they will be abused or killed.
This is not solving the problem as in future years with more severe climate change, inflation, scarcity of commodities & continual wars, more people will try to leave & go wherever they can find food & safety. Unfortunately, western civilization & capitalism are backed into a corner. Because this problem has exacerbated without a solution for years, I assume the world powers will continue to put bandaids on it by shelling out more foreign aid, negotiating with war torn countries trying end the conflict by "peaceful democratic" means & closing its borders to asylum seekers. These are not solutions. It's like giving a man with cancer intervenous fluid & pain meds instead of operating & removing the tumor. It's buying time so the politicians down the road will have to come up with solutions.
Solution #1. Give the UN & non UN countries authority to intervene with all asylum seekers to transport them to designated safe zones. Every country is mandated to participate & accept them.
We know what would happen. The US, EU & Britain, Australia & Canada will refuse & hold back funding because they would be getting more of them than other countries & would have to fund those countries which don't have resources to care for them.
Solution #2. The super powers have the capability to stop wars by cutting off supplies like gas & electricity. That would stop war immediately. Communication & transportation is vital for war.
What does this tell you about how our civilization has evolved? It tells you that capitalism, in its present form, is not as humanitarian as it appears. Throwing out a bunch of money is not solving humanitarian problems that need more energy, manpower, innovative ideas & long term goals than the super powers want to commit. It means sharing precious AI technology with 3rd world countries & not holding it to leverage lucrative deals for mineral rights or land for mono crops from poor countries that can barely pay interest on foreign debt.
The end result of not addressing this current massive mounting human need on a global scale will be WWIII.
Eh, the market would just create another enforcement mechanism if the government did not intervene. We see it today with private security, private roads, etc. The government does play a role in the market today but it's not needed for capitalism to exist while the same cannot be said about socialism.
We exist. On reddit at least, we are a double vast minority. A) we generally want a smaller Crenshaw government role, and that's not popular. B) we take a "middle ground" which is the perfect opinion for not getting any reddit sort method to highlight us.
Quick example: one reason I believe universal Healthcare in the United States is an ill advised endeavor, is because the military budget is so vast. It's so vast because we are still (for now at least) the primary security for global trade.
I agree that the Capitalist extremists have gone off the deep end.
These extremist types would rather see a strong man take over and force their supposedly perfect capitalist ideology down everyone's throats.
But then, that kind of forcefulness flies in the face of their supposed freedom worshipping of the free market capitalism ideology.
There can be no doubt about that.
Not to mention creating pro foreign investment agreements/ waging wars to protect foreign investment opportunities.
See: NAFTA, Guatemalan Coup, Iranian Coup, Contras, Iraq War etc..
Humans are stupid animals. You give absolute freedom to them, 90 out of 100 humans will definitely misuse the freedom. 20 will definitely cause financial crimes. Only the 10 will use the freedom properly.
Government should control the capitalism no matter who says what. Monopoly isn't a good governance either. Not sure how it's working in Iran and China since I'm not from there. Duopoly is the most of the country and we call it left and right wings.
>Humans are stupid animals.
So let's give a relatively tiny group of stupid animals (politicians) political power over everybody else. Gee, that makes a lot of sense.
Your argument only works if politicians and bureaucrats are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us.
That’s the issue with democracy. Mob rule ends up getting stupid populists into power, as we have seen throughout Western liberal democracies.
Technocratic regimes like Singapore don’t have any of the issues present in the West due to such politicians actually being qualified to do their jobs, even when compared to countries of similar populations, diversity, and wealth to Singapore.
> Humans are stupid animals. You give absolute freedom to them, 90 out of 100 humans will definitely misuse the freedom.
> Government should control the capitalism…
I think you mean to say that government should control the people because as you said, it is people who cannot be trusted to use their freedom correctly. At least you should be honest with yourself about what your actual views are.
Government is just people. You're essentially saying that some people should use violent force (all the government is) in order to control the lives of other people.
People talk about these things too much in the abstract. They talk about the “government” controlling “capitalism” as if they are entities in and of themselves. When you break it down and talk about it for what it is, one human interacting with another human, it doesn’t look so good for a lot of the policies people advocate for.
Yeah I very much agree. I often ask "give me a specific example" of some failure of capitalism only to quickly find out that building wealth and trading things voluntarily usually is not the actual source of the problem statists are describing.
Humans are stupid because it doesn't advance the 1% who control governments through lobbies & pay outs to educate them. They want them stupid. The Trump base is a prime example.
I'd take such arguments seriously if you wanted AI to control humans. Otherwise either humans are evil and we can't give them chance to have monopoly powers or humans are good and we don't need a state at all.
I'm another proponent of mixed economies that operate under a predominately capitalist mode of production. So yeah, there are plenty of us.
I think what you're seeing is often a reaction to governments overstepping.
For example, here in Canada, the tax rates are ludicrous. I personally pay over 50% in income tax alone, and we don't get much in return.
That’s on them; Singapore has a mixed economy model, and oversteps a shit ton. When 1.2 million people were living in slums during the 60s, the government went in, bulldozed them all, and implemented a universal public housing program. Now, there are no homeless, and well, Singapore is a tax haven. Canada…no idea where they fucked up to the point where taxes could be so high.
Overstepping’s fine if it yields greater prosperity and societal development. Most people would support social programs as long as they’re not ridiculously expensive or outright bad. And that’s where “mixed” comes in with dividends from state owned industries to take the place of taxes, like in the Arab Peninsula or other dirigiste economies.
Nah, socialism is a scale, I for one like a little socialism mixed in with my capitalism to make a reasonable balance. But this is a debate sub, so we see the extremes of both represented.
The goal of any capitalist should be to maximize competition, and try and get that competition to breed innovation. Unregulated capitalism doesn't result in more competition, it results in monopolies abusing their power. But just because unregulated capitalism is bad doesn't mean we should drop all forms of capitalism and go full 100% socialism. 100% socialism is just as shortsighted as 100% unregulated capitalism. Neither works.
Please explain to me how the requirement that cars have seatbelts enable monopolies? Or that food not have lead in it?
Regulation are a tool, they can be used for good and for bad, but casting all regulations as "sole reason monopolies exist" is unfounded. The reason monopolies are dangerous is because they leverage their market dominance to get an unfair advantage. That can including lobbying for regulatory capture, or it can include market manipulation to price out competitors or lockdown all available suppliers.
Regulations in regards to certificates of need create Healthcare monopolies. Regulations restricting entrance into utilities create utility monopolies. Did you honestly assume I was talking about random regulations? And natural monopolies exist only when a) the market is niche enough that companies don't want to enter it as the demand wouldn't justify the potential risk or b) a company has become extremely efficient at offering whatever good or service they sell. Neither of those are bad scenarios.
Sure but when I say "unregulated capitalism is a problem", the response isn't "sure lets regulate with bad regulations", the response is "lets regulate with good regulation".
Many of the flaws of capitalism can be addressed through regulation. My definition of good is "protect the common welfare and promote maximum competition/innovation". As long as regulations keep to that, we should have no issue.
Most? That's a hard to believe statistic. Most are addressing issues that have come up in the past in various industries. Given most less regulated countries aren't doing any better economically than the US, I'd wager our balance of regulations does well to create a thriving economy.
Natural monopolies no longer exist in any meaningful capacity, but are also not a negative thing in general. My statement was referenced to the post that unregulated capitalism causes monopolies.
