Context for the Bailout - Confessions of a Monopolist

[jaqeboy]

Excerpt from the article: "Wake Up: No Lifeboats for the Little People!"
by David Chu

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/business/economy/news.php?q=1221344556

This excerpt demonstrates the epic failure of modern conservatives and Objectivists to "get it" on the important libertarian issues of history regarding the "capitalists."

What the American people don't realize--those who call themselves "progressives" or "liberals" and those who call themselves "conservatives"--are the new rules of big business which are the old rules of big business discovered by the robber barons of the last century:

"These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant [can you say "Government Sponsored Enterprises"?], franchise, subsidy or tax exemption [I guess the word "bailout" wasn't invented back then!] is worth more than a Kimberley or Comstock [these were fabulously rich diamond and silver mining lodes, respectively] since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation. . . ."

"Mr. Rockefeller may think he made his hundreds of millions by economy, by saving on his gas bills, but he didn't. He managed to let the people of the globe to work for him."

The man who stated this vertible truth should know as he was the power elite financier Frederick Clemson Howe who wrote a book called "Confessions of a Monopolist."

What Mr. Howe didn't spell out for his readers in plain English is that the late Mr. John D. Rockefeller not only did not think that he made his ill-gotten fortunes by saving or by being a frugal capitalist or innovative entrepreneur, but that he made his millions (worth billions and maybe even trillions in today's dollars) by being a cold-blooded monopolist. He made the U.S. government work for him!

Big government is in the business of working for big business! Pure and simple.

[John Edward Mercier]

So instead of capitalism your proposing what? Socialism? Communism?

[jaqeboy]

Freedom

Capitalism is a term affectionately, however incorrectly, used in some parts of the libertarian movement. This misuse was vastly accelerated by Ayn Rand's mis-definition and glorification of it to mean what we refer to as the "free market." The early use of the term "capitalism" by libertarians and other people on the left (ie, those opposed to the Ancien Regime, royalty, the aristocracy, the church) referred to people of great wealth who were wise to the use of the state to benefit themselves and their buddies, ala Howe's techniques. They opposed "capitalism" and favored freedom, individual liberty and free markets. That's where I stand.

Modern libertarians are getting more clarity on this mis-definition in current movement use as they observe things like this bailout (a massive transfer of wealth from the people to the "capitalists", using the techniques described by Howe, modernized/modified to fit the current situation) and contextualize it as a taking from one class to benefit another. If they can't grok that's what's going on, I believe they'll experience some cognitive dissonance and confusion remaining that they'll have to resolve in their minds.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

To me capitalism means a free market. The free exchange of capital for services rendered. Mercantilism/corporatism is what you're ascribing to the definition of capitalism.

[John Edward Mercier]

The funny part is it most often is practiced by the little guy working under the auspice of popular emotion.

[J’raxis 270145]

To me capitalism means a free market. The free exchange of capital for services rendered. Mercantilism/corporatism is what you're ascribing to the definition of capitalism.

The term corporatism was invented after capitalism started shifting in meaning—sort of how we have to call ourselves libertarians after the welfare statists stole liberal.

[jaqeboy]

To me capitalism means a free market. The free exchange of capital for services rendered. Mercantilism/corporatism is what you're ascribing to the definition of capitalism.

I know a lot of people are attached to the term, but the use of the term incorrectly to mean "free markets/free exchange" is impossibly indefensible in conversations with people who use the term correctly. It's an in-the-movement thing that makes communication with "the others" impossible. You can't both be right about the meaning. Ayn Rand set the movement back about 2 generations with her banner-waving for "capitalism."

Libertarians are unapologetically liberal and anti-capitalism. If you read too much in-movement stuff that uses the language incorrectly, but you and your in-movement buddies understand each other, you end up more and more led down a path where you're incomprehensible to others, ie, advocating free markets/individual rights and capitalism (immoral elite statist pillagers creating wars worldwide to build empire and steal others' resources) at the same time.

