Why is capitalism 'freer' than socialism?

[Imrahil91]

In capitalism, I get my money and decide what to do with them.
In socialism, the state takes my money and decides what to do with them.
I consider the former as the most free.

 

[Merkinball]

When you work for a factory do you get to sell the stuff that you produced? So what right do you have over your own labour anymore? - Aelf

All of it. I won't be signing on the dotted to line sell the product that I'm making. I'm signing on the dotted line to design the product. I'm paid for my work in dollars, so directly selling the product is absolutely irrelevant to me. It's a middle process that I could care less about. I still have the right to work as hard as I want, I have the right to bargain for a higher wage, I have a right to collectively bargain with my fellow workers, I have the right to quit that job if I so desire. I'm not chained to anything, and the ability to sell the products I design is not only irrelevant, but completely undesirable. Salesmen are below me.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Rothbard disagrees http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html

Again. Equity is not equality.


Another problem with Mr. Rothbard is also that his writing stems from the ancient year of 1973, when the world was on the verge of the rapid spread of neo-liberalism. He makes the point that that "..it is not enough for an intellectual or social scientist to proclaim his value judgments – that these judgments must be rationally defensible and must be demonstrable to be valid, cogent, and correct: in short, that they must no longer be treated as above intellectual criticism." This holds very true for neo-liberalism. It already showed in the 1980s, 1990s and this decade.. and the current crisis is a really clear pointer as well. So, using his own logic that "...if an ethical ideal is inherently "impractical," that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. ", we should get rid of neo-liberalism.

I do agree that it is very important to be critical, but we must not forget that ideals and morales are what makes us humans. In fact, it is what allows us to not simply kill each other whenever such an action would be beneficial rationally or emotionally. Second of all, Mr. Rothbard seems to be unaware of the fact that all of his 'neutral observations' are themselves the result of an ideology underpinned by assumptions. In his time criticism of the Keynesian state made sense, today it makes sense to criticise the neo-liberal model.

Finally, I do not see the added value of bringing this man into the discussion. Your side can bring in him, Friedman, Nozick, Hayek, or any other representative of the Chicago School or neo-liberal nests like the Cato Institute, the other side can bring just as many forward that argue the opposite. Both can point to a massive amount of real life evidence that the other is wrong. The big difference is that the men mentioned above operate from an arrogance that assumes their own neutrality, or at least the objectivity of their methods. They even have the guts to declare the Asian Tigers as proof of their theories (ever seen a country with more state-led economies than those?) while ignoring all the heavok left over in 90% of the Third World. Finally, the only answer they have to the huge amount of social and eocnomical problems after massive rounds of liberalisation have been hoisted on poor countries through structural adjustment papers, is that it was caused by not liberalising enough. There's no limit.

Capitalism per se is not freer than socialism. It spontaneously arises in any free society, but it could exist even in the societies which are less free than socialistic societies. Socialism, on the other hand, can’t exist in free society.

Totally depends on your conceptualisation of a free society. If by free society you mean most Western societies today, you are begging the question. If you are referring to freedom of speech and such, combined with a non-capitalist economic model, I do not see why it could not work. Check Latin America in roughly 1000-1500 A.D. Sure, the Quechua (Inca) had a strongly hierarchical society, but they did have a communitary mode of production. At the moment I fail to see how these two are deterministically intertwined, since it is much more about a state of mind and mentality of a people than about the institutional framework of the state.

 

[civver_764]

Cheezy: While I agree with what you're saying for the most part, I've also seen definitions for capitalism that just mean the products, workplace, and means of production are just privately owned. So theoretically the ownership could be split equally between all employees and have the business be run democratically.

Basically, capitalism doesn't automatically imply a hierarchy. You can argue that it will inevitably lead to that in reality though(and I agree with that).

Also, for the last time people, not talking about authoritarian socialism or Stalinism/Leninism or anything like that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cheezy: While I agree with what you're saying for the most part, I've also seen definitions for capitalism that just mean the products, workplace, and means of production are just privately owned.

How does that differ from what I've said?

So theoretically the ownership could be split equally between all employees and have the business be run democratically.

Yes, and that theory is called "socialism."

Basically, capitalism doesn't automatically imply a hierarchy.

Yes it does.

 

[Bill3000]

Yes it does.

Well, you could have a company in which products, workplace, and means of production are just privately owned by its workers. That would still be capitalism.