>Natural monopolies no longer exist in any meaningful capacity
They do exist.
>but are also not a negative thing in general.
They lead to price gouging and lower quality, they are obviously not good.
>My statement was referenced to the post that unregulated capitalism causes monopolies.
In fairness, natural monopolies would be monopolies either way, but atleast with regulation or nationalization theres atleast a bit of democratic accountability.
Most of us who are republican Capitalist Libertarian types want a powerful government to enforce capitalism. A government that supports liberty is what Republicans have always wanted since Jefferson and Madison formed the party in 1792.
The Republican Party of the era was later termed the Democratic Republican Party and later proceeded into the Democrats. The Republican Party that formed later was a separate entity that emerged following the collapse of the Whigs in the mid-19^th century.
Just because capitalist support free markets doesn't mean they don't recognize the role of the government in the economy. Argentina had a 300% inflation because of the government, so it's often the debate on how much intervention. Very little capitalist support complete deregulation most support deregulating, if that makes sense.
Ie most are for removing taxation, legislation, and laws that hurt all businesses, but they also are against laws the benefit 1 business.
Intervention is as good as the interveners. If you have nobody in your country that’s competent at managing an economy, deregulate it. If you have competent economic planners like in Singapore or all those engineers in Deng Xiaoping’s politburo, go for it.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who aren't full blown ancaps basically don't aggressively defend capitalism online, that's why.
Yep. Actual capitalists know they need the government and wouldn't waste their time
I figured.
Any reasonable capitalist should acknowledge the fact that the government and capitalism are inherently linked. You cannot have a functioning capitalist system without a legitimate government that has adequate state capacity to enforce property rights, at the very minimum.
without state sponsored genocide, without state sponsored death squads, it's questionable whether capitalism would have survived ... it took much violence, state-sponsored, to keep capitalism alive this long.
Are you talking about a specific country? Or capitalism in general?
capitalism was forced upon the world by the western countries, particularly great britain and especially the united states.
What was the natural trajectory the rest of the world was headed in before they were forced into capitalism?
something more human
I’m in the Liberal camp - a moderate. There’s quite a few of us. Life in general I would say we are the norm with at least what Reddit represents with USA, Canada, UK, etc. I’m using liberal liberally too (ha ha). That it encompasses both liberals and conservatives who are pro liberal democracies and for the sake of this sub, governments that favor market economies known as capitalism. What you may be experiencing is known as group polarization. If we were on Reddit at large I would say that was the case. Where our comments naturally attract opposing opinions of other people and also when you discuss people naturally anchor into opposing oppositional positions. So people seem way more oppositional then they really are. People assume I’m an ancap on here all the time and I am far from it.
Liberal is a political ideology, conservative is a cultural term. Conservatives of Saudi Arabia are vastly different than conservatives in the uk and conservatives in the uk are different than USA conservatives. People also confuse progressives and liberals as being the same. When a lot of progressives you see are socialists.
Conservatism is culturally dependent, yes. But that doesn't mean it is not a political ideology. >As a political ideology, conservatism is defined by the desire to conserve, reflected in a resistance to, or at least a suspicion of, change. However, while the desire to resist change may be the recurrent theme within conservatism, what distinguishes conservatism from rival political creeds is the distinctive way in which this position is upheld, in particular through support for tradition, a belief in human imperfection, and the attempt to uphold the organic structure of society. Conservatism nevertheless encompasses a range of tendencies and inclinations. The chief distinction within conservatism is between what is called traditional conservatism and the New Right. Traditional conservatism defends established institutions and values on the ground that they safeguard the fragile ‘fabric of society’, giving security-seeking human beings a sense of stability and rootedness. The New Right is characterized by a belief in a strong but minimal state, combining economic libertarianism with social authoritarianism, as represented by neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Conservatism and Neoconservatism. (Heywood, 2017) Edit: since many of the countries Reddit is dominated on are founded on "Liberal" ideals it is common then for their "conservatives" to be various forms of tradition liberals like in the USA with Classical Liberals or even the extreme with Jeffersonian Liberals like the radical on this sub that goes by the username similar to Jefferson.
Liberals have long stopped being a progressive force. Over a century ago
I remember like a year ago a right-wing libertarian complained about this problem with this sub. There's a few in here like that person who you can talk to and get to some understanding even if you disagree. But there's a lot more who are how you and that last describe.
Anarcho-whateverism of any stripe is a protest position. It's not real. I've found the whole discussion of polycentric, market production of law and public goods by certain academics to be interesting, but I haven't yet found it convincing. What does annoy me is when I see endless criticism of ancap this or that given by some revolutionary techno-Makhnovist critical anarcho-distribusyndicalist lecturing about how it fantastic or unrealistic it is without the slightest bit of irony or self-awareness.
Lol true Dat.
I support a capitalist economic system, but recognize that there is a role for government to play as well: national defense, policing, independent judicial system. Some regulation of natural monopolies. Publicly funded education. Some infrastructure. Etc. I think most reasonable capitalists would agree with me on this. And I am fine with taxes, as the saying goes they are the price of civilization. I know that if I lived in a society with no government, I would have a far lower standard of living than I enjoy today.
v
Copy-paste failed.
If you think a copy paste failed you have to give us the reason it failed. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
v
The anarchocapitalist are the loudest, but most capitalists, in my experience, are far more reasonable.
Agree on both counts
If you think about it, ancaps would bring about socialism faster than your standard capitalists, because they actually advocate for a weaker bourge state.
If ancapism was workable in real world conditions, I would agree. The single time there has been an ancap in power, he just turned out to be a standard neo-liberal that heavily uses the state to oppress the opposition lol
That's because ancap is anarchy, somthing ancaps haven't realized on a whole yet is it require revolution. You cannot capture the state and expect it to go away like communist do. Lastly you are being uncharitable to javier miellie. One ancap in gov. Can hardly do anything unless you expect the president to go dictatorship.
>You cannot capture the state and expect it to go away like communist do. How would you expect to implement ancapism on a country? >One ancap in gov. Can hardly do anything unless you expect the president to go dictatorship. And yet he has no problem directing the military and police to crack down on protestors against shock therapy. It’s weird that someone supposedly against the government oppression has no problem using the government to oppress anyone that speaks out against him.
1. Revolution and or secession 2. It's the state, the state is gonna state -idc what he calls himself -if not him someone else
>1. Revolution and or secession Pretty vague. What tools and systems do you think will let a group of ancap leaders take over a country or sucede and fight off the current state? 2. It's the state, the state is gonna state -idc what he calls himself -if not him someone else So he’s a hypocrite and not actually pushing for an ancap society.
1. Use you imagination, many tools to use and go about it. 2. You're focusing on the man, when the man does not matter. The the state is an entity onto itself. Whether he is being honest or lieing matters not when he doesn't have the power to enact his ideas.
>1. Use you imagination, many tools to use and go about it. You’re the one who believes in it, you tell me. >2. You're focusing on the man, when the man does not matter. The the state is an entity onto itself. Except he himself ordered several crackdowns by the police. He doesn’t control the entire state himself but he does directly control parts of it that he’s directly using to suppress his opposition.
2. "Take the throne to act, and you'll find the throne acts upon you" Someone else with different ideology would have been elected and done the same. Which is my point. From monarchies to liberals to socialists and communists, all act the same when in power. Hence y I'm an Anarchist. But considering you're an ML, I doubt you agree. I've explained myself enough.