"Modern liberals" are social democrats at the minimum and full-out state socialists at the max (ie, they are not liberal) and modern conservatives are fascists (pro- big business, no matter what, ie, not interested in individual rights or libertarian issues) and war-mongering nationalists, or even pro-empire.

[John Edward Mercier]

I'm not anti-capitalist.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I know a lot of people are attached to the term, but the use of the term incorrectly to mean "free markets/free exchange" is impossibly indefensible in conversations with people who use the term correctly. It's an in-the-movement thing that makes communication with "the others" impossible. You can't both be right about the meaning. Ayn Rand set the movement back about 2 generations with her banner-waving for "capitalism."

Libertarians are unapologetically liberal and anti-capitalism. If you read too much in-movement stuff that uses the language incorrectly, but you and your in-movement buddies understand each other, you end up more and more led down a path where you're incomprehensible to others, ie, advocating free markets/individual rights and capitalism (immoral elite statist pillagers creating wars worldwide to build empire and steal others' resources) at the same time.

"Modern liberals" are social democrats at the minimum and full-out state socialists at the max (ie, they are not liberal) and modern conservatives are fascists (pro- big business, no matter what, ie, not interested in individual rights or libertarian issues) and war-mongering nationalists, or even pro-empire.

All I see you saying here Jack, is that I (and others that use the term capitalism synonimously with free market) are wrong because the majority have confused the term with mercantilism in modern culture. This is the same argument I've seen from folk about suddenly not using the term "libertarian" because now folk are confused by it connecting it to Bob Barrianism. Sorry, but "capitalism" and "libertarianism"/"libertarian" have real meanings and I'm not going to change language because some statists are trying to co-opt them or because some are confused by them.

[J’raxis 270145]

I know a lot of people are attached to the term, but the use of the term incorrectly to mean "free markets/free exchange" is impossibly indefensible in conversations with people who use the term correctly. It's an in-the-movement thing that makes communication with "the others" impossible. You can't both be right about the meaning. Ayn Rand set the movement back about 2 generations with her banner-waving for "capitalism."

Libertarians are unapologetically liberal and anti-capitalism. If you read too much in-movement stuff that uses the language incorrectly, but you and your in-movement buddies understand each other, you end up more and more led down a path where you're incomprehensible to others, ie, advocating free markets/individual rights and capitalism (immoral elite statist pillagers creating wars worldwide to build empire and steal others' resources) at the same time.

"Modern liberals" are social democrats at the minimum and full-out state socialists at the max (ie, they are not liberal) and modern conservatives are fascists (pro- big business, no matter what, ie, not interested in individual rights or libertarian issues) and war-mongering nationalists, or even pro-empire.

All I see you saying here Jack, is that I (and others that use the term capitalism synonimously with free market) are wrong because the majority have confused the term with mercantilism in modern culture. This is the same argument I've seen from folk about suddenly not using the term "libertarian" because now folk are confused by it connecting it to Bob Barrianism. Sorry, but "capitalism" and "libertarianism"/"libertarian" have real meanings and I'm not going to change language because some statists are trying to co-opt them or because some are confused by them.

Except with capitalism it was the other way around: The word originally referred to a non-free system—not mercantilism, but the feudalistic factory system created in the 1800s. Then the capitalists themselves conflated the term with the free market in order to hide their true nature and gain support among free marketeers.

Another term for "true" capitalism might be industrial feudalism or industrial manorialism.

[John Edward Mercier]

No.
Capitalism has never had a feudalist system... nor has it had true monopolies.
Even during the time of the railroad and robber barons.

These same people would claim that PSNH had a monopoly in NH... never did.
Individuals could have made their own power, PSNH just provided it cheaper... so they opted not to.

Rockefeller and group controlled the railways... people and cargo were and are today free to move by horse and wagon. Just because the railway was more efficient did not make it a monopoly... just a free market choice.

