...but it must ensure that the national elites are economically competitive on a global scale. The result being increased militarism by dominant economic powers not only by building military bases worldwide, but also by having missiles in space.
This is not a consequence of Free Market Capitalism. One tenant of libertarian thought is the NAP, non-aggression principle, hence utilizing military force to dominate economic power is not consistent with Free Market Capitalism.
The history of the term corporatism/corporatist dates back to the mid-1800s where the European working class began to show more interest in socialism due to the harsh working and living conditions under capitalism.
Regardless of the etymology of the term, I provided a definition re appropriating corporatism in the context of the article. Whatever the term used, it is meant to denote the collusion/collaboration of the state and business regulating/restricting the free market.
I want to get a clear definition of socialism, one that we can, to the best of our abilities, agree to. Here are the two definitions we provided.
Paul: (Socialism) attempts to take matters one step further creating centralized control of the market. Socialism attempts to plan not only the means but the ends of production.
Jerald: In gaining power to rationally organize society (i.e., planning the production and distribution of goods), people will also be free to participate in the running of society...
Would we be able to agree to this:
Socialism rationally organizes society, planning the means and ends of production, (i.e. planning the production and distribution of goods) with individuals freely participating in running society.
Posts
3 comments:
While there are appropriate times to cherry pick, this is not one of them. Even Paul's style of countering my arguments fails to acknowledge the profundity of the totality of statements (not that I'm the type to toot one's own horn).
For example, I indicated that "some economists claim that commodity production is inherent to human societies, or to take an anthropological term, that market based economic exchange is a cultural universal" and Paul ignored this sentence and took the next sentence to attempt to confirm one of his ideas on hyper-individualism (i.e., "However, most individuals choose to exchange their goods for other goods that the individual was not able to produce. Free exchange is requisite for a society and economy to grow."). A statement many folks would not agree with when you take into consideration the fact that a growing majority of the world's population does not barter and trade, instead we're forced into wage labor in order to obtain the financial means to (barely) survive under capitalism. In other words, food, rent, clothing, heat, water, electricity, health care, etc. costs money, and to obtain that money, people have to sell their labor power to an employer who is most likely looking to lower costs.
Additionally, Rosa Luxemburg was not making any assumptions regarding the nature of capitalism when she indicated that “the growing anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to ruin.” As the present financial crisis ever-deepens, her theories regarding the dual role of credit under capitalism have been reconfirmed. That is, "after having (as a factor of the process of production) provoked overproduction, credit (as a factor of exchange) destroys, during the crisis, the very productive forces it itself creates." In short, when one looks at the housing bubble that has burst over the last year or so, we can see the result of overproduction in the housing market as a result of profit-hungry developers with cheap credit creating an exurbia not to mention predatory lenders looking to make a killing off of closing fees. Now people are forced to foreclose on homes while Wall Street stock holders are (further) being subsidized with our tax payer money. Not that military spending in the trillions of dollars was enough. But militarism will be left to another post.
Next, Paul seems to be playing with words now saying that "given the definition of a free market, a capitalist economy will continue to be capitalist" and that "it is not classes that act, but indiviuals [sic]." Obviously, those "individuals" with thousands if not millions of shares of stock have more social power than those without wealth. To believe that there aren't classes in our society is to live in a delusion.
Which brings me to a rhetorical question to finalize this post. Paul claims that "in a free market, individuals participate as much and as little in production and exchange as the individual desires." So are employers "free" to let their employees starve?
So work has been great tonight. I usually don't come in on Thursday nights, but I should look into picking up more shifts because its giving me time to clarify somethings. I think it is worth going back to the differentiation between ideology vs. reality, which Paul may have deliberately ignored. (Ah ha, still cherry picking I see!) I'm going to just copy and paste it, because "Free Market Capitalism" is merely an idealized abstraction.
I typed, "This may be a good time to differentiate between ideology and reality. The ideology of capitalism suggests that a pure market economy is an achievable goal, if only the state did not intervene in the economy. Yet, all modern economies are mixed, with goods and services produced in the private and public sector. In order to implement a market-based economy, a regulatory organ such as the state must not only uphold contractual arrangements and protect and enforce rights such as the institution of private property under capitalism but it must ensure that the national elites are economically competitive on a global scale." So to elaborate on why "Free Market Capitalism" is merely a thing of words and not reality, we should look to the historical reasons for creating such a theory.
When mercantilism was in decline as the "middle class" (i.e., early capitalists) were accumulating more wealth through trade (of slaves and commodities created by slaves), intellectuals such as Adam Smith, the "father of economics," attempted to justify taking bullion out of one's nation in order to create a profit through gainful exchange. So while mercantilism advocated for protectionist measures to ensure that a nation maintained a positive balance of trade, the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism (think "Free Market Capitalism") like Smith attempted to justify breaking down these protectionist barriers to trade. However, all this talk of the "invisible hand" and "free trade" were rhetorical devices to push and prod the nobles who believed wealth came not from production but from the precious metals they extracted from abroad (think enslavement and genocide).
So why was this crude overview of pre-capitalist history necessary you may ask? Because through a study of history, you can differentiate the ideology from the reality. You can gain a more materialist conception of reality. And you may hopefully understand that humans create history, but not exactly how they choose but taking into consideration the social, economic, political, that is, the material conditions. So socialism is not inevitable, it must be fought for, and with the right theory (i.e., Marxism), working-class leaders will guide their fellow workers to transform society for the benefit of the majority.
While there are appropriate times to cherry pick, this is not one of them.
By constraints of the format we have chosen, 1 post - 300 words, 2 rebuttals - 300 words each, per week, it is challenging to be thorough yet concise, hence cherry picking the most marginally critical claims.
Even Paul's style of countering my arguments fails to acknowledge the profundity of the totality of statements (not that I'm the type to toot one's own horn).
My method of arguments seeks to utilize logic and reason. Profundity is subjective, in the sense that something I find profound, another may found utterly ridiculous, and vice versa.
To believe that there aren't classes in our society is to live in a delusion.
I never said that class stratification did not exist. "Class" is implicitly acknowledged in my statement, "it is not classes that act, but indiviuals [sic]." Individuals are the ultimate decision actors. To believe that individuals do not act, is to live in a delusion.
I think it is worth going back to the differentiation between ideology vs. reality, which Paul may have deliberately ignored. "Free Market Capitalism" is merely an idealized abstraction.
This is a moot point, because further down the post it states, " and with the right theory (i.e., Marxism), working-class leaders will guide their fellow workers to transform society for the benefit of the majority." "The right theory" and "transform society" are not only ideological in rhetoric but abstracted conception of the future. Free Market Capitalism does not posit a a specific ideological theory that aims to transform society, but lays that ground work for the free market, free individuals, to do so.
Post a Comment