Don’t even need to go that far. Look at neolibs like Reagan and Thatcher, and what their legacies are. Shit doesn’t work.
Reagan and thatcher weren't even close to ancap or libertarians. Se ain't for just privatizing the government we are for destroying it.
Yeah I thought I was confused. Who the duck thinks Reagan and Thatcher represent ancaps. These are statists who don't even understand what a government is.
Exactly. Ancapism in practice is just mass privatization but then needs mass militarization to suppress opposition to the horrors of shock therapy. Ancaps are the only ones who don’t understand how horrible anarchocapitalism would be, even if it worked lol
That's okay. If removal of government 100% naturally and without any coercion results in socialism, I'm all for it and I think most other Ancaps would be too. We just think capitalism is the natural economic model (which makes sense if you regard the history of humanity).
>removal of government 100% naturally and without any coercion How do you go about that?
Badly worded. The "100% naturally and without any coercion" was referring to the latter part of the sentence.
Collective consciousness
Capitalism didn't exist before around 1500. What were we up to before then?
What? You think some guy in the 1500s just made up all of it? Humans have been acquiring property and freely trading it with others for mutual benefit since they've been on this planet...
You need a state to enforce socialism.
You need a socialist state, which requires the destruction of a capitalist state.
Virtually all states are socialist.
That is incorrect.
>Are there any capitalists here that recognize the role that goverment plays in facilitation of the market? Yes, there are tons of us. You’re just seeing what you want to see.
I'm not being hostile. I'm just saying whenever I get responses about, say, unions, almost all of them say it's okay to organize but that there should basically be no laws protecting the rights of the workers.
I'm an ancap I guess. But it's not as if we take our positions lightly or haven't been serious about choosing the right ones. I also understand that it seems we have different operating definitions for the word "capitalism" as well. I suppose my question is; how do you feel about this observation of yours?
I believe economies control governments and technology & natural resources control economies. Globalization is a product of the natural evolution of industry: sophisticated companies finding the best capitalistic market in collaboration with parallel companies in every nation. Will this have an influence on governments in the future making them global, also? What would that look like? To give an example, perhaps to stem the massive immigration crisis, the EU & Britain will construct unified immigration laws between themselves & African nations that would expedite facilitating immigrants to safe housing & economic situations in Europe Britain, Africa & elsewhere that they would best thrive. Can you see this as the beginning of global government & can you understand how much push back would be generated from all kinds of capitalists & nationslists? Regardless of the push back, I see this as an inevitable step in the evolution of national governments. Nationalism is dying & capitalism, as practiced currently, is dying. A futuristic government will contain hybrids of what we have today mixed with influencers like climate change, economies, dwindling resources, including water, growing pandemics & a need to overhaul global monetary systems.
You’re really just talking about Singapore here. Promoting cosmopolitanism as a solution to address violent nationalistic racial tensions, climate conscious policies as they’re super vulnerable to climate change and have no natural resources including water, technocratic governance to provide political stability, dirigiste economic model out of pragmatism, etc.
I certainly lean towards the Austrian School of Economics. I absolutely am not an anarcho-capitalist though. Government certainly can and should play a role in some aspects of markets. I just favor a rather limited approach.
I'm a liberal capitalist. I don't agree with anarcho anything.
Ancaps seem to believe the power of the government hinders the broader possibilities of capitalism, that government power is making it worse…. Somehow ignoring who influences positions of power for policy. Like if the super wealthy and corporations are willing and able to indirectly influence the way things operate… why on earth do you believe it would be better if they could just do the same thing, but more directly and without any checks or balances to answer to?
Exactly. That sounds like a new kind of feudal arrangement with slight mobility. It's not good to demonize the only (potentially) democratic input.
Good old Anarcho-Statists defend "free-market" online. Liberals are for the most part "apolitical" and they don't lurk ideological subreddits.
Few if any people on this sub are capitalists. Capitalists are people whose own significant amounts of productive property. There are people on here that defend capitalism, but the overwhelming majority of them are not themselves capitalists. They are either workers or petty-bourgeois, the later of which is a capitalist in the strictest sense of the definition, but they are not part of the capitalist ruling class, the *haute bourgeoisie*.
This sub generally has incredibly dumb posts from both sides, so I don’t generally have long conversations on them. This sub consists of 15 year olds who call themselves ancaps and think they will totally own socialists. You will find debates with normal capitalists, but will need to dig through a lot of trash. We also have schizophrenics like u/jefferson1793
" If you're paid starvation wages busting your ass and have nowhere else to go, you should maybe beg smarter and stop being a worthless loser. 1+1=2" That shit was kind of funny but also kind of sad.
Don’t be stupid, capitalism is king and is the reason I snort cocaine and own liberals. My collapsed nose is a symptom of socialism though.
Unions are just for whiny babies who lost their finger in the factory. If you're 11 years old and pulled only 2 cents for your 90 hour part time job, then maybe you should just do better. It's not my fault your father died in the mine. Maybe next time, get a better parent. He couldn't leave you with anything because he was a bum.
Don't be stupid, you have to give a reason, don't be stupid, do you have a reason?
This is a Capitalism versus Socialist. Do you have any idea which side you are on and the reason? If so why don't you tell us the reason? How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
I am convinced you have parkinsons and are slowly withering away in a retirement home rambling about socialism online because your children ghosted you.
don't be totally stupid. This is a Capitalism University Socialism. Why don't you think about which you are and the reason and then try to present the reason here in writing. How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
They seem to be social Darwinists but for some reason very evasive about admitting it.
Well, the most charitable interpretation is that trying to alleviate issues and externalities is actually just going to hurt people. The worst interpretation is true social Darwinism. Fuck the working poor and the so called undeserving. No matter the margin.
That charitable version just seems a bit too convenient. It’s more of a _wish of futility_ to absolve them of their animalistic values, than an actual valid argument supporting said futility. If they were being honest, they’d say that helping people, and _without ruining the economy_, is actually feasible, but not desirable. Of course, they will never say this out loud. Even anonymously. For them, this value they hold is a hard thing to face when you’re the one not desiring to help others. If they can’t make a case for it being infeasible, they come face to face with what they are. So they stick and move, stick and move. The cognitive dissonance is sad, exhausting, and an obstacle to progress.
The other line is, "im cool with (billionaires and true capitalist) helping people and all, but not if it's not a 100% voluntary transaction." Well, that's funny. The capitalist profits off of the inelastic nature of people involuntarily (for the most part) needing to work for them, usually at such a disadvantage that they cant negotiate living standard for labor, thus often directly creating the externalities that need to be addressed and then while in the best position to do so, doesn't want to help solve those problem often at all, but maybe sometimes only if he can come out with his reputation as virtuous volunteer. All the while convincing the common man that by advocating for such that he is yet again more virtuous for defending his liberty for when he one day holds the position. (when the common man has no means to address the issue and likely never will regardless) This is all admittedly a wild oversimplification, but still.
It also ignores democracy
It does seem to skew in that direction, doesn't it? I think many may argue in favor of more extreme positions while still accepting some middle ground personally -- they're mostly strong laissez faire libertarians who still support having a government around to protect property (and pretty much nothing else). Very few of us capitalists (technically I still maintain a capitalist position, even though I'm at odds with the overwhelming majority of the capitalists on this sub) tend to argue from a leftist position.
