Karl Marx vs. Capitalism -- Maybe he was partially right! [updated]
The word capitalism was coined by Karl Marx -- therefore the definition must belong to his original interpretation.
All the negativisms he laid on the head of "capitalists" was based on the Economic-Fudalism of his day (the industrialists).
Former Slave Owners
Former Wealth of England
Former Land Robbers from American Indians
These were the heir-apparents that could afford to own the means of production during the Industrial Revolution and enlsave the economic thought of the day.
Marx was ridiculing what was being done (as we do now) he was not ridiculing "what could be" -- he was ranting about what had always been done and suggested a new paradigm.
Is that too different then our arguments? We've never had a free-market in America - not for any 5 year period. In fact it has never existed post/during Industrialization in any country.
Marx was wrong though when he battled the Austrians who wrongly "adopted" the word capitalism.
It would be wrong to apply Marx's Theories to the Information Age -- where the means of production are easily owned by anyone.
Why make a term work when it was created to describe the tactics of your enemy? The enemy of Marx were the enemy of the Austrians. Why should we "keep" capitalism as a term -- when it was used to describe a system we know gave birth to corporatism?
Marx warned that Econonmic-Fuedalism (what he called capitalism) would lead to what would later be coined as Fascism or Economic-Totalitarianism (which would be the fall of Imperialism -- before the rise of the Worker or Communism).
I also think Marx was wrong because he thought of the individual as the worker; the only true individual (who is in all communities) is the consumer, for which all work and means of production are employed.
Ron Paul says we are living in Economic-Fascism and he's 100% right.
So, hasn't everything Marx said come true (thus far)?
Lenin and Trotsky and worse Stalin invented Big State Capitalism and never brought Communism (by Marxian definition) into being.
I've been meditating on this for quite a long time and there are certain wholes in the "current" Misesean theory (owing to the takeover of Mises Institute by Rothbard and Rockwell) - know as "Anarcho-Capitalism;" which is not the model that Mises or even Ron Paul ascribe too. Albeit, I'd rather living in a Rothbardian Capitalist Society than our current Corporatist (Economic-Fascist) Society.
The "wholes" are very significant.
I agree with Rothbard on everything except the most powerful principle: Land-Based Private Ownership Laws in the Anarcho-Capitalist Society he upholds.
Problems:
#1 A-Caps (Anarcho-Capitalist) believe that a transition into liberty from corporatism must be swift -- no transition (today corporatism tomorrow A-Cap). There were 900K homes in foreclosure during the 2nd quarter here in California -- do you think there are property disputes on the book? How do they get resolved in A-Cap? There are no means to punish or to "enforce" mediation in an Anarchist Society (of any school) -- there are gov't courts only voluntary private courts.
#2 How do A-Caps "protect" property-rights in the long-run -- how do they enforce? Say there's an infraction on someones land - by an individual. Let's say it's me and I dump on your property but I get away before you catch me -- do you hire local militia to track me down; what authority do they have over me? Do they steal from the house they find me at -- there are no gov't records of anyone in a free-society (there are no gov'ts). Meaning I have 100% identity protection -- if you took my picture or had my prints there'd be nothing for you to reference; you couldn't contact relatives or known associates without gov't.
Even Ron Paul's Minarchism does not leave room for courts of any kind.
In all other ways I agree with A-cap as being feasible and just.
[updated] There are private courts in A-Cap Society, but they only function as voluntary mediators (both sides have to agree to even stand before one). I'm referring to a Rothbardian or Anarcho-capitalist Society and specifically in referrence to "binding arbitration" regarding punitive Tort. In fact in a Rothbardian world there cannot be any prisons either. Only an ever increasing need for self-defense. Pockets of Gangster communities would pop up, naturally.
THE only thing Marx said
THE only thing Marx said that came true is , trust your gov't ,we know better, than Imperialists.
Please people , IT does not matter the name , if you cannot trust them, you cannot trust them
Congressmen, Lords, Kings , Queens , Czar ,Emperer, President, Pharoeh.Sultan, Preacher ,Rabbi, Master,Teacher , Lawyer , whoever or whatever the title..
