"Markets Not Capitalism," Says Professor Gary Chartier

[@jwalidea]

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature & not as the gift of their chief magistrate." - Thomas Jefferson

[@DrSanity7777777]

Jefferson was more of an Agrarian than laissez faire. He, like James Wilson, believed that the cultivation of the human mind was the proper achievement rather than the accumulation of property and/or the concentration of wealth. Jefferson believed in citizen ownership. "Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682 www.vqronline.org/essay/i%E2%80%99ll-take-my-stand-relevance-agrarian-vision

[@giosueagius7003]

"Free Market Not Capitalism" Is Mutualism

[@Nightshift10000]

@⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ that’s good to know

[@whinfpproductions94]

And what’s wrong with that? I’m a mutualist myself.

[@James-rv3yh]

Capitalism ≠ free market

[@lordlammi1562]

fuaad Mohamoud hey.

[@ilikeme1234]

Markets are economic ecosystems. They’re essentially feedback loops. All economic systems have markets. When people say free market capitalism they really mean unrestricted capitalism. The only way to create a free market is to eliminate hierarchical structures that influence people’s choices. Capitalism does the opposite.

[@tristanreynolds5135]

@@fuaadmohamed7926 wha-!!

[@MRWHO-gt8zo]

@@ilikeme1234 sound funny since Capitalism isn't for Muh Capitalist and you only show that same ignorant that only the boss is superior and the worker doesn't since look at Hollywood, magazine and so one that you can see rich people being the worker and they move the company behind. If you say, ''what about landowner using their rentier for themselves then the individual worker'' the more they used their low rent to enrich themselves, the less that the employees will feel better in this environment and the lesser value would be brought or the less they would make better work in their job.

[@ilikeme1234]

MR. WHO what?

[@anybody2501]

Holy shit Gary Chartier looks like he smoked a fat blunt before this interview. lol

[@PaddyMacNasty]

He definitely sounds as sober as it's possible to be but his eyes and the way his stare is fixated looks like the most stoned you could possibly be. I think he got so high that he came out the other side.

[@apriori36]

Reading the thumbnail, I knew it was mutualism. A true stereotype of anarchist communists (majority of Antifa demonstrators are) is that we also approve of mutualism to a certain extent. If there was an agreeable middle ground for libertarian capitalists and libertarian socialists, it would be mutualism.

[@jonnymahony9402]

Private ownership of means of production has to go

[@hawks5999]

The state cannot take away rights, it can only infringe upon them.

[@goldendash1527]

@Nyarlathotep So We should enact slsvery...fun.

[@monstr_sauce1569]

@Nyarlathotep "i have a right to the labor of others"

[@wj3186]

Nonsense. The only right any organism is guaranteed in nature is the right to die. Everything else is a privilege. The problem is trying to convince people that privileges (for the most part) should be enjoyed equally.

[@jessiferxoxo]

you cannot demonstrate that any "natural rights" exist. i would like to see you do such a thing.

[@juliaisafilmbuff123]

Woo hoo Gary!! Mutualism > capitalism

[@juanche978]

I agree with you! Mutualism for the win!

[@lhama1187]

Indeed, but I think that Agorism>Mutualism>>>>>craptalism

[@Johny_Locke]

4:55 Individualist Anarchism and Mutualism have always been left libertarian, socialist, anti-capitalist ideologies. This book is more of an outreach to the right to let people know that since Proudhon there's Market Anarchism that isn't just apologetic for exploitation of the workers, wage slavery and inequality like lots of times "anarcho"-capitalists are.

[@sonnybrown4758]

So far, I agree with this guy completely.

[@2emo2function]

"free markets not capitalism" so mutalism

[@postmodpen1169]

dylan newton No, mutualism is a leftist ideology. Free market is free market. 'Capitalism' is a marxist term

[@OjoRojo40]

Capitalims is a marxist idea, BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what are you smoking dude. I don't want any of that.@@postmodpen1169

[@postmodpen1169]

OjoRojo40 i didn't said "idea" dumb fuck. I said "term". learn to read bitch

[@alexdavies7447]

I'm pretty much a mutualist and there are some mutualist writings and references in the book

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

dylan newton mutualism is what inspired American Free Market Anarchists. It’s all anti-capitalist Market Socialism

[@Ko-vb9mq]

The problem with capitalism is that it is inherently consolidative; and therefore a threat to healthy competition. This was the case even before many of the regulations which exist now were passed into law. Antitrust law, for example, wouldn't have been necessary in the first place if capitalism was capable of sustaining healthy competition on its own. Consolidation and artificial scarcity will always be a threat to free markets. Only through an abundance of capital ownership can free markets thrive.