I mean, at the same time, we have actual case studies and don’t need theory to defend ourselves. To an extent, you may not even need moral arguments like communists or ancaps do, just objective ones. “Look, my model has brought about prosperity, social development, etc. Yours has not. Who cares if it’s more moral. End of discussion.”
That's not a fair argument because it shuts down an argument. What's the fucking point of this sub if you're not even going to argue in good faith. Feudalism "worked" before imperial mercantillism mercantillism worked before capitalism Should we not have progressed forth from there? Shit capitalism even started off as a moral argument too. Especially since radical libertarianism or anarchy hasn't even been tried.
To an extent, yes. We’ve had variants of communism tried from anarcho syndicalism to Stalinism. A few kinds of anarchism have been tried, some of which are still operating today. Obviously, it wasn’t like these communes were making semiconductors or mass manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs, but they functioned at the basic level. Many cities de facto operate in anararchy(as often, the state is too weak to project any power within its borders). We’ve seen the results of neoliberalism and the massive dissatisfaction it has caused under Thatcher and Reagan, and the rise of illiberal political candidates on the right and left. I don’t think we need to “experiment” by going any further right similar to how the left have tried going further left. These are real human lives being dealt with at the end of the day, and “progress” can often be regressive. See the Great Leap Forward under Maoism, Russia’s neoliberalization, etc. And the basis of capitalism was primarily a critique of the inefficiencies of mercantilism and how things could be so much better without it. By morality, economic systems claim the “moral” high ground by claiming they can allocate scarce resources better to satiate human wants and needs. As in, “under XYZ system, people will be less hungry. This is right, while your system has more people starving, so it is wrong.”
Ok, sure, but the issue is that Liberals are just as imperialistic, dogmatic, and domineering as the other ideologies. Sure I get that not everyone wants to try ancap, BUT yall won't even let us go our own way peacefully. So to us, it starts as a moral argument. Now we also believe it would be more effective than liberalism as well, I would say liberals are even condescending and arrogant, and want to dominate, they willfully will not allow others to try their systems. If we cannot run the state and we cannot change the state. What option do we have but to destroy the state.
Well, yes. Every economic system thrives better when a world order is attached to it. It doesn’t matter if it’s liberalism, dirigisme, or Stalinism, scaling is everything in economics. States that can escape the grasp of the world order end up being threats to its legitimacy especially when they succeed, like the rise of East Asia that has forced Western nations to violate even more liberal economic norms like free trade to protect their industries. But now we’re getting into IR, and the prevailing theory is that domestic politics is irrelevant in determining whether or not a political entity would pursue hegemony. It is in the interest of a confederation of anarchist communes to pursue global hegemony to keep itself safe just as it is for some hypernationalist dictatorship. The biggest issue when it comes to anarchism is its poor ability to organize. Spain comes to mind where anarchist popular militias got crushed by professional armies with planes, tanks, and experienced commanders. Objectively though, life was pretty good in Catalonia. Some parts had even abolished currency and wage labor.
> Look, my model has brought about prosperity, social development, etc. You mean a Singaporean model? Don't they have like 32% poverty? Not much in the way of "prosperity" there. > Who cares if it’s more moral. Dude... morality of economics is the *most important part*
1/10 are low income. Even lower are in poverty. There’s an incredible free K-12 education system with some of the best universities in Asia, universal healthcare, universal subsidized public housing, etc. Even if you are in poverty, you will be taken care of, which is more than I could say about the US or a lot of Western countries. The World Bank has 0 Singaporeans living below the global poverty line of below $2.15 a day. Singapore’s GDP per capita is higher than all but Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway’s, and Switzerland’s, per the International Monetary Fund. Economics is about what will ensure the most prosperity and greatest level of societal development given limited resources. I don’t think it matters how you get there, having lived in several Southeast Asian countries, the US, and the UK when I did study abroad for a semester. I’d much rather live in whatever country can assure me the most comfortable life, even if they have high taxes or “violate property rights” in the name of ensuring everybody can have a home, or if the country is ran by an unchanging technocratic bureaucracy like Singapore instead of a democratically elected populist like Donald Trump or Meloni.
https://www.routedmagazine.com/omc21-1miglabour-singapore
Irrelevant, considering the alternative is migrant workers not getting remittance money and us still living in slums instead of public housing. The economic policy of a nation as small and vulnerable as Singapore has to be centered around the prosperity and welfare of its own citizens first and foremost.
>The economic policy of a nation as small and vulnerable as Singapore has to be centered around the prosperity and welfare of its own citizens first and foremost. There it is.
Yeah, you either exploit your own citizens, or the citizens of other countries. One is more harmful to overall economic and societal development than the other. What Singapore did to get to where it is now was by far much cleaner than the methods the West used to develop themselves through brutal colonialism along with exploitation of their domestic workforce. Or the Asian countries who sold out their populations for cheap labor and rely on remittances for their economy like Bangladesh and the Philippines. But hey, it worked out great for the West, now they can sit on their high horses and shit on the Global South for using less exploitative methods than they did to economically develop.
Nope. It's not exploitation if the proceeds of the work is returned to the workers. Looking at the communist countries Vietnam and China, even though there was initial exploitation, it was done so to develop their own means of production, and it was returned to the people through increased material conditions. Even NK has this to some level, though it's not in the form of increased material conditions, it's in the form of sovereignty and security from invasion. Nothing like that will ever happen in Singapore. The proceeds of the migrant workers will be concentrated in the "citizens" and the return of the proceeds to the migrant workers will be prevented through the guise of "meritocracy".
Oh, so then it isn’t exploitation since the proceeds of migrant workers in Singapore will go towards remittances that will increase the material conditions of them and their families back home. Vietnam used this to their advantage quite well; it earns the populace 19 billion dollars a year in remittances, and as you mentioned, look at how this has helped them. Either way, there is no market for cheap mass manufacturing in Singapore like there is in China or South Asia. Nor would it be as beneficial to Singapore as simply training the populace to give the West a run for their money in the white collar world.
Capitalism ALWAYS requires a government to enforce private property. Anyone who thinks private property can function without some form of monopoly on authority and laws are completely delusional. Actual anarchism is the dismantling of all power structures not just government
[удалено]
>And what kind of anarchism do you defend? The only kind. >Because social anarchism needs a coercive state even more What is "socialist anarchism"?
[удалено]
>For me the only kind of viable anarchism is one that is built around private property How can you have anarchism based on private property? How can capitalism function without a power enforcing private property?
[удалено]
Capitalism ALWAYS requires a government to enforce private property Soruce: Trust me bro Proof: None
Source: the entire if the history of capitalism and every capitalist state in existence
That only at best establishes the first part of your original claim, and it doesn't even do that. Capitalism HAS always required government to enforce private property. And all current capitalists societies use governments to enforce private property. How does it follow that private property cannot function without some form of monopoly on authority and laws?
> How does it follow that private property cannot function without some form of monopoly on authority and laws? Well, in your own words: >Capitalism HAS always required government to enforce private property. And all current capitalists societies use governments to enforce private property. If something is literally the case everywhere in history and currently, then that is the reality. Who is doing "no true scotsman", now, huh?