[Sam A. Robrin]

All I see you saying here Jack, is that I (and others that use the term capitalism synonimously with free market) are wrong because the majority have confused the term with mercantilism in modern culture. This is the same argument I've seen from folk about suddenly not using the term "libertarian" because now folk are confused by it connecting it to Bob Barrianism. Sorry, but "capitalism" and "libertarianism"/"libertarian" have real meanings and I'm not going to change language because some statists are trying to co-opt them or because some are confused by them.

What's more, once you've spent all manner of time and energy dithering and debating and finally changing your terminology, the people you were trying to please will just find something else to object to.  It isn't the combination of letters or phonemes that they oppose, it's either the responsibility that necessarily accompanies liberty, or the loss of their perceived power over other people. 
Inaccurate diagnosis = ineffective treatment.

[jaqeboy]

I know a lot of people are attached to the term, but the use of the term incorrectly to mean "free markets/free exchange" is impossibly indefensible in conversations with people who use the term correctly. It's an in-the-movement thing that makes communication with "the others" impossible. You can't both be right about the meaning. Ayn Rand set the movement back about 2 generations with her banner-waving for "capitalism."

Libertarians are unapologetically liberal and anti-capitalism. If you read too much in-movement stuff that uses the language incorrectly, but you and your in-movement buddies understand each other, you end up more and more led down a path where you're incomprehensible to others, ie, advocating free markets/individual rights and capitalism (immoral elite statist pillagers creating wars worldwide to build empire and steal others' resources) at the same time.

"Modern liberals" are social democrats at the minimum and full-out state socialists at the max (ie, they are not liberal) and modern conservatives are fascists (pro- big business, no matter what, ie, not interested in individual rights or libertarian issues) and war-mongering nationalists, or even pro-empire.

All I see you saying here Jack, is that I (and others that use the term capitalism synonimously with free market) are wrong because the majority have confused the term with mercantilism in modern culture. This is the same argument I've seen from folk about suddenly not using the term "libertarian" because now folk are confused by it connecting it to Bob Barrianism. Sorry, but "capitalism" and "libertarianism"/"libertarian" have real meanings and I'm not going to change language because some statists are trying to co-opt them or because some are confused by them.

Except with capitalism it was the other way around: The word originally referred to a non-free system—not mercantilism, but the feudalistic factory system created in the 1800s. Then the capitalists themselves conflated the term with the free market in order to hide their true nature and gain support among free marketeers.

Another term for "true" capitalism might be industrial feudalism or industrial manorialism.

Bingo, except it's not necessary to coin those 2 additional terms. As I was saying to you earlier today in person, I believe that Richard Cobden (an English liberal) coined the term, though in my search of his works, I don't see him laying out a clear definition or making a big deal about his first use of the term. I could be wrong about Cobden, but was advised that he was the first - more research needed.

That mid-20th century conservatives wanted to defend freedom to do business against the upsurge in state socialism is to their credit, but to defend monopolistic capitalism in the same sweep ignored the statist crimes of those louts. Such was the dualistic thinking of the time - Rand followed their lead and erroneously conflated freedom and entrepreneurship with the "producers" she saw big businesses to be, ignoring their anti-liberty/pro-state tendencies. Libertarians take a pluralistic stance, in a sense, and defend the individual entrepreneur's rights against both capitalist criminal statists and socialist criminal statists.

[ByronB]

I think the true root meaning of capitalism is the act of using ones capital (versus working) to make themselves more capital.

So if you are a true anti-capitalists then you have to either
A: Loan things to people free of charge.
B: Never loan anybody anything.
OR
C: Believe in public ownership of all capital (or at least all capital that can be used to create more capital)

So while I will loan friends tools and occasionally money without charging them I reserve the right to charge them whatever I please (as long as they agree to it of course), this makes me a capitalist.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Except with capitalism it was the other way around: The word originally referred to a non-free system—not mercantilism, but the feudalistic factory system created in the 1800s. Then the capitalists themselves conflated the term with the free market in order to hide their true nature and gain support among free marketeers.

Another term for "true" capitalism might be industrial feudalism or industrial manorialism.

References I can read up on you and Jack's original meaning of capitalism?