What Capitalism Isn't

reply to post by truthquest


Gentlemen : don't worry : any job could be done with robots and IA

Please evolve

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You have some interesting thoughts on corporations. Corporations are simply special rights given to people for a price, that nobody else has. Under "pure capitalism" (or anarcho-capitalism), corporations should not exist.

One of the very first lines of the OP should be: Capitalism is not something that involves corporations, since they don't exist under capitalism.

As others have pointed out, its more anarcho-capitalism that is really being discussed and labeled as "pure capitalism", not the sort of hybrid capitalism that exist in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Capitalism and communism is dead - they both operate with money and create hierarchical society and structures, besides - capitalism values scarcity and therefore is not beneficial for civilization/society.

Governments and other centralized structures are a result of natural social evolution - there is a selection going on for centralized and powerful structures - they are more likely to survive.

Small are destined to die - with or without violence (left alone resourceless - like in Africa)

Have good life



[edit on 23-7-2010 by FIFIGI]

reply to post by truthquest

One of the very first lines of the OP should be: Capitalism is not something that involves corporations, since they don't exist under capitalism.

I wholeheartedly agree with this! Corporatism is not capitalism. Corporations hate competition. Corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying for more regulation in order kill smaller companies that would compete with them. Corporations are bad news for everybody. I would like to believe that corporations can exist in a free market along side smaller businesses, but as long as corporations use the wealth they create to suppress a free market, then there is no way corporations have any real value for free market advocates.

Corporations do not exist as they do because of free market advocates, they exist as they do because most people are not free market advocates, do not want to be in business for themselves, and would rather have a nice job, work as few hours a possible, get great perks, paid well, and have a retirement fund paid for by their employer. Corporations play a game where they will offer these sort of incentives while building their company, and when they can, as has been evidenced since NAFTA, and other fiscal policies, they dump these expensive employees, and begin searching for dirt cheap employees, and the dumped employees then point their fingers and say; "See? I this is exactly what is wrong with capitalism!"

Originally posted by ANOK
Capitalism is not free-markets, as there is nothing free in capitalism.

Part of the definition of capitalism is free markets, so you are wrong by definition. I've never heard of a capitalist who isn't in favor of free markets and I've never seen a definition of capitalism that didn't involve free markets. And there is nothing stopping anybody from giving away things for free. The less people believe in gun-point charity programs, the more generous they are. The facts show that people who like capitalism are generous type of people who give things away for free. Go ahead and challenge me on that point if you disagree.

Capitalism is a system that only survives by fleecing the population, and moving all wealth created by your labour into private bank accounts instead of yours.

Not true, since all transactions are voluntary under capitalism and therefore people who feel they are getting fleeced are free to get together find alternatives. And that is in fact what they do... which is why we have things like co-ops out there.

Capitalists keep resources artificially scarce by either under production, or by destroying unsold product.

Disagreed. Many "pure" capitalist advocates do not believe in IP (intellectual property like copyrights) because IP does not involve resources which are limited. The whole point to capitalism is that resources are some times naturally scarce, especially finished goods like plasma screen TVs. Last time I checked, there was no trees growing plasma screen TVs. They are a scarce resource. The point is, when it comes to resources that obviously are not scarce, capitalism doesn't generally even get involved.

Now if the means of production were owned by the workers then instead of the minority capitalist taking the majority of production in profits, the workers themselves would benefit from those profits directly.

Most workers are not interested in owning a stake in the company. I know because I do business and I have offered that. Communism forces down a service on people (providing ownership of production) that people do not actually even want in general.

Take the oil industry for example, billions made in profits. Where does it go

Since oil production goes right up along with oil prices in lock step (I've seen the charts) I'd say a good chunk of oil money goes into growing the oil companies.

Under capitalism, if workers are interested in owning their own means of production, they can form worker co-operatives. I know of a group of anarcho-capitalists setting up a workers co-op right now. I have to wonder if you love communism so much why have you not tried to set up just such a group your self? I believe it is because under communism, you wait for the government to do all these things by force at gun point. If you were a capitalist, you could start up the workers co-up this Saturday or the next time you have a day off.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
-Benito Mussolini, author of The Doctrine of Fascism, Italian Fascist Dictator (Duce) 1943 – 1945

Chip Berlet seems to disagree:

Editing Wikipedia entries led me to agree with Goldberg on one point with which he opens his book: Most liberals (and others on the Political Left) have no coherent and accurate definition of what fascism is. The most popular idea on the Left is that fascism is when corporations run the government. Thousands of Internet pages sport this passage attributed to Mussolini discussing his Italian Fascist movement: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Hit the delete button! So far no scholar I know has been able to find the original source of this quote. It’s not in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana as widely claimed. (If you have a print copy of the quote from the 1930s, please let me know, otherwise please refrain from e-mails saying you found it on the internet). The apparent hoax quote also contradicts everything else Mussolini wrote on the subject.

www.hnn.us...

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by psychederic
reply to post by truthquest

 

Gentlemen : don't worry : any job could be done with robots and IA

Please evolve

well that maybe true , but robots could maybe not replace artists or musicians , in the creative sense , the day we teach a robot to learn to draw and create something from its own imagination is the day humans have evolved to their highest potential

reply to post by truthquest


FREE ? := Freedom (for some) or Free (0 money value ) ?