Marx said ,trust me I am the way ..Well ?????????????
Who do you trust ? I take it, DR. PAUL..
naughty, naught
this is what I was getting at
Fortune Favors the Bold
in an eariler post where I was trying to talk about my difficulties with "capitalism."
Fortune Favors the Bold
Understood JohnGalt -- I agree
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Mises v. Rothbard
Octobox,
What is the major difference between Mises and Rothbard?
Mises=Economist,
Mises=Economist, Minarchist
Rothbard=Political Scientist, Anarchist
Its a little hard to take Rothbard's economics seriously when he wore his politics on his sleeve so often. I love his take on political history but not necessarily his conclusions. He is probably the best writer I've ever read, unlike Mises and Hayek.
Ventura 2012
Limelemon: Great Question
Mises -- Consumer Sovereignty
Rothbard -- Individual Sovereignty
This is one of many differences but for me (as I lean more towards Mises than Rothbard) I can see Ludwig's position as I too believe the only "real" individual is the consumer (in a free-market).
Why?
The Worker -- The Owner -- The Investor -- The Bum though each may wear these monikers for a portion of the day; they are all universally "consumers." Whatever you are the "most" than that's the root of your individualism.
Consumption: eating, using, wasting, and gifting.
Worker: consumes inputs and tools to produce products for consumption
Owner: consumes one type of asset to purchase input-assets for the purpose of product develop that is later consumed.
Investor (in a free-society): only listens to consumer-will (then consumes one type of asset to buy stock-assets) then listens to consumer-will to consume assets back into cash.
Bum: Puts hands out for coin so he can consume.
There are other differences that I'll let people research.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
artist?
What about those people who produce something from nothing? Artists.
Why don't artists, and their talent figure?
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
An artist consumes paint or material to create
He then consumes it's beauty (visually, sensorially, auditorially -- somehow ingests it). So, will anyone who partakes in it (depeding on the medium the art becomes: visually, auditory, gustatory, ofacultory).
Most likely he will sell it and then it will be consumed some more while he consumes the asset-transfer (food, access, sound money, FRN's -- whatever he trades for).
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
An Artist can take words
or musical notes, not just paint, but trash, what others see as no value, or will pay to have removed
beauty? is Piss Christ a work of beauty? Or The Scream?
This is why I like Ayn Rand so much. She alone seems to take into reality those people who produce more than they consume, who give more than they get or need. Who live well within their means on a shoestring and still able to provide.
Repunzel is a great example.. she used her hair.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Yes yes -- I should have put artist on that list
.......regardless it does not add to or take away from the sentiment; that all are consumers first.
If you believe in God then only He/She can "produce." The Universe, Nature, and Intelligent beings consume, re-structure, re-formulate, re-package, and then waste (as in to use up). The latter is used in renewal and the process repeats. We don't really "create or produce," without first consuming.
Ayn Rand was way ahead of the game for her time and wiser than most today; but, she was "off" in certain areas. She supported "Abortion Rights" -- which denies the "rights" of the father and grandparents and breaks her "moral code" of non-violence. It is obviously murder, as Ron Paul has said many times. There are many other ways she was "off," however, I'd rather live in a Randian Society than the one we have now, wouldn't you?
You can't be a 100% Laisse Faire Capitalist and a Minarchist in the same breath. The word "capitalist" belongs to Marx, trying to hijack it and repackage it in retaliation was a huge mistake. That's why we must put conditions in front of it to make it fit our model; Laisse Fair, or Free-Market, or Anarchism (anarcho-capitalism), or Free-Enterprise -- etc etc.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
The "problem" comes about as a result of
multi-generational wealth. When un-earned advantage is handed down for one or two or thirteen generations it starts to turn into a problem...