 

[The Imp]

I'm not really a socialist or capitalist(don't have enough info to have an informed opinion one way or another), but why is it that capitalism is consistently seen as the choice defending freedom? Maybe the definitions I have for the two are wrong, but it seems the opposite to me.

So, right wingers in particular, why is that you think capitalism is freer? Or am I just straw manning and you don't really think that at all?

Because tyrannical governments claiming to be socialist(and communist, but not apart of discussion) have for some reasons become emblematic of socialism, while places like America have become emblematic of capitalism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, you could have a company in which products, workplace, and means of production are just privately owned by its workers. That would still be capitalism.

Only if "the workers" means the business is one or two people and that's it, and they operate it as a partnership. But workers' democracy means the workers own the business together; its not as if the government owns the business and the workers just decide how to run it. Its theirs to do with as they wish, collectively, as a whole.

 

[civver_764]

How does that differ from what I've said?



Yes, and that theory is called "socialism."



Yes it does.

If all the workers privately own the business then it would essentially be capitalism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If all the workers privately own the business then it would essentially be capitalism.

You don't seem to understand what the word "private" means.

 

[civver_764]

You don't seem to understand what the word "private" means.

Explain it for me then.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Explain it for me then.

Private ownership means "by a single person."

 

[civver_764]

Private ownership means "by a single person."

So then corporations aren't privately owned and thus not capitalistic?

I've always taken private to mean not owned by the government or the community(in a stateless society).

 

[Lone Wolf]

I admit, all that "wage slavery", "capitalist tyrant" moaning sounds rather .

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So then corporations aren't privately owned and thus not capitalistic?

You're right, corporations are a unique situation, testament to the great developmental capabilities of Capitalism. There is no Capitalist who runs a corporation by himself, it is administered by a small group of people who make certain key decisions and generally make a crapton of money for it. Corporations by and large run themselves and perpetuate themselves, and are not under the boom or bust careful direction of some whiz of a Capitalist. Indeed, the only thing that a corporation would need to change to become socialist would be wages, since all the workers in the company contribute together to the perpetuation of that organization.

There is a reason why society must be Capitalist before it can become Socialist, and this is part of why that is so.

I've always taken private to mean not owned by the government or the community(in a stateless society).

You were wrong to think so.

 

[Merkinball]

Corporations by and large run themselves and perpetuate themselves, and are not under the boom or bust careful direction of some whiz of a Capitalist. - Cheezy

Are you sure about that?

 

[Archbob]

Of course not, but there is a sense of freedom in equality.

No, forced equality is not freedom. It pretty much kills any incentive for me to work hard.

 

[warpus]

No, forced equality is not freedom. It pretty much kills any incentive for me to work hard.

Most people don't work hard anyway, once they get that cushy 9-5 job with benefits and a milf secretary to boot.

 

[Masada]

They even have the guts to declare the Asian Tigers as proof of their theories (ever seen a country with more state-led economies than those?) while ignoring all the heavok left over in 90% of the Third World.

Reconcile this with this.

Another problem with Mr. Rothbard is also that his writing stems from the ancient year of 1973, when the world was on the verge of the rapid spread of neo-liberalism.

You'll rapidly see the problem. Neo-liberalism hasn't ever been adopted as per the textbook. Most nations adopted it conditionally over a period of decades, a great many are still not finished adopting it. The sea-change isn't in the economic ideology of the states but in the realities of policy making. Keynesian economics fell, not solely because of its own limitations but because the world changed around it. The realities of the post-war world were such that it could be maintained seemingly indefinitely, that reality slowly changed and steadily destroyed the foundations of the old system. A new international system didn't suddenly appear, it was pre-saged by changes inside the states themselves and only then was the external architecture of the new system adopted.

Finally, the only answer they have to the huge amount of social and eocnomical problems after massive rounds of liberalisation have been hoisted on poor countries through structural adjustment papers, is that it was caused by not liberalising enough. There's no limit.

The textbook case of structural adjustment policies being imposed is on the Asian Tigers, which as you've noted were never really neo-liberal in the first place. See the issues?

 

[bender19]

Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I will now proceed to ignore you.

Thank you for your irrelvent opinion.


Moderator Action: Please don't reply to trolling, report it instead. Please, especially, do not flame someone who's trolled you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889