Leviathan: “Any advocacy of capitalism requires statism, as the state is an integral stabilizing agent in the capitalist economy.”
Since Leviathan made the assertion, it is proper that he/she make the case, then everyone else is welcome to respond.
I’m to eager to respond to this remark to wait and read their response, but…
Do matrices of people making voluntary exchanges require State oversight? What about State intervention and bans that require people to exchange illegally, as in a black market, which is actually avoiding the State?
My suspicion is that Leviathan is one of those anti-hierarchy types that classify all forms of authority as somehow being statist and wrong. They then call this view anarchism.
Naturally, then, people operating businesses would be in-charge of workers and this is a no-no in Leviathan’s ideology, even if the worker-employer relationship is completely mutually beneficial and consensual.
This would explain his “capitalism requires statism” spiel..
This is a definition game.
This post brings up an interesting point. Do you want me to solely explain why capitalism requires the state, as in the formal, centralized hierarchical structure with a monopoly on force and at the head of nations universally recognized as a “state” (which I believe is true)? Or do you also want me to explain why capitalism requires government, into which all hierarchical and authoritarian forms of organization could be incorporated (which I also believe is true)?
Explain why what Rothbard termed “anarcho-capitalism” requires the state.
My analysis of why capitalism requires the state is in large part based on empirical evidence of that historical dependency, and “anarcho”-capitalism is a nonexistent theoretical abstraction.
History isnt a science. It is a subjective interpretation of objective reality.
Things can change, or all we all doomed to “capitalism”?
And so is anarcho-communism.
Now, you said that the mods here a pro-state. Could you at least explain/prove why?
If we maintain the state, we certainly are.
Anarchist communism has seen limited implementation in Aragon, but implementation nonetheless. And anarchism, as is known, saw widespread implementation in Spain. And beyond that, the libertarian elements of the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, the Israeli kibbutzim, the Zapatista municipalities, and the efficiency of workers’ ownership and management seen through numerous worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives indicate that anarchism and socialism could experience further implementation. So the difference is that long-term anarchism on a universal scale has not worked, whereas “anarchist” capitalism cannot work.
If I do, I’ll do so by illustrating that capitalism requires through the state largely by explanation of the historical reliance of capitalism on the state, but expect to be countered by the little semantics game of pretending that capitalism is actually “corporatism.”
When was this ‘reliance’?
So, what you are saying is that you would be attacking a straw man. I understand.
According to most of the “libertarians” and “anarcho”-capitalists that I encounter, denying the legitimacy of Soviet “socialism” is a “semantics quibble,” so there seems to be no superficial difference between that and you claiming that actually existing capitalism isn’t true capitalism.
Worker owned enterprises! Capitalism wins again!
Actually if you read your Marx you would understand that the Bolshevik revolution was the achievement of crude communism that Marx talked about in the 1844 manuscripts. So it was actual communism, not pure communism but the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat also called ‘crude communism.’ But please by all means, continue your thoughts on how you think there is no difference between corporatism/neo-mercantilism or what could also be called ‘state capitalism’ and what is propounded here which is actual lassiez-faire, voluntary capitalism. It’s really groovy.
And really, why are you putting libertarians in scare quotes? Ok I understand you don’t think you can be a capitalist and an anarchist. Frankly I think that is ridiculous to assume you have to be a certain economic theorist in terms of a social paradigm concerning the distribution of power, but its not as if socialists have some claim over libertarianism.
You seem to mix up business and industry using the State to further their own gain with markets actually depending on the State for their survival, which is not true in a pure free-market. You talk of the historical reliance of capitalism on the State, but historically capitalism as a whole never depended on the State, and again it would be a specific business or industry that was using the State for their own means, historically this could be the railway industry during the 1800’s and price fixing. (Rothbard goes into that on one of his speeches/lectures on monopoly and the Federal Reserve).
In reality, the State depends on the productiveness of the individuals in the market. As one of two ways to obtain their “wealth” is through taxation of people’s productivity, and the other is the printing press.
But I still want to know how I, as pro-anarcho-capitalism, am pro-state. It’s okay if you want to go on record as making a false assertion and not making an attempt to prove your assertion.
Aside from the fact that Marxism has no monopoly over socialist theory, there are numerous Marxists that deny the legitimacy of Leninism on the grounds that the hierarchical authoritarianism that it entailed was at odds with Marx’s conception of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” But try to stay on topic.
Of course there’s a difference. Capitalism is actually existent. Laissez-faire capitalism is not, never has been, and never will be.
Please provide, for our benefit, your definition of capitalism. The usage of “capitalism” in these forums refers to laissez faire capitalism, a political and economic system where the functions of government are, at maximum, national defense, a court system and internal law enforcement. People here do not believe nations like the United States of United Kingdom, both of which have governments vastly in excess of laissez faire restrictions, as capitalist, be it politically or economically.
There are countless numbers of agencies involved directly or indirectly in interfering with voluntary action between individuals, from the Federal Trade Commission, Internal Revenue Service, Securites and Exchange Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Social Security Administration, and that’s just a fraction of the agencies doing so at the federal level alone, and itself a small fraction of the agencies at the supranational and EU level interfering with British commerce.
It is true that capitalists (investors and owners of the means of production) benefit and lobby with politicians and bureaucrats as partners in crime, but this is known as plutocracy, crony capitalism or corporatism, not as laissez faire capitalism, which precludes exclusionary agencies and government granted monopolies.
If you are intent on bashing the system of cronyism I have just described, I think I can safely say I speak for most of us here when saying we do not have any quarrel with you there. Measures such as bailouts, “rescue” and “stimulus” packages, subsidies, monopolies, cartels, intellectual “property”, eminent domain, protectionism and “public-private partnership” are seen in a very dim light here, and anyone who wants to attack them is preaching to the choir.
Then properly respond to the challenge you wholeheartedly welcomed.