That is the reality. We aren't debating how things are or how things have always been. We are debating how things could be, conceptually. Pointing out that X has never existed without Y doesn't prove that X *cannot* exist without Y. That's patently absurd. Just go back in time and use that argument before some major technological innovation. We have never been able to travel from New York to San Francisco in under eight hours. Therefore, we cannot travel from New York to San Francisco in under eight hours. Why couldn't there be private companies that offer systems of laws and protection of private property as a service?
The co-existence of capitalism with state does not proof necessity of it.
"Capitalist state" Smh
That's right. Capitalist state.
> Capitalism ALWAYS requires a government to enforce private property. It literally doesn't and the phrase "enforce rights" is dumb, as in stupid. You can defend rights you don't enforce them you noodle.
To defend is to enforce. Unless defense somehow doesn't involve force? It is funny how ancaps pretend they don't support the use of force. Even I as an anarchist admit that defending anarchism would require force.
>To defend is to enforce. Jesus. >pretend they don't support the use of force. No on does this.
You wanna elaborate on 'jesus' orr....
I support the use of force, not violence, compulsion, but not coercion in order to protect property (there is no meaningful or comprehensive distinction between "private" or "personal" property). Do you think that when I am out on a walk in the wilderness, and I pluck a berry from a bush, and I put it in my mouth, that I am violently preventing other people on the other side of the planet from having access to said berry? Is that not coercively restricting access to natural resources?
>I support the use of force, not violence, compulsion, but not coercion in order to protect property How's that supposed to work exactly? Force without violence? >Do you think that when I am out on a walk in the wilderness, and I pluck a berry from a bush, and I put it in my mouth, that I am violently preventing other people on the other side of the planet from having access to said berry? No, I do that all the time. If someone else puts up a fence and buys that land and says you aren't allowed to go eat that Berry, then you can be fined or jailed for that. That's force. >Is that not coercively restricting access to natural resources? If the land is private, you are trespassing, then technically you are a criminal and stealing from a private landowner. But that is what you support.
It's not VIOLence when I'm defending myself because I am not VIOLating anyone's rights.
Yeah I hate to break it to you but that's not the definition of violence
Ok, so what's the difference between violence and force?
I suppose violence involves actual physical harm, but essentially they are the same. All force holds at least the threat of violence.
If they are essentially the same, then what utility does using both of them serve? Are you trying to confuse people?
supporters of capitalism are not "capitalists", but liberals. [Liberalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xAqZJTIsIA) being the political ideology of capitalism and it emerged against feudalism to secure private property rights Even owning some shares of a company doesn't necessarily make you "capitalist" unless you can sustain solely on that income. As for economics, the current economic ideology is "[Neoliberalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vS4eKwCEC0)", deregulation and privatization sanctafied. It was first developed by the Chicago Boys in 70s Chile, under US backed dictator Pinochet. [More on this, here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0) **Edit**: What is wrong with me, I completely missed the point of the question. Yes, it seems most people here are liberals and many are capitalists proper. But this is normal [given how the media portrays the world.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKNNiYQFp4)
Your definition of capitalism is off. A capitalist owns and /or seeks to acquire more of one or more of the means of production. That's all that's required. So yes, owning stocks makes you a capitalist. Owning a rental property makes you a capitalist. Being a small business owner makes you a capitalist. I think the difference between my and your definition is part of the reason why a lot of socialists seem to be puzzled that most people support capitalism. It's because they are capitalists, and they are infact voting in their own self-interest.
I didn't give a definition of capitalism. I said "unless you can sustain solely on that income" as a shareholder, which implies you are also a worker to survive. The divide between worker and business class is not binary and often times overlaps. And yes, the people that support capitalism are liberals, the people that are capitalists are also liberals.
I would argue more people overlap than don't, but that's fine. So you think Republicans are liberals? Because there aren't many who are socialists.
If your main focus is on cultural topics, not necessarily, though they don't advocate for monarchism as the conservatives of the 16th century, for example. The base of liberalism is in private property relations and entrenching them in constitutionalism. A key point to keep in mind is that liberal democracies don't mind dropping the optics if [private property rights might be threatened, no matter where in the world.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI&t=284s) I will also remind you that liberals did support slavery and certainly supported segregation up until few decades ago. I'm not a 100% sure, but I believe the prefix of "liberal" in liberal conservative was dropped around the time of the New Deal when the Democrats and Republicans flipped their ideology. Essentially, until that time Democrats had the ideology of the modern Republican party and advocated for cutting taxes on companies and the rich and had strictly anti-worker/labor outlook on the world. The thing about liberalism is that it was created as a way for private property to become a thing. [It's preservation is what liberalism cares about, and both modern liberals and conservatives pay attention to this first and foremost, culture second](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xAqZJTIsIA&t=64s) as a way of mutual controlled opposition for the sake of capital preservation from leftist movements. This is why the modern strategy in US politics is for the Democrats to win and maintain the gains made by the Republican party without actually reversing them. The Democrats use the Republican party as a boogeyman for strategic goals, not because the Republican party is not worse or a threat, it very much is, but that's precisely the point. The enemy of liberalism is the working class, not the business class. [And yes, liberals are not leftists, please stop insulting socialists and communists by clumping them with liberals](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PiIPig20CRw)
I largely agree with you other than that there are practical class distinctions as well and owning a vacuum store or a rental property doesn't put you into that class - it's more of a sort of prerequisite. Capitalism is about power and control of industry and trade, and establishing capital as being the thing that grants you power and control. Owning a pissant little company or a single rental property doesn't give you any real greater access to levers of power, you're interests aren't the same as Amazon or Blackrock. And I'd disagree that owning some small amount of stock makes you a capitalist - I'd argue you'd need an ownership stake for that label to apply, otherwise it's essentially no different than owning a pokemon card.
A lot of people here will insist that "capitalist" has a second meaning of "defender of capitalism", and it seems at least some dictionaries do mention that meaning, though it sounds strange to me. Liberals is one ideology that defends capitalism, there is also conservatism, fascism, etc. It does seem that centre- och centre-right people are rare on the sub, despite it being common in the larger world.
> A lot of people here will insist that "capitalist" has a second meaning of "defender of capitalism", and it seems at least some dictionaries do mention that meaning, though it sounds strange to me. It has that meaning *here* because that's a convenient label so we don't have to type out "defender of capitalism on /r/CapitalismVSocialism" all the damn time. > It does seem that centre- och centre-right people are rare on the sub, despite it being common in the larger world. Indeed, speaking as a leftist ~~capitalist~~ supporter of capitalism fully aware of the irony of the label, the overwhelming majority of defenders of capitalism on /r/CapitalismVSocialism are strongly right wing.
That one political ideology that was not a defender of “capitalism”, fascism. Hmmmm? Were they mixed? Yes. Were they defenders? Hardly
Depends on what you mean and also which fascism you look at. Spanish fascism ie had almost no element of criticism of capitalism, and very much defended capitalism in Spain against factions that wanted to abolish it like anarchists and communists.
This seems to be a retreat from your claim of all fascism, right? Regardless, I’m not well versed on Spain’s fascism and would like you to source for my own edification. As far as Italian and Nazi fascism your claim is not true. Keep in mind, I’m not in the camp that says fascism = socialism. But to gain popularity among the masses Mussolini and Hitler appealed to the working and middle class with socialist type narratives. Those narratives were often anti-capitalism. Also, capitalism is very individualistic. It is private ownership of the means and is not collectivism. Fascism is therefore naturally anti-capitalism which I can source. My favorite example is how the Nazi’s printed on their currency, “common good before private good”.
