T Nation

Capitalism: A Real Love Story

Capitalism versus Statism
by Murray Rothbard

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term “capitalism.” When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism’s most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-“capitalist” analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible “feudalist” countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia “capitalist,” while many Trotskyites would include China as well).

Marxists, for example, consider India as a “capitalist” country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined…

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Capitalism versus Statism
by Murray Rothbard

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term “capitalism.” When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism’s most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-“capitalist” analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible “feudalist” countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia “capitalist,” while many Trotskyites would include China as well).

Marxists, for example, consider India as a “capitalist” country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined…

http://mises.org/story/3735[/quote]

India is changing. For example, they invest heavily in Europe. They have a strong financial system. Don’t be hatin’.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Capitalism versus Statism
by Murray Rothbard

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term “capitalism.” When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism’s most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-“capitalist” analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible “feudalist” countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia “capitalist,” while many Trotskyites would include China as well).

Marxists, for example, consider India as a “capitalist” country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined…

India is changing. For example, they invest heavily in Europe. They have a strong financial system. Don’t be hatin’.
[/quote]
This essay was written in 1972.

Indeed, things have changed but they are still WAY socialist.

“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009? [/quote]

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.[/quote]

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?
[/quote]

“A socialized capitalistic system” (highlighted in your post as well), is clearly one that is controlled by the state and is similar to state controlled socialism. Both entail some central planning.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?
[/quote]

Clearly you neither know what socialism nor capitalism is. They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Clearly you neither know what socialism nor capitalism is. They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.[/quote]

Ha!

What about voluntary socialism)

I and my kibbutznik brethren protest!

[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Clearly you neither know what socialism nor capitalism is. They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.

Ha!

What about voluntary socialism)

I and my kibbutznik brethren protest![/quote]

It still seems to be in conflict. Since capitalism refers to the ownership of the means of production being private and in a kibbutz nothing is owned it therefor is in clear opposition to capitalism. I agree that they can be voluntary; though I am not sure how many kiddies voluntarily decide to go off to live in one.

Either the means of production are privately owned or they are unowned. Either there is capitalism or socialism. There can be fascism too but this is socialistic in nature since government must take ownership of means and then grants privileges to use these means to favored groups.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Clearly you neither know what socialism nor capitalism is. They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.

Ha!

What about voluntary socialism)

I and my kibbutznik brethren protest!

It still seems to be in conflict. Since capitalism refers to the ownership of the means of production being private and in a kibbutz nothing is owned it therefor is in clear opposition to capitalism. I agree that they can be voluntary; though I am not sure how many kiddies voluntarily decide to go off to live in one.

Either the means of production are privately owned or they are unowned. Either there is capitalism or socialism. There can be fascism too but this is socialistic in nature since government must take ownership of means and then grants privileges to use these means to favored groups.[/quote]

Whoa, I thought that at least socialists had property rights.

After all the collective owns it.

That is not much different from a company, it just extends to more property.

I should be able to make business with a collective as well as with a company.

How they choose to divide in internally is really none of my business.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.[/quote]

Where do you live? It exists in your life right now.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.

Where do you live? It exists in your life right now.
[/quote]

Exactly.
I grew up in Sweden, I know the difference between pure capitalism (like Hong Kong 2008) and socialism (like Sweden since the 50’s).

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.

Where do you live? It exists in your life right now.
[/quote]

Fascism.

Capitalism does not exist in this country. Some things are fascist and some things are socialist. Nothing in this country exists in a free market.

[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Clearly you neither know what socialism nor capitalism is. They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.

Ha!

What about voluntary socialism)

I and my kibbutznik brethren protest!

It still seems to be in conflict. Since capitalism refers to the ownership of the means of production being private and in a kibbutz nothing is owned it therefor is in clear opposition to capitalism. I agree that they can be voluntary; though I am not sure how many kiddies voluntarily decide to go off to live in one.

Either the means of production are privately owned or they are unowned. Either there is capitalism or socialism. There can be fascism too but this is socialistic in nature since government must take ownership of means and then grants privileges to use these means to favored groups.

Whoa, I thought that at least socialists had property rights.

After all the collective owns it.

That is not much different from a company, it just extends to more property.

I should be able to make business with a collective as well as with a company.

How they choose to divide in internally is really none of my business.
[/quote]

Yes and if they are collectively owned it is socialism.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”

Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?

India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.

It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?

Clearly you neither know what socialism nor capitalism is. They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.

Ha!

What about voluntary socialism)

I and my kibbutznik brethren protest!

It still seems to be in conflict. Since capitalism refers to the ownership of the means of production being private and in a kibbutz nothing is owned it therefor is in clear opposition to capitalism. I agree that they can be voluntary; though I am not sure how many kiddies voluntarily decide to go off to live in one.

Either the means of production are privately owned or they are unowned. Either there is capitalism or socialism. There can be fascism too but this is socialistic in nature since government must take ownership of means and then grants privileges to use these means to favored groups.

Whoa, I thought that at least socialists had property rights.

After all the collective owns it.

That is not much different from a company, it just extends to more property.

I should be able to make business with a collective as well as with a company.

How they choose to divide in internally is really none of my business.

Yes and if they are collectively owned it is socialism.[/quote]

Corporations are socialism when they are owned by workers?

[quote]orion wrote:
Yes and if they are collectively owned it is socialism.

Corporations are socialism when they are owned by workers?[/quote]

I would say that the model is in fact socialistic but we typically call them “cooperatives”.

It matters not that the means are owned by the state or some other ambiguous collective.

Collectively owned property can never really be “owned” – it is managed but it still requires some sort of collective planning which by its very nature cannot be considered capitalistic. There is no such thing as a “collective will” and it is the “will” that ultimately decides how property is to be used.

Socialism versus capitalism is really an idealistic struggle between collectivism and individualism. This distinction is important.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Yes and if they are collectively owned it is socialism.

Corporations are socialism when they are owned by workers?

I would say that the model is in fact socialistic but we typically call them “cooperatives”.

It matters not that the means are owned by the state or some other ambiguous collective.

Collectively owned property can never really be “owned” – it is managed but it still requires some sort of collective planning which by its very nature cannot be considered capitalistic. There is no such thing as a “collective will” and it is the “will” that ultimately decides how property is to be used.

Socialism versus capitalism is really an idealistic struggle between collectivism and individualism. This distinction is important.[/quote]

But where is the distinction then that you draw between a company that is owned by people not working in the company and a company owned by its workers?

[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Yes and if they are collectively owned it is socialism.

Corporations are socialism when they are owned by workers?

I would say that the model is in fact socialistic but we typically call them “cooperatives”.

It matters not that the means are owned by the state or some other ambiguous collective.

Collectively owned property can never really be “owned” – it is managed but it still requires some sort of collective planning which by its very nature cannot be considered capitalistic. There is no such thing as a “collective will” and it is the “will” that ultimately decides how property is to be used.

Socialism versus capitalism is really an idealistic struggle between collectivism and individualism. This distinction is important.

But where is the distinction then that you draw between a company that is owned by people not working in the company and a company owned by its workers?
[/quote]

It’s called a cooperative, as I have said above. But in principle it is still based on socialistic (collective) ideology.