Corporatism and the free market

[Deleted]

One of the worst things Marx released upon this world was the term capitalism. The way most people define capitalism is as an anti-concept. An anti-concept, as defined by Ayn Rand(Someone I am not a fan of, but she is right on this one, so please lets not make it into a thread about her)

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .

Borrowing an argument from Roderick Long, lets say I come up with a new word. Garglefagel. I define it as "A metallic sphere, like the Washington monument". Of course, the Washington monument isn't a metallic sphere. I have integrated my faulty example into the definition itself. This is similar to how most people define capitalism: "A free market system, like the one we have today". This creates a package deal. It blurs the line between government and the market, packaging everything that currently exists into one system known as "capitalism". The bailouts, banking cartels, everything the government does is also seen as an inseperable part of "capitalism". If you accept this definition, you can no longer oppose corporatism without also opposing the free market, and you cannot defend the free market without also defending corporatism.

A free market is a system of voluntary exchanges of property titles. It is the absence of coercion. Today, we government licensed banking cartels such as the Federal Reserve. We have a monopoly on the production of money. We have government plundering the population and then handing the money out to large corporations in the form of bailouts. We have tariffs, subsidies, all kinds of protectionist measures. We have regulations that big business can handle, but small businesses can't. We have a massive military industrial complex. This isn't a free market, this isn't socialism either. It is something I would define as neo-mercantilist, a system of state awarded privilege to capital. There is wealth redistribution, but it is primarily from the bottom up. Semantics is important. What exactly do you oppose, the free market, or corporatism?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Good post. This is exactly why I facepalm every time someone says that socialism is evil because nobody has any incentive to work and the lazy leech off the hard working.

People seem to confuse what socialism actually is with EXTREME communism because the politicians and the popular media have not only improperly defined it (anti-concepted it), they've villainized it. What few of them even realize is that any conceptual extreme of a political system is easily exploitable. That's why moderate and middle-of-the-road checks and balances are put in place is to prevent corruption.

What's happening right now in America is a corporation centralized power, that wealth is accumulating in extreme amounts to those who buy and sell companies. A socialist revolution would decentralize this wealth from those who own companies, back into the hands of those actually doing the work. Capitalistic socialism would still reward hard work and would not stop people from striving to better themselves, society, or accumulate wealth. All it would do would prevent the accumulation of wealth through corporation acquisition of companies as commodities that can be bought, sold, and used up.

However if you support this, then you are anti american, evil, and oppose capitalism, hate freedom, bald eagles, football sundays, etc etc In other words, you're not a good sheep who blindly supports corporate power in Washington.

[Deleted]

Most people do not seem to understand how complicated and intricate the financial system actually is and thus prefer to see it in a very basic black and white manner. It's difficult to define the situation we see today for a variety of reasons, since there's a case of there being one rule for the poor (often punished to the full extent of the law for minor financial 'crimes') and another rule for the rich (bankers/politicians being allowed to walk away unscathed after repeated scandals and abusing loopholes in the system).

[Laize]

Good post. This is exactly why I facepalm every time someone says that socialism is evil because nobody has any incentive to work and the lazy leech off the hard working.

People seem to confuse what socialism actually is with EXTREME communism because the politicians and the popular media have not only improperly defined it (anti-concepted it), they've villainized it. What few of them even realize is that any conceptual extreme of a political system is easily exploitable. That's why moderate and middle-of-the-road checks and balances are put in place is to prevent corruption.

What's happening right now in America is a corporation centralized power, that wealth is accumulating in extreme amounts to those who buy and sell companies. A socialist revolution would decentralize this wealth from those who own companies, back into the hands of those actually doing the work. Capitalistic socialism would still reward hard work and would not stop people from striving to better themselves, society, or accumulate wealth. All it would do would prevent the accumulation of wealth through corporation acquisition of companies as commodities that can be bought, sold, and used up.

However if you support this, then you are anti american, evil, and oppose capitalism, hate freedom, bald eagles, football sundays, etc etc In other words, you're not a good sheep who blindly supports corporate power in Washington.

The OP is pro-free-market. He's pointing out how capitalism gets a bad rap because progressives have attempted (in many ways successfully) to inextricably link unfettered business with everything bad in the world.

[lvlark]

What exactly do you oppose, the free market, or corporatism?

Lemme float an idea by you. Free market and globalisation lead to the rise of corporatism. Because big companies arise, smaller players need to stick together in corporations in order to not be drowned out. Those big companies, once they've accrued a certain critical mass, are able to define the game they're playing to a certain extent. If you're familiar with the theory of evolution: Competitions within a free market lead to companies having to fight to survive. And then it's welcome to the jungle. If them big companies are able to increase their chances for survival in any way, they're gonna do it. If going over the backs of their employees/customers/whatever helps their survival, they will try it. So in time, free market isn't necessarily the best for the customer, it's best for the strongest competitor. And often, the strongest competitor isn't the customer or the employee.

So there you have it. I oppose the free market.

---------- Post added 2012-07-18 at 01:13 PM ----------

... to inextricably link unfettered business with everything bad in the world.

Well, obviously, it ain't as black-and-white as that. As I have just pointed out though, imo there are mechanisms why unfettered business can lead to bad things in the world.