Word are differents common sense : so be clear and logic : because if not it is false rhetoric. ( same problem with Democracy, love, freedom, property ...)

The history goes : the capitalism people know : is a capitalism from the industrial revolution and corporations ...

...

One little word on history : you don't need "revolution" (with people and angry people, and romantism, and counterpunch etc ...) : you need facts !

The revolution in the world was
* energy and to get it : OIL , etc ...
* How to manufacture with the new kind of energy ( ie : no more labor )
* how to communicate , or advertise ( télévision, electronics , etc )
...

History goes

reply to post by sapien82


Sorry : this is a common sense error

An AI : can find the better scheme in any organisation, any new product : any car traffic : this is originality at his higher way : or if you want it could produce the same level of art : though "random" stupid links in its network in a context

An AI : could compute everything human find 'artistic' ( this as been done )

An AI can design software or stuff

An Ai can feel, an ai can speak with emotion ...

WHAT DO YOU THINK ?

The only thing an AI need : is a WILL

Be prepared : there is no soul : just informations

[edit on 23-7-2010 by psychederic]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by psychederic]

reply to post by Janky Red


Excellent post, star for you. The OP speaks of capitalism as a communist speaks of communism. Both systems have never been applied in a doctrinal fashion, because neither of these systems can be. They start out fine and dandy, and then turn into military dictatorships, or corporate dictatorships.

We need to try something new.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Ok.

Here's some quotes from the Doctrine of Fascism, written by Mussolini.

The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).

Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State

We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state.

The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world.

Mussolini's definition of "corporations" included what we consider trade unions.

The doctrine of fascism was a corporative system where trade unions and industrial syndicates were harmonized under the authority of the state and given representation in the government.

This is essentially a system of organized lobbying that we have in America today.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


My objection wasn't about the content of the quote, but about the quote itself. Although I'd have some objections about the contents too, since I think that it misses the essence of what corporatism is. My point was that it is a bogus quote that is not found in any printed originals.

The quotes you cited in your last post though are legit, so no argument there ... I wasn't attacking the message... It's just a bogus quote as far as I can figure...

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


It is pretty well accepted that either Gentile or Mussolini said the quote.

Even if they didn't, it fits neatly with the definition of Fascism spelled out in the Doctrine of Fascism.

I'm not sure what your objections are.

Fascism is essentially a system of modern day corporatism.

There is no difference.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

It is pretty well accepted that either Gentile or Mussolini said the quote.


I'm not sure what your objections are.

I'm working from memory here but put simply: I don't think it is. Not sure about Gentile but it definitly is not a verifiable quote from Mussolini. It is on the net, I agree, but no one seems to be able to find it in print.

Fascism is essentially a system of modern day corporatism.

There is no difference.

The majority of scholarship on Fascism tends to disagree, I would think. At least the statement you made is one side of a passionatly discussed controversy among modern research into fascism.

A big part of this controvery is built on what school of thought is taken as the basis or precursor of Fascism. To gain insight into the scholarly tradition that would passionatly refuse the quoted statement above, see www.hnn.us...

Berlet and Paxton ( or was it Griffith; this is all from memory, so sorry) make a strong argument that your quote above misses the point entirely. Maybe you're interested in reading it - although you seem very well versed in the subject and surely don't need any lecturing. But sometimes there's nothing more refreshing than discovering countering views.

Sorry for Highjacking the thread :-)

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


The reason why the majority of scholars tend to disagree with the corporatism assessment of Fascism is because most scholars are democrats. (I am being entirely serious here)

They have a particular view of Fascism as being a far-right ideology, which precludes them from seeing Fascism for what it really is, a system of government that corporatizes trade unions and industrial interests.

Far right (libertarian) ideology is diametrically opposed to Fascism, as it sees the individual as the ultimate authority, not the State. Libertarianism also rejects all government involvement in the economy, which clearly Fascism does not.

Here's an 18 part lecture series done by eminent Austro-libertarian scholars on Fascism as a socio-economic doctrine:

fascistsoup.com...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

The reason why the majority of scholars tend to disagree with the corporatism assessment of Fascism is because most scholars are democrats. (I am being entirely serious here)

They have a particular view of Fascism as being a far-right ideology, which precludes them from seeing Fascism for what it really is, a system of government that corporatizes trade unions and industrial interests.

As far as I am concerned that is just a talking point that originated with the John Birch Society cosmos and is particularly popular with the Larouche-brand of libertarianism these days. Being an academic myself and having observed the debate over the subject since my university days, my experience tells me differently. Generally speaking, the view you quoted above has never survived peer review and isn't supported by historical evidence. There is some truth in what you say, but it is quite simplistic and reductionist: Fascism is, in its essence, not a simple economic doctrine. Many attempts have been made to establish the view of fascism-as-purely-economic in scholarship, and most have failed; at least they are not widely accepted because of their flaws.
I know that the view that Academia is left-wing is popular in the US, but it is not always true, especially not when it comes to Europe and European contributions to the study of Fascism. From my personal experience I can guarantee you that the spirit that prevails at continental conferences of scholars of fasmis is anything but leftist and what you termed "democrat". The most influential generation in the debate has a strong conservative bias; allthough that doesn't keep them from seeing Fascism as a right-wing phenomenon, which it is clearly in most cases. This may be an ideological issue for you, for most scholars it is a historical debate that is not necessarily reducible to a researchers political views. The notion that Fascism is a right wing phenomon is not just a product of leftist propaganda; it has been established rather early by scholars indipendantly of their political views.