Free markets and capitalism are not synonymous.

Now don't you feel stupid? www.johnlaurits.com/2018/capitalism-free-market-private-ownership/

@Nathan Hausladen ugh dealing with a moron here

If there is a state you can't have free markets you utter moron. Listen to yourself

You are so dumb you don't get that. Free markets and capitalism are two separate things.

[@KittenKoder]

Finally, someone says what I've been saying for a long time, well .... someone who people pay attention to.

[@Nightshift10000]

If you want all the good parts of Mutualism & Anarcho-Capitalism & none of the negatives of either systems, well then there’s some good news for you. That’s call “Agorism” & it’s one of the greatest economic & political ideologies in existence.

[@retrofuturepi]

Agorism is so gemmy. Read new libertarian manifesto if you're interested

[@joekim3307]

Markets and capitalism are separate things. We should not have a market based economy, we should have a resource based economy.

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

and what would that mean? do we just ask the ressources where they would want to go? every economy is about ressources, and so far all i've seen from "RBE" proponents come up with is central planning. which has the two obvious problems of: * how would you make people follow this plan instead if their own interests? * how would we make the central planners act in the public interest?

[@artemiasalina1860]

@@sofia.eris.bauhaus >and what would that mean? Peter Joseph's "Zeitgeist movement." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement Basically it's literal Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism knowyourmeme.com/memes/fully-automated-luxury-gay-space-communism Now, as a Voluntaryist myself, if they want to try it I have no problem with it as long as they don't force others into it. The trouble is that in order for it to even have a chance they would have to conquer the world first, and I'm very much against that. Then it would predictably fail and destroy the world's economy.

[@apriori36]

@Bek'a Markets use resources. Resources run out. Therefore markets run out.

[@magnuscritikaleak5045]

Yeah Zeitgeist.

[@juliaisafilmbuff123]

Proudhon + Tucker > Rothbard

[@mr.jamster8414]

They're all pretty sick tho

[@Anarkyst0]

I hope after 12 years your brain has been developed enough to see how terrible this comment is. Even us agorists disagree with you here.

[@curtd59]

statism + capitalism->corporatism statism + socialism->totalitarianism "The only way to win, is not to play the game." The enemy is the state. The state consists of politicians and bureaucrats. Replace Republican Democracy with Lottocracy. Replace bureaucracy with privatization. Replace our decimated constitution with a stronger one. No politicians, no bureaucracy means both totalitarianism and corporatism are impossible. The state creates corporatism and totalitarianism.

[@juliaisafilmbuff123]

How much does everyone here know about market socialism?

[@InvincibleNumanist]

but no obviously not. For a starters the individualist anarchists predate the AnCaps by over a century.

[@DarkArcticTV]

fucking exactly

[@darthnox72]

InvincibleNumanist www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal-to-Tradition

[@KManAbout]

Not a fallacy. the OP did not say they were correct because they predated ancaps

[@mothafuckinanarchist5392]

InvincibleNumanist Gary is actually closer to a mutualist, so....you're objectively wrong.

[@auntclechris]

@@mothafuckinanarchist5392 He's more in between Mutualism and Individualist anarchism.

[@Mrs.Sardonicus]

This is a very good take, although I feel with the power and concentrated wealth some corporations have that just removing regulation would just allow them to swallow up the market right then and there. There needs to be a kind of spontaneous, radical lib-soc uprising that takes those bastards (corporations and government) all down at once first before there can be any real horizontal structuring.