The European bankers, through clever sleight of hand, bargained the fat, lazy and ignorant major European monarchs out of a thousand years worth of accrued wealth. Land and gold- they ate it up like locusts in exhange for trinkets and "feel good" bullshit. These were kids who inherited their kingdoms and the bankers made them feel smart. They also made quick work of them and used the resources of their empires to great advantage. Many became adept at the game, but the "master" was Rothschild. The money (and control) has been distilled into a very small number of hands. There is no free market. There never was. Beautiful concept, but it's never actually happened.
Six billion people are currently being held hostage on planet Earth by a coupla hundred families (with thousand year old money) and their proxy bitches in government.
Interesting theroy
Capitalism was introduced to me by Ayn Rand, who also opposed Mises, Marx and Friedman. I believe it's becasue as an artist, a producer, she saw that artists had "talent", and talent could be worth more than gold depending on the service, info, or product, produced by the artist.
The government and business alike employ forks and knives to stick it to artists and turn a profit for themselves, government protecting business' theft. (It's why music and other industry seek children to exploit talent and flatter parents who don't know what kind of business they' "star" child is getting into).
Are you following this so far?
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Granger: I connected the gibble to the gabble -- nice job
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Why leave out Ayn Rand and Laisse faire Capitalism?
I really think becasue Ayn Rand understood capitalism better than any man, no man has yet, owned up or matched her brilliance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal
http://www.andrewbernstein.net/books/capman.htm
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
true that
hear! hear!
short answer
from my cell phone...
for a free market amongst societies to work, good people must work voluntarily together to form civic groups which lead by example and create strong incentives for people to act cooperatively within societies or face the rath of market forces. Voluntary association with different groups which follow published bylaws and make all of their group activities public knowledge would go a long way toward replacing the current opaque system of corporatized bureaucracies. whatever groups or societies or associations you belong to or support becomes a part of normal daily conversation, and if you choose not to belong to any groups, all that matters is that you are honest about your choice and that you don't try to claim any affiliations that are not true just to impress others or "fit in".
another necessary factor is the presence of an impartial public forum for posting documents, notices, etc., like the county recorder but without the monoply status that that government creation enjoys.
************
Are you a person?
Do you really control your own affairs?
What he said!
http://www.tragedyandhope.com
http://www.im2moro.com
The term "Capitalism" has parallels with the term "Big Bang".
The name "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the competing "Steady State" theory of the universe. The name stuck.
Karl Marx, the guy who coined the term "Capitalism", wasn't exactly a cheerleader for it. But once again, the name stuck.
"I believe the true significance of the Gold Commission is that the politicians and central bankers were so alarmed at such a thing that they made sure it was packed by an array of Keynesians and monetarists." (Ron Paul 1985)
Oh, this
is very interesting, thanks for sharing this with us. I have a lot to think about. Maybe, we need a new word.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
I think
Fortune Favors the Bold
the thing is that all ideological systems fail due to the the evil of some. It is really a spiritual and moral revolution (or evolution) not a political one, that brings greater liberty and peace.
Fortune Favors the Bold
JohnGalt! Double-Guns I love it
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Mises showed early on in
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/ec.htm
the "Impossibility of Economic Calculation" that communism, socialism, etc. can't work for a society as a whole. It works very well for the rulers, the few, and that explains its popularity among elites.
Without a market how can costs be calculated? When does it make sense to mine coal reserves in Siberia? How do you calculate the cost of mining (machinery, railroad cost, etc.) and compare that to the worth of the coal mined? Without a market it's impossible to decide whether an enterprise makes sense.
We can't wish the laws of economics away. If your system violates them, your system can't work.
Yes, and
this is precisely why even a government bent on being "green" will fail if they distort the pricing structure and it will inevitably will lead to waste and inefficiency.
"Government spending cannot create additional jobs. If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.", www.mises.org
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
I'll give it a try,
since I posted a faintly similar thread a few days ago...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/97670
I don't like to call free-markets "capitalism"... Actually, I really don't like any "Ism," if anything, I'd rather it be called liberalism... its a beautiful word which actually fits us pretty well. much better than the "labor" party/ social democrats...