Spoken philosophically, your argument is fallacious. There is a strong argument made for the case that fascism is in essence a right wing pehnomenon, you attempt to "refute" that thesis by speculating about the motives the people who bring that view forward might have. So in essence you are not addressing the facts, but speculate about the people - this is called Bulverism and it is a special form of the ad-hominem argument. Note that by (aristotelian) logic, even if your speculation about their motives would prove true, that would not pertain to or refute the facts they brought forward; those can only be refuted by arguing about the substance, and not the people.
Bulverisms are, generally, not accepted as premises in an argument, no matter how true they appear to be, because in essence they have no bearing on the facts discussed themselves.

en.wikipedia.org...

Far right (libertarian) ideology is diametrically opposed to Fascism, as it sees the individual as the ultimate authority, not the State. Libertarianism also rejects all government involvement in the economy, which clearly Fascism does not.

And yet, when scrutinized (as in the American case) most libertarians make a common cause with explicit fascists. Libertarian rhetoric and Fascism also have their eerie history, as has Fascism as has leftist rhetoric (the classical austrian arugment).

Of course, on paper - in ideals - what you say is the case. It's just that when it comes to this brand of Libertarianism preaching water while drinking wine is quite common. Maybe that is way Fascist organisations in the US tend to hide within Libertarian rhetoric? Or maybe it's just the other side of the coin of what Leftists have to deal with, who have their issues with eerie infiltration too.

Whatever. I don't like discussions about ideology that much. All I was tryin' to say is that the quote you ended with was bogus; there is no source for it. Yet Libertarians can't seem to leave that quote out because it is so central to their argument. I think the main issue here is the same with the Nazis: If all you do is study the writings of Nazis, and not their actions, then there is a pretty big chance of getting a skewered idea of what they really were about.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


I read that article you linked and didn't really gain anything from it.

It seems like a really hot piece of propaganda that doesn't present any facts to support the its claims that Fascism has nothing to do the left.

It offers one small piece of evidence as a quote from another article:

Yet for all his chapter and verse on the proletarian rhetoric that Nazis employed, Goldberg somehow forgets to mention certain other salient matters, like the fact that within three months of taking power Hitler banned trade unions--and on the day after May Day, 1933. Their money was confiscated and their leaders imprisoned. And the trade unions were replaced with the Nazi "union" called the German Labor Front, which took away the right to strike.

Of course, this actually goes to SUPPORT the view that Fascism has large socialist tendencies. Since the Fascist world view assumes that individuals exist to serve the State, it makes sense that trade unions would be nationalized (note that they were not eliminated) and forbidden to strike. This is nearly identical to communism.

To quote wiki:

In some "Marxist-Leninist" regimes, such as the former USSR or the People's Republic of China, striking is illegal and viewed as counter-revolutionary[citation needed]. Since the government in such systems claims to represent the working class, it has been argued that unions and strikes were not necessary.

The guy writing that article presents no refuting evidence.

It wasn't until 1989 that Gorbi finally made independent labor unions and striking legal in the USSR once again.





[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I've been to this point so many times :-)

The essence of that part of the article from my memory seems to be to establish that the Nazis actively made war on everything leftist while cooperating with anything right from the middle. The trade union example is especially important because it goes to show that the Nazis did not "incorporate" the trade unions as much as destroyed them and replaced them with a party-controlled shell that had almost nothing to do with traditional labor union business, which would be the betterment of the situation of the working people.

Since I am familiar with the arguments you make I think I can guess your response: You will say that this goes to show that Fascism "incorporates" trade unionism. But I find that view misleading since trade unions under party control simply weren't trade unions at all, they were just an extension of the state-control apparatus and ceased to function as trade unions in function from day one that they were overtaken by the party, while keeping the name "trade unions". Their assets were stolen and were spent by the party and the state; not once under the 12 yaers of the Nazis Regime did the gleichgeschaltete trade unions pursue the general intereset of the people they represented. They were trade unions only in name - they didn't differ much from purely ideological organisations created by the state.

As for trade unions in the leftists sense - all Nazis that advocated the traditional, leftist, socialist inspired kind of trade unionism were already killed or exiled by the time they busted the unions. By that time not a shred of socialist thought remained active in the party, except in their rhetoric. The party itself purged its socialist-minded wing step by step, by the time they came to power the Strassers were dead or exiled, and the naive populist socialist remnant represented by Roehm was about to be liquidated to, rather rapidly.





[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


I'm not sure what you are talking about.

The fascists implemented pretty much the same system of "unionization" as the communists.

State controlled unions.

Are you going to tell me that the far right advocates state controlled unions of labor?