Conservatism prior to the liberal revolutions was about preserving the status quo at the time, that was feudalism. Nowadays it's capitalism, so they seek to preserve that. The difference between the modern public perception of what is a liberal and what is a conservative remains in the realm of social and cultural issue and less on the fundamental basis of the economic system on which the whole superstructure society is based on. In Marxism this is the Base and Superstructure, fyi
As a minarchist I personally would believe in a VERY limited government for: >human/civil rights yes >infrastructure Possibly, but not necessarily. >anti-trust/prevention of monopoly Nope. >monetary stability Hell fucking no. >regulations to ensure that the externalities (among other things) don't get out of hand. Probably not, but would need specifics.
ah the old libertarian chestnut of eagerly being oppressed by a corporate monopoly
I'm eager for a free market where the government doesn't create monopolies through regulations and special favors and/or corruption.
right because you're going to just let them become monopolies, thus cutting out the middle man of having to engage in corruption in the first place.
What is stopping you or anybody else from starting a competing business?
I would say the monopoly
But....how? It's a free country. Are they pointing a gun and stopping somebody from opening a store across the street or something?
let's say there's a gizmo monopoly, but I want to open a competing gizmo business. Explain to me where the fuck I get my supply of gizmos. If I open a gizmo factory, the supplier for the dohickies to make the gizmos is under exclusive contract with the monopoly. Or if I start mining and assembling my own gizmos in my back shed and selling them at my shop, bam I get sued for IP theft in a case that will bankrupt me in legal fees before I make it to court, where I'm likely to lose. Use a little bit of critical thinking and imagination of the myriad possible ways businesses shut down competition besides regulatory capture involving the government.
>bam I get sued for IP theft I personally don't believe in IP. >that will bankrupt me in legal fees before I make it to court, where I'm likely to lose. Legal fees would be a hell of a lot less in a free market with little to no regulations. >Use a little bit of critical thinking and imagination You're not completely wrong, but a perfect society probably doesn't exist. A free market gives you the best chance for the most equitable economy possible. You have a hammer sickle next to your username....THAT to me a symbol of all industries being a true monopoly where it's illegal for ANYBODY to compete. If that is not your viewpoint apologies for my wrong assumption.
Corporations sure as shit do believe in IP > Legal fees would be a hell of a lot less in a free market with little to no regulations nonsense. First off why would they be, second the reason costs skyrocket in cases like this is because the coproations can make them interminable and if you lose you're fucked. As for the hammer and sickle you're not describing what I believe and that's not even close to what the symbol means. At it's core it just represents solidarity between workers and peasants. You say you want the most equitable economy possible but in relation to what? There isn't a naturally ordered default benchmark. If you're talking about more equitable than current US economy, you are sorely mistaken that a libertarian fantasyland where government does nothing but the bare minimum would at all be more 'fair.' Maybe if you start from complete scratch, just dump a bunch of kids on an island with the fountainhead or whatever as a rulebook you might be able to call that equitable, but if you did the same thing and gave them rules for a socialist democracy that would surely work better. The libertarian island is just going to devolve into quasi feudalism with one person owning everything and thus in charge of everything, but it would be on the basis of having a bunch of capital as opposed to divine mandate.
Honestly, if your model lacks successful case studies and only has theories to back it up, it’s not worth discussing. If we all went by what has yielded the best economic, societal, and developmental outcomes, we’d all be like Singapore.
I'm a progressive capitalist, NATO supremacist, and game theory enthusiast. I'm not AnCap, and I generally like the neoliberal federal government and its resulting world order. I also accept that moderate regulation can be beneficial, and that sometimes deregulation can be harmful.
Austrian economic model requires govt. you seems to be conflating anarcho-capitalism and Austrian model.
I will read up on that more as I only understand vaguely that Austrian economics seems to be largely against governments and markets colliding, but you might have a point.
Austrian school is mostly about subjective value, efficiency of markets (where things can actually be priced), emergent order and computation, the study of disequilibrium, and minimum intervention of the govt in the economy (mainly because it usually causes massive disequilibrium). But they still recognize that there are externalities, natural monopolies that need managed, etc.
Capitalism without government is either dystopia or apocalypse. A strong government is the only reason capitalism exists.
That's my understanding. Even if just for consumer protection and holding back fraud.
Or they fact that money itself is merely an expression of the strength of government.
Even if we are libertarians or ancaps, we'll take ANY free market western capitalism over socialism, and will protect it as such, and defend it against totalitarians of any sort, whether they be monarchists or socialists. In reality, when we say "capitalism", we really mean liberalism, in other words, protections of individual rights, private property, the free market and equal rights under the law. This tent includes all liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else on the spectrum who is not a collectivist of any kind, in other words your every day western citizen. For us "liberals", the argument is never about socialism vs. capitalism, it's really about the level of capitalism in society, we view anti-capitalism and any type of collectivism that is anti-property or anti-individualism as the end of civilization and the end of humanity. In this sub we're forced to consider totalitarianism as an alternative to liberalism, it's an exercise of philosophy and theory and has little practical use. Enjoy it.
There are conceptions of different distributions that even include democracy and markets that aren't totalitarianism. I think the problem comes in with completely inelastic markets like housing or medicine. Not only that, but those are glaring issues. There is also the private accumulation of assets represented by the ownership of labor. It's a leeching effect. Wealth begets wealth. Ownership begets ownership. Is there mobility? Yeah. Do markets effectively deal with some problems? Sure. Does that mean there needs to be massive private ownership of labor? Not necessarily. How do you get rid of the massive inequality resulting from the power dynamic? You either do or you don't, but there are many different ways of getting there. It's not either free market capitalism or totalitarianism, complete central planning. Shoot the successful citizens into the river. It's not complete inequality or complete equality of outcomes. There is an entire spectrum of possibilities. I value many freedoms. The freedom to have an underclass of hardworking people that serves to produce for a handful of capital owners is not ideal in my personal opinion. It's not out of self-interest if i was really heavy on self interest id just be a capitalist and happily profit off of the labor of others for my own gain. I could happily live the life I have now, a modest public worker doing an essential job at a living wage without having to gain anything or steal anything from anyone. I just think philosophically we can't rely on the charity of (likely sociopaths) to solve issues of human suffering and choose undemocratically how to distribute the resources our production and technology creates for us. I don't think labor can be worth 1200-2500 or even hundreds of thousands of times worth more than anybody else's. That's just silly. No doubt some jobs and roles in society are more dangerous or skillful, or even flat out more important than others, maybe even by some multiples. I'm not going to argue that, but it's worth thousands of lifetimes of others? Highly doubt. That's a power thing. The type of power that corrupts. That's the right place and right time and right set of circumstances kind of thing. Nearly verges on rule by divine rights argument. A different kind of feudal arrangement. Especially with the super relaxed attitude on the "deserving and undeserving." Some people are flat out better people than others. I don't think any self-respecting person would argue otherwise. The power dynamics at play today do not represent the value created they represent ownership of the value created. I'm skeptical of the 1:1 relationship purported to be inherent there At a minimum, robust worker protections, consumer protections, and a strong social net that covers the bases where markets fail and strong arm the populace. At best, something else where we harness the massive production base we have to alleviate as much suffering as possible while still allowing liberty and meaning for individuals. The freedom to pursue happiness. Spend more time on this limited planet, enjoying it with those we love. To not let chance itself determine the fate of us to the degree that we can.