[@ethanblair7368]

I think we should make a counter market and society. So that it shall eat the current bourgeoisie economically and civilly authoritarian status quo. Because of people naturally perfering freedom despite propaganda. And if the status quo considers this a threat and provokes the rattlesnakes, wasps, and jellyfish of anarchy. A militia of militias shall be radically formed to defend against those who would choke freedom to death. And after the threat is vanished from the earth the militia of militias shall be just as radically disbanded for a standing army is a bored army. And a bored army conquers its own people that it protects. Militaries in a truly free society are only for self-defence of the people. The people rule and protect themselves. And workers should get the sweat of their brow and the economically needy turned into workers and employed for themselves by themselves. And for big industrial projects workers unions, where the workers equally indivdually own the means of production and equally own the product of the mutual collective. For those who are disabled or elderly or insert any other justified exemption from labour, unionable charities work pragmatically and are more pratical than distrubution by need and consider both the labourer and the unable. And freedom of resources, land and, means to be evenly distrubuted and the produce of production on the free market (supply, demand etc.) has to be emphasized because the only fairness for labourer is the labourer owning the sweat of their brow. This is truly mutualism, because forcing even propagandized totalitarian authoritarians to be anarchist is contradictory. Only when these crazy fuckheads attack our version of society is when we can show them the true power of mutualist industry as they meet their swift and shocking demise.

[@OrthoHoppean]

More often than not, corporations lobby for increased regulations and restrictions. They can bear the costs of these new rules, but small businesses cannot. The greatest fear of corporations are competition. Competition forces corporations to reduce prices and increase wages/salaries. Just a small error and a corporation's foothold in the market can be replaced by another more competent firm over night.

[@azoz-so5qr]

@@OrthoHoppean exactly

[@MadBones673]

just remove the corporate welfare and these corporations would collapse overnight

[@dionysianapollomarx]

It can happen simultaneously with the aid of counter-economics. Gradualism first, then revolutionism but if and only if owners of capital cling onto power even after it has been proven that the alternative to capitalism works better without externalities.

[@CommanderLVJ1]

All I can think to put here is that anyone who does not understand why regulation is so important really needs to do their research.

[@lexter8379]

The problem of making the government "smaller" (whatever that means) is simple the fact that it would simply be replaced by the business power. He found the problem, capitalism, but not the core of what makes capitalism capitalism. Private property and undemocratic control of economy. That is the issue. Not that the government has fingers in such such an unelastic good like healthcare, or in public education which has the most value from positive externalities hardly picked by the market. Markets are a fine tool, but cannot be used on every issue, especially capitalistic markets.

[@Anarkyst0]

You are sounding like a statist talking about "bad guys will take over!", and "the people cant be in charge of certain things, that would be bad!"

[@lexter8379]

@@Anarkyst0 I am literary saying that people should be in charge and not just small specific minority that rules everybody else by force. Capitalists are often bad guys but not because of some essential trait, but because they have a social position of domination. If you want freedom you want socialism not capitalism, you want to have equality of power in decision making you want democracy. Not a system where you allowed other people control the society and you with it.

[@thisisfunah]

@RTEvideos The alliance between anarchists and libertarians must solidify in order to restore our freedoms. The fight is NOT capitalism vs. communism. The fight is libertarianism vs. authoritarianism... aka freedom vs. oppression. And no, libertarianism does not mean capitalism, it's merely a flavoring.

[@ridethetiger7669]

Based take

[@DesecrateConformity]

Some individualists are anarcho-communists and genuinely believe that anarcho-communism is the best way to go about realizing unmitigated individual liberty. I know, it's a fatuous, inane stance to take, but some people take it.

[@ericreingardt2504]

It's such a bad misconception that capitalism is the same as free markets. They are NOT. That's like saying the car is the same as the road, the dinner the same thing as the dinner table, or the painting the same thing as the canvas. Free markets are a platform for a wide range of systems. You can have a free market but the producers are all worker co-ops rather than privately owned corporations, for example.

[@GeorgWilde]

Capitalism is a concept so loaded and disputed that it is absolutely not useful for communicating ideas to anyone. This is actually progress for libertarianism.

[@mitchellhudson8338]

That eye contact 😂

[@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207]

So basically, any form of libertariam socialism, but as many of you here in the comments already stated, mutualism.

[@hobbit2245]

If your rights are derived from the state then they're not rights at all, they're concessions. Rights are inalienable, and therefore independent of the state. The state can't give rights, it can only take them away.

[@dirkfvnk]

Kropotkin says some good things though :/

[@Joe11Blue]

I prefer to go by the old standby that if I'm ever caught claiming to be concretely in one position I'm liable to be demonized at a later date when something along the way shows me a different position that makes more sense. In that way I can never be accused of being wrong, but I can be accused of being principled in being rational.