I certainly wouldn't say that Marx was right simply because he assessed the situation well; when, in his solutions, he actually got it all wrong... Marxism (in my understanding) is basically one world government where theres no private land, no property for rebels and immigrants, a central bank with monopoly privilege, no inheritance, a graduated income tax, forced egalitarianism, central planning of industry and economy...
The first problem sounds kindastrange so I'm not going there, but in your second problem, about dumping on my land... do you really think that the police are going to be able to catch you any better than the common property holder (who understands his responsibility of security for his stuff),
I don't claim to be an anrcho-whatever-the-hell, I just don't dig the idea of "Big Brother" more than I fear your dumping on my lawn... if you ask me, there is a middle road there, and its republican gov't where everyone is equal under the law... the natural law.
-Peace and Liberty
"Six Months That Changed the World"
"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"
Zambi: As I said -- I would rather live in an A-Cap Society
then our current Corporatist (or Economic Fascist) Society ;-)
So we are in agreement.
I'm just trying to "refine" our affirmations -- what we think on and project will be the society we end up with.
Affirmations need to be well understood, so a very clear picture of liberty needs to be tumbled in the mind again and again until its made manifest by vibratory force. The mind sends out signals just like a radio -- our thoughts and daydreams effect our speech and intentions.
We need to build our model society they spin it like a twister in our mind until we can articulate it from 360 degrees to anyone who asks.
If you pray and meditate then throw it in there as well -- can't hurt.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Right
"The governments of the peoples included in this world republic, with the aid of the victorious proletariat, all will fall without difficulty into Jewish hands. Private property will then be strangled by the Jewish directors, who will administer the state patrimony everywhere. Thus the promise of the Talmud will be fulfilled, that is, the promise that the Jews, at the arrival of the Messiah, will possess the key to the wealth of all the peoples of the earth."
Baruch Levy in a letter to Karl Marx 1928
They then killed about 50-60 million people, and then took over the US FED in 1913 oh what joy!
http://www.iamthewitness.com/doc/Jews.and.Communism.htm
My karma ran over your dogma~
My karma ran over your dogma~
Octobox, I echo my own previous
comments of appreciation for your continued fresh thinking and productively thoughtful posts.
In the midst of our focus on here and now activism, it is useful to think ahead to where we hope to go. Those we try to educate will grill and judge us by the efficacy of our vision and goals as well as by the accuracy of our objections to the status quo.
I too think we are swimming upstream carrying label baggage that weighs us down. The term capitalism refers just to the capital that is owned in any system, socialist, fascist, whatever. I much prefer the terms free market or market-based economy. I think that clearly promotes the ideas of free people trading voluntarily.
I also prefer Misesian economics to Austrian, since the latter can too easily be muddled with the economics of Austria the country. Or even better, free market economics.
Reedr3v: Well said
The Austrian School has many houses:
von Mises
Rothbard
Rockwell (Rothbard Jr)
Ron Paul
Hayek
Friedman (the Chicago School was an off-shoot or heavily influenced by Austrian Theory)
and others. All of them differing ever so slightly.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I appreciate this writeup.
I appreciate this writeup. Its good to see that someone like myself is exploring all the options and not just taking everyones word for it regarding libertarianism.
I do think that Ron Paul's minarchism allows for courts as he is a constitutionalist, and even anarcho-capitalists believe in private courts.
Ventura 2012
Bmore -- Thanks for that
I will make an update on you latter point.
I meant "Gov't Courts" -- Of course there are private courts.
However, I would make it clear that a private court only has "power" during voluntary mediation and not for "punnitive damage" -- there is no recourse in a Rothbardian or Anarcho-Capitalist society save "force" -- once that door is open all kinds of gangsterism would erupt.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Agree 100%. One way that the
Agree 100%. One way that the anarchists deal with this issue is to say that communities would understand the need for protective services and punitive courts. Therefore, anyone who does not agree to fall under the jurisdiction of the courts and police should they commit a crime would be thrown out of that community. That begs the question, what about the property rights of the person who lives there yet refuses to abide by the rules?
Thats why I just suck it up and support our constitution.
Ventura 2012