Your first point regarding getting rid of inequality, this was my very point regarding human nature and thriving civilization. One can be equal but not free, or can be free but unequal, humans are very different from each other in all attributes. Equality as an end ideal makes no sense from a liberal perspective, it would literally spell the end of liberalism, by definition. Democracy should always be a part of any western system, however we prefer not to use the term due to the weird nature of the philosophy where the more of it you have, the worse off you are but also the less you have, the worse off you are. This, like capitalism, is the debate of generations, how much capitalism and how much democracy do we want, but it's clear to most that you can't get too extreme in any direction with either democracy or capitalism (although ancaps and ancoms would disagree). Your point regarding charity, it's been shown to work wonders and is infinitely more preferable to forced labour or forced equality, and certainly better than ending private property or wealth accumulation by individuals, it is afterall what built the modern world. I understand the Marxist notion of building a collectivist state free utopia after wealth has already been created, but again, that wealth will not be given up willingly so violence must come, and of course the redistribution of wealth via the academic elite would be far worse than even a mildly skilled businessman does on a daily basis by paying workers right now. Your last paragraph brings to mind the Star Trek future, where people just go about their business doing whatever they please, but it's unrealistic to say the least, not to mention that it's fantasy. Reducing suffering is something we're very good at, the more capitalism has spread, the less poverty there is, the more wealth there is, the more free time to pursue whatever goals there is. In any time in history, unless you were from the elite class and were supported by someone else, like Marx for example, you had no time to do anything at all, the pool of people where genius could thrive was tiny compared to today where a genius born to factory workers can change the world. This was impossible in the past, in any era. As far as "self-made", that is a dumb term, not sure why people use it. Elon, Jeff, the Apple guy, these guys may be billionaires, they may have uses infrastructure, but they have paid back whatever it is that you think they owe a million times over, by giving millions of people world wide huge value, not even counting the jobs and salaries of their own employees, of which the billionaire himself takes but a tiny portion.
That's reddit for you. It's usually the extremes. I've learned I'm more capitalist than I thought. I'm just really frustrated with the US implementation of capitalism that is anywhere from blithely naive to sinfully malicious. I think you need a free market to sell goods and let people live their lives, but a heavy dose of government regulation to keep business from preying on the average person. You also need an emotionally mature, practical population with the best interests of the society in mind, and sadly, we don't have that here.
Yes. I’m a ‘capitalist’ that recognises the role of government in the market.
I'm a minarchist. I think that the government needs to have a monopoly on force and to enforce property rights, but be as small as possible.
Do capitalists require a “purity test?” If one were to distill capitalism down to its kernel, the system defends private ownership of the MOP. Libertarian capitalists rightly or wrongly believe markets self regulating (in the long run, we’re all dead, IMO) whereas “liberals” accept/require some regulation due to capitalism’s “excesses.”
There is nothing wrong with the Austrian school. And the Austrian is not Anarcho Capitalism. It recognizes that government should be as small as possible. The larger a government gets, the more Authoritarian and corrupt it becomes. This Bureaucratic state becomes the de facto ruler. This is because they are unaccountable to the people.
>Are there any capitalists here that recognize the role that goverment plays in facilitation of the market? Yeah, I'm a liberty-leaning moderate. I'm also a big fan of some of the cheaper regulatory programs, like whoever is responsible for nutritional labels. No reddit sub is going to be even remotely close to proportional to real people living real lives. This actually may one of the first times I've posted in this sub because I simply don't care enough most of the time. I'll defend the average non-politically obsessed person all day long though.
>anti-trust/prevention of monopoly, There are reasons to believe that a sufficiently robust free market is enough to stop predatory monopolies. As a more general answer to your question, part of it is that people are more passionate about their more extreme beliefs.
Most people who care enough to engage in these conversation are extremists on both sides. 9/10 people you work with or walk by on the street is a capitalist. They just don’t make it their entire personality.
Around 6-7/10 but yeah.
>It seems like most capitalist in this sub are not only capitalists. They are specifically 100% free market anti goverment, anarcho types generally leaning toward the austrian school of economics That certainly is the heritage of this sub, and its earliest users (on the cap side). But these days, it doesnt represent all of us. Lots of us (like myself) are more mainstream capitalists. And especially those of us based in Europe (Afaik). > seems like the type of capitalism we know requires a goverment to enforce property rights, human/civil rights, infrastructure, anti-trust/prevention of monopoly, monetary stability, and regulations to ensure that the externalities (among other things) don't get out of hand I would say that this is fair representation of the mainstream neoclassical view. More or less. Although a bit of an oversimplification.
You did not form a complete sentence, so it was difficult for me to understand your point. I do not promote cosmopolitanism as a solution for violent national xenophobia. I seek ways to deal with the immigration problem so as to alleviate abuse, deaths, forced resettlements, overcrowding, unemployment, intolerance & hate. This means assisting & facilitating those in war torn areas to safer habitat. It appears the EU & Britain have no plan except sending those who arrive back to countries of origin where they will be abused or killed. This is not solving the problem as in future years with more severe climate change, inflation, scarcity of commodities & continual wars, more people will try to leave & go wherever they can find food & safety. Unfortunately, western civilization & capitalism are backed into a corner. Because this problem has exacerbated without a solution for years, I assume the world powers will continue to put bandaids on it by shelling out more foreign aid, negotiating with war torn countries trying end the conflict by "peaceful democratic" means & closing its borders to asylum seekers. These are not solutions. It's like giving a man with cancer intervenous fluid & pain meds instead of operating & removing the tumor. It's buying time so the politicians down the road will have to come up with solutions. Solution #1. Give the UN & non UN countries authority to intervene with all asylum seekers to transport them to designated safe zones. Every country is mandated to participate & accept them. We know what would happen. The US, EU & Britain, Australia & Canada will refuse & hold back funding because they would be getting more of them than other countries & would have to fund those countries which don't have resources to care for them. Solution #2. The super powers have the capability to stop wars by cutting off supplies like gas & electricity. That would stop war immediately. Communication & transportation is vital for war. What does this tell you about how our civilization has evolved? It tells you that capitalism, in its present form, is not as humanitarian as it appears. Throwing out a bunch of money is not solving humanitarian problems that need more energy, manpower, innovative ideas & long term goals than the super powers want to commit. It means sharing precious AI technology with 3rd world countries & not holding it to leverage lucrative deals for mineral rights or land for mono crops from poor countries that can barely pay interest on foreign debt. The end result of not addressing this current massive mounting human need on a global scale will be WWIII.
I mean even the austirans you are talkinag about would be supporing all the things you suggested. Austrian doesnt mean Ancap.
Eh, the market would just create another enforcement mechanism if the government did not intervene. We see it today with private security, private roads, etc. The government does play a role in the market today but it's not needed for capitalism to exist while the same cannot be said about socialism.
What about us georgists?
We exist. On reddit at least, we are a double vast minority. A) we generally want a smaller Crenshaw government role, and that's not popular. B) we take a "middle ground" which is the perfect opinion for not getting any reddit sort method to highlight us. Quick example: one reason I believe universal Healthcare in the United States is an ill advised endeavor, is because the military budget is so vast. It's so vast because we are still (for now at least) the primary security for global trade.
