So there's this "anarchist" conference...

[KBCraig]

Without government intervention capitalism breaks down...

um ok

so without government i wouldn't be able to produce a product and sell it to someone else.

The subtle point that JEM is making, is that what you're calling "capitalism" is actually "free marketeering".

What most people call "capitalism" today (whether they mean that as a positive, or a negative), is actually "corporatism", where favored people receive government sanction to make profit.

[akmisrmaadi]

Without government intervention capitalism breaks down...

um ok

so without government i wouldn't be able to produce a product and sell it to someone else.

The subtle point that JEM is making, is that what you're calling "capitalism" is actually "free marketeering".

What most people call "capitalism" today (whether they mean that as a positive, or a negative), is actually "corporatism", where favored people receive government sanction to make profit.

"i think the closest thing to what you want is "free-market" capitalism."

free market capitalism... free marketeering. call it whatever you want.

read the posts before you reply

[John Edward Mercier]

Also you would be selling your labor...
Capitalism is a little broader... and not inherent within human society.

[BillKauffman]

Without government intervention capitalism breaks down...

um ok

so without government i wouldn't be able to produce a product and sell it to someone else.

The subtle point that JEM is making, is that what you're calling "capitalism" is actually "free marketeering".

What most people call "capitalism" today (whether they mean that as a positive, or a negative), is actually "corporatism", where favored people receive government sanction to make profit.

"i think the closest thing to what you want is "free-market" capitalism."

free market capitalism... free marketeering. call it whatever you want.

read the posts before you reply

It would be a "freed" market, anti-capitalist system or what is called "mutualism".

[dalebert]

What most people call "capitalism" today (whether they mean that as a positive, or a negative), is actually "corporatism", where favored people receive government sanction to make profit.

I find myself frustrated trying to explain that to people over and over, but I think that's a nice succinct summary right there. A good first step toward explaining, at least.

[BillKauffman]

What most people call "capitalism" today (whether they mean that as a positive, or a negative), is actually "corporatism", where favored people receive government sanction to make profit.

In particular they use privilege, regulations, direct and indirect subsidies as "sanctions" to PROTECT their profits.

The "freed market" is anathema to owners of business because price ALWAYS gets driven to cost and thus squeezes out profit.

[nemoslaw]

I think originally capitalism meant you owned your own labor and could charge for it, which in the pure essence is good, all isms it seems in their pure form have notable qualities, however then came along corporate globalization, time to recreate and get rid of the military!

[John Edward Mercier]

Nope, capitalism was the control of labor through privilege of natural resource...
Unfortunately many equate it with capital - which is the control of one's owned stored labor.

The same things happen with corporations and corporatism...
The corporation is just a collective looking to efficiency of scale and specialization of skills...
Its the act of using political force to acquire undue benefit that is wrong.
And corporatism takes on many formats that at times appear to be socialistic in nature, so there really is no right/left tendency as many equate with our modern renditions of continuum.

[BillKauffman]

I think originally capitalism meant you owned your own labor and could charge for it,

I think this actually describes the original meaning of socialism...you owned the full product of your labor and it couldn't be alienated from the ownership of the tools to labor with.

[John Edward Mercier]

For some reason... that seems off.

Socialism advocates a cooperative or State-ownership of the means of production (tools) with the retainment of the value of the labor. But never developed the philosophy to determine how the cooperative or State came about acquiring the tools.

[BillKauffman]

For some reason... that seems off.

Socialism advocates a cooperative or State-ownership of the means of production (tools) with the retainment of the value of the labor. But never developed the philosophy to determine how the cooperative or State came about acquiring the tools.

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

Only the state via privilege could alienate labor from being "put in possession of it's own".

[EthanLeeVita]

Its a long and complicated history of the meanings of various terms...

[John Edward Mercier]

How has the stored labor received its full worth... if during usage, the individual is separated from it... and suffers possible loss of it?