Absolute Capitalism

Capitalism does not, necessarily, require 'no government intervention in the economy.' It's little more than a specification of how property rights are handled; specifically, that the means of production (capital and human capital) are privately owned and may be operated or rented for profit or rent. You have to mix the capitalist mode of production with some kind of anarchist political philosophy to derive the government-is-always-and-everywhere-bad conclusion.

...

Well, whatever. Absolut Capitalism means no gumbit, no social insurance, one ubermegacorporation owning the whole economy, that ubermegacorp employing its own in-house army of professional thugs, an enslaved class of wage-slaves (was that redundant?) and a few rich fat cats at the top of the pyramid lording it over everyone else. Right, guys?
 
In other words, an increasingly centralized ruling class planning and controlling the means of production and distribution.
 
Capitalism does not, necessarily, require 'no government intervention in the economy.' It's little more than a specification of how property rights are handled; specifically, that the means of production (capital and human capital) are privately owned and may be operated or rented for profit or rent. You have to mix the capitalist mode of production with some kind of anarchist political philosophy to derive the government-is-always-and-everywhere-bad conclusion.

And that's the real hub of it. Even Adam Smith was well aware that the system taken to it's extreme wasn't a good idea. A productive idea, but not a good one; he was quite clear about the government being involved.
 
If we put capital controlled by a tiny minority as criterion, Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, and any socialist or communist countries, are in fact state capitalist countries.
 
It's not correct, since capitalism requires that the ownership be in private hands. "State capitalism" is oxymoronic.
 
In this ideal world, the people would already respect property rights; there'd be no need for the government to protect them. Just as in the Communist ideal world, there'd be no need for the government to enforce the system; the people themselves would do it.
Funny, I always thought that government basically is "people enforcing the system". It always boggles my mind how all sorts of anarchists fail seeing this.
Absolut Capitalism would make for a good vodka.
:goodjob:
EDIT: On topic, I would see this as capitalism without any bounds to contractual freedom - i.e no minimum wages, maximum hours, trade unions, safety regulations etc.
Also probably very few state-provided services: i.e. no public healthcare or education.
EDIT2: A terrible idea, obviously.
 
A flat tax funded state dedicated to protecting the negative rights of individuals; in other words, the right to be left alone and have oneself protected from initiations of force upon oneself and one's property.
 
It's not correct, since capitalism requires that the ownership be in private hands. "State capitalism" is oxymoronic.

Capitalism is a system ruled by capital. Be it private or state-owned.

Socialism advocates a public ownership of capital, and a public controlled distribution of products, which were never put into practice on mass scale.
 
A flat tax funded state dedicated to protecting the negative rights of individuals; in other words, the right to be left alone and have oneself protected from initiations of force upon oneself and one's property.

A real flat tax, or that unholy mess that conservatives pretend is a "flat tax" in order to give the rich the biggest tax break ever?
 
How would you define it? I'd define it as no government in business, at all.

That's not capitalism, that's laissez-faire. It only works for the top 10% of the country and I am strictly opposed to it.
Capitalism means that "the means of production" are privately owned, ie that the government is not in the business of manufacturing cars or pants. Capitalism/socialism has nothing to do with workers-rights, safety-regulations or high taxes. As long as the industry is privately and not publicly owned it's capitalism.

Despite what my political compass might suggest I support capitalism and private ownership for almost all industries and economic sectors.
I say almost all because private ownership only makes sense in sectors that allow for competition. Competition is the only method of self-regulation for markets. If some sectors require investments that are so prohibitvely high that only very few companies can afford them or are for some other reason natural monopolies there's no reason they shouldn't be state controlled becasue every monopoly will inevitably be abused.

Edit: Oops, forgot the "absolute" in the OP.
Still mostly the same answer though with the difference that in "absolute" capitalism everything would be privatised, from the schools to the police, to the fire department. It would look a bit like North Korea where a handfull of people live in relative luxury and the majority of the population would be very far below a standard of living a westerner could call decent and they'wouldn't have much of a chance to rise above the social standing of their parents.
 
The former can actually work

Provided you can convince every single person to forsake their innate human qualities of greed and the desire to rise above others, then perhaps it can.

Communism relies on the elimination of "greed", whereas capitalism manages to make "greed" work for the better of all. You can't change the input, but you can certainly change the output. That's why most of the former communists have become "social democrats" - a way to get around saying one is socialist, because otherwise they'd be rejected immediately by the voting masses.

For the simple reason we all know that socialism, Marxism, etc., despite attempting to be secular religions, ultimately have the same result as spiritual religions when mixed with government: the blood, sweat, and tears of all the people it promised to help, as their freedoms are stripped from them and the old oligarchy is replaced with a new one.

and isn't exploitative.

...except if you happen to be one of the people who are naturally superior, by way of biology, and thus are meant to ascend to the upper echelons of society. The exploitation is merely the majority exploiting the minority rather than the "exploitation" commies see between the rich minority and the middle-class majority.

The point with communism is that everyone has what they need to survive, so there's no reason for them to want someone else's stuff.

No logical reason, perhaps. But since when have humans been logical? We are all dirty, greedy, selfish creatures deep down, and while communism and various religious creeds seek to change these raw qualities, capitalism exploits them for the betterment of all. In fact, that's the only thing capitalism exploits: human nature.

But capitalism systematically denies large parts of the population of these things, so there's every reason for them to want the rich's stuff.

Odd, considering Marxist theory requires going through capitalism first. I think it's pretty darned selfish to factor in the greatest evil in one's book into one's plans; if Communism was so perfect, it wouldn't require capitalism first. How can you hate those who will build your great society in the first place?

Funny, I always thought that government basically is "people enforcing the system". It always boggles my mind how all sorts of anarchists fail seeing this.

I was referring to the people at large, not their elected government or any small clique. There'd be no need for the government in either perfect capitalist or communist models, as the system would sustain itself and not require a force to maintain it.
 
It's not correct, since capitalism requires that the ownership be in private hands. "State capitalism" is oxymoronic.
The government is taking the role of the private capitalist here. It's still owned by a single entity.

The former can actually work
Provided you can convince every single person to forsake their innate human qualities of greed and the desire to rise above others, then perhaps it can.
First of all, show me one piece of evidence that says humans have an innate quality to want to rise above each other. I don't feel that at all.

Second of all, there will be no reason for greed because there is no capitalism. Everything is free, so long as you contribute to the community it won't matter how much money you should make, like it would in capitalism.

Communism relies on the elimination of "greed", whereas capitalism manages to make "greed" work for the better of all. You can't change the input, but you can certainly change the output. That's why most of the former communists have become "social democrats" - a way to get around saying one is socialist, because otherwise they'd be rejected immediately by the voting masses.
Capitalism works for the better of all? That's a boldfaced lie. Take a look at the unemployment rate. Take a look at the poverty rate. Take a look at the third world that our corporations are exploiting the hell out of. Take a look at how the corporations have managed to gain the support of nearly every senator and representative we've elected.

For the simple reason we all know that socialism, Marxism, etc., despite attempting to be secular religions, ultimately have the same result as spiritual religions when mixed with government: the blood, sweat, and tears of all the people it promised to help, as their freedoms are stripped from them and the old oligarchy is replaced with a new one.
You're hilarious.
 
Back
Top Bottom