I agree that the Capitalist extremists have gone off the deep end. These extremist types would rather see a strong man take over and force their supposedly perfect capitalist ideology down everyone's throats. But then, that kind of forcefulness flies in the face of their supposed freedom worshipping of the free market capitalism ideology. There can be no doubt about that.
> I agree that the Capitalist extremists Extremists!
There are a few, like coke and coffee. But us ancaps are so awesome that we alone carry the flag pf capitalism here.
Not to mention creating pro foreign investment agreements/ waging wars to protect foreign investment opportunities. See: NAFTA, Guatemalan Coup, Iranian Coup, Contras, Iraq War etc..
Humans are stupid animals. You give absolute freedom to them, 90 out of 100 humans will definitely misuse the freedom. 20 will definitely cause financial crimes. Only the 10 will use the freedom properly. Government should control the capitalism no matter who says what. Monopoly isn't a good governance either. Not sure how it's working in Iran and China since I'm not from there. Duopoly is the most of the country and we call it left and right wings.
>Humans are stupid animals. So let's give a relatively tiny group of stupid animals (politicians) political power over everybody else. Gee, that makes a lot of sense. Your argument only works if politicians and bureaucrats are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us.
That’s the issue with democracy. Mob rule ends up getting stupid populists into power, as we have seen throughout Western liberal democracies. Technocratic regimes like Singapore don’t have any of the issues present in the West due to such politicians actually being qualified to do their jobs, even when compared to countries of similar populations, diversity, and wealth to Singapore.
> Humans are stupid animals. You give absolute freedom to them, 90 out of 100 humans will definitely misuse the freedom. > Government should control the capitalism… I think you mean to say that government should control the people because as you said, it is people who cannot be trusted to use their freedom correctly. At least you should be honest with yourself about what your actual views are.
Government is just people. You're essentially saying that some people should use violent force (all the government is) in order to control the lives of other people.
People talk about these things too much in the abstract. They talk about the “government” controlling “capitalism” as if they are entities in and of themselves. When you break it down and talk about it for what it is, one human interacting with another human, it doesn’t look so good for a lot of the policies people advocate for.
Yeah I very much agree. I often ask "give me a specific example" of some failure of capitalism only to quickly find out that building wealth and trading things voluntarily usually is not the actual source of the problem statists are describing.
Humans are stupid because it doesn't advance the 1% who control governments through lobbies & pay outs to educate them. They want them stupid. The Trump base is a prime example.
I'd take such arguments seriously if you wanted AI to control humans. Otherwise either humans are evil and we can't give them chance to have monopoly powers or humans are good and we don't need a state at all.
I'm another proponent of mixed economies that operate under a predominately capitalist mode of production. So yeah, there are plenty of us. I think what you're seeing is often a reaction to governments overstepping. For example, here in Canada, the tax rates are ludicrous. I personally pay over 50% in income tax alone, and we don't get much in return.
That’s on them; Singapore has a mixed economy model, and oversteps a shit ton. When 1.2 million people were living in slums during the 60s, the government went in, bulldozed them all, and implemented a universal public housing program. Now, there are no homeless, and well, Singapore is a tax haven. Canada…no idea where they fucked up to the point where taxes could be so high. Overstepping’s fine if it yields greater prosperity and societal development. Most people would support social programs as long as they’re not ridiculously expensive or outright bad. And that’s where “mixed” comes in with dividends from state owned industries to take the place of taxes, like in the Arab Peninsula or other dirigiste economies.
Socialism is a radical ideology, so it’s no wonder that it attracts other radicals to debate.
Capitalism was once "radical" too.
Nah, socialism is a scale, I for one like a little socialism mixed in with my capitalism to make a reasonable balance. But this is a debate sub, so we see the extremes of both represented.
There are plenty. It's just that the dexterous larvae and Washingtons of the sub take up a disproportionate amount of oxygen in the sub.
The goal of any capitalist should be to maximize competition, and try and get that competition to breed innovation. Unregulated capitalism doesn't result in more competition, it results in monopolies abusing their power. But just because unregulated capitalism is bad doesn't mean we should drop all forms of capitalism and go full 100% socialism. 100% socialism is just as shortsighted as 100% unregulated capitalism. Neither works.
Regulations are the sole reasons monopolies exist in capitalist economies today.
Please explain to me how the requirement that cars have seatbelts enable monopolies? Or that food not have lead in it? Regulation are a tool, they can be used for good and for bad, but casting all regulations as "sole reason monopolies exist" is unfounded. The reason monopolies are dangerous is because they leverage their market dominance to get an unfair advantage. That can including lobbying for regulatory capture, or it can include market manipulation to price out competitors or lockdown all available suppliers.
Regulations in regards to certificates of need create Healthcare monopolies. Regulations restricting entrance into utilities create utility monopolies. Did you honestly assume I was talking about random regulations? And natural monopolies exist only when a) the market is niche enough that companies don't want to enter it as the demand wouldn't justify the potential risk or b) a company has become extremely efficient at offering whatever good or service they sell. Neither of those are bad scenarios.
So its not "regulations cause monopolies", it is "bad regulations can cause monopolies".
Bad regulations are still regulations, no?
Sure but when I say "unregulated capitalism is a problem", the response isn't "sure lets regulate with bad regulations", the response is "lets regulate with good regulation".
That's a non-answer though. "Good regulations" are subjective, and most of the current regulations are either overbearing or useless.
Many of the flaws of capitalism can be addressed through regulation. My definition of good is "protect the common welfare and promote maximum competition/innovation". As long as regulations keep to that, we should have no issue. Most? That's a hard to believe statistic. Most are addressing issues that have come up in the past in various industries. Given most less regulated countries aren't doing any better economically than the US, I'd wager our balance of regulations does well to create a thriving economy.
This statement is incorrect. It fails to take natural monopolies into account.
Natural monopolies no longer exist in any meaningful capacity, but are also not a negative thing in general. My statement was referenced to the post that unregulated capitalism causes monopolies.
>Natural monopolies no longer exist in any meaningful capacity They do exist. >but are also not a negative thing in general. They lead to price gouging and lower quality, they are obviously not good. >My statement was referenced to the post that unregulated capitalism causes monopolies. In fairness, natural monopolies would be monopolies either way, but atleast with regulation or nationalization theres atleast a bit of democratic accountability.
Most of us who are republican Capitalist Libertarian types want a powerful government to enforce capitalism. A government that supports liberty is what Republicans have always wanted since Jefferson and Madison formed the party in 1792.
The Republican Party was not formed in 1792, you cretin.
what party was formed in 1792 by Jefferson and Madison??????
Take a guess which famous 19th century german economist endorsed the republican party?
The Republican Party of the era was later termed the Democratic Republican Party and later proceeded into the Democrats. The Republican Party that formed later was a separate entity that emerged following the collapse of the Whigs in the mid-19^th century.
Just because capitalist support free markets doesn't mean they don't recognize the role of the government in the economy. Argentina had a 300% inflation because of the government, so it's often the debate on how much intervention. Very little capitalist support complete deregulation most support deregulating, if that makes sense. Ie most are for removing taxation, legislation, and laws that hurt all businesses, but they also are against laws the benefit 1 business.
Intervention is as good as the interveners. If you have nobody in your country that’s competent at managing an economy, deregulate it. If you have competent economic planners like in Singapore or all those engineers in Deng Xiaoping’s politburo, go for it.