[@BigDaddyDJD]

Why does Chartier looked baked?

[@sugarshane8622]

He very well may be.

[@facultad1000]

law is not state law is the nature

[@mikemat3307]

Free markets are the effect, not the cause of a free society.

[@darris321]

please explain your opinion that anarchy isn't a political philosophy. Why do you think anarchy makes no effort to deliver liberty? Doesn't a non-hierarchical organization necessarily give each member utmost liberty? One would have as much freedom as whoever was on the top of the chain when the system was still hierarchical, no?

[@hobbit2245]

The Declaration has no claim upon the truth. The only way to secure your rights is to take their security into your own hands or voluntarily trade with someone for their protection.

[@suitandtieguy]

speaking as a libertarian analogue synthesiser user and manufacturer, i'd like to applaud this choice of music in the video. i can do without the guitar rock cue for a while.

[@ThorsMjollnir0341]

Antitrust law is concerned with cartels and other anticompetitive conduct, yet activities that are illegal under the antitrust provisions are perfectly legal when a corporate entity uses the government to further their anticompetitive conduct.

[@hob976]

So... He seeks to remedy the misunderstandings about the term "Capitalism" to protect the notion of "Free Markets". . But isn't "Anarchism" a FAR more misunderstood word? (Isn't he an Anarchist?) ...And isn't the notion of "Anarchism" more synonymous with "Free Markets"...? (logically, I mean)

[@freesk8]

@thisisfunah Yep! I'm a minarchist, but I respect my anarcho-capitalist friends. I've heard it said that the anarchists and minarchists are both on the same train, heading in the same direction: less government and more defense of individual rights. The fact that the minarchists want to get off the train one or two stops before the anarchists is only of minor importance. We are both going the same way! :)

[@StatelessLiberty]

@DOHC2L "Anarchy means 'absence of law'." Fail. Ever heard of polycentric law? See my playlist on Law on my channel.

[@InvincibleNumanist]

@jsebastianfilms "Corporations love communism" No they dont. Corporations want just the right amount of statism and just the right amount of freedom. They want enough statism to be able to create barriers to entry and suppress competition, but enough freedom to make a profit without having to give their profit to the public. Communism would be a disaster for corporations, as would a total free market

[@nightpotato]

Fuck yes. This is the libertarianism of the future.

[@vonGleichenT]

I like this whole subject that he wrote about. The point that he mentioned about Businesses not liking competition. Personally, I would think that competition is healthy, and simply better that way.

[@metzger90]

No, without free markets you cannot have a free society. Free markets are a necessary but not sufficient condition for freedom.

[@TheRacistsMustDie]

@JerryThorpeStory But every social system recognizes rights, different, possibly unequal, rights, but rights none the less. If you're talking about equal individual rights then what you said is not called capitalism, but classical liberalism. So honestly I think the old definition is a great definition, in part because it recognizes without any form of moral judgment that slavery could exist in a capitalist society.

[@Tammy-iz5rz]

Capitalism is government preference for capital over land and labor in the means of production. When the government charters/sanction corporations it gives preference to capital. There are no corporations in a free market because the government doesn’t charter corporations in a free market. Capitalism is big government. Free market is small government.

[@Metal_Auditor]

@RTEvideos Anarcho-capitalism is the ultimate form of libertarianism.

[@juanche978]

Nope, there is hierachy, the owners of the companies, so it's not anarchism.

[@copycat042]

@InvincibleNumanist I have begun reading the book. The first chapter makes the same mistake that people like michael moore make. It (so far) has demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of what capitalism is. Moore looks at "rent seeking" and calls it capitalism. Capitalism does not allow for such government favor as regulation to protect market share, or incorporation to limit the liability of a firm. They also seem to want a free market in everything but labor.

[@donald347]

How is inequality a goal of any serious economist? Is everyone equally productive? Then why should they have the same amount of money? Capitalism are property rights, and without rights, there is no market.

[@Kraisedion]

I'm not sure who has ever made a claim that people need to be equal, I'm sure someone has, but even Karl Marx thought someone who produced twice as much should get twice as much. (There are a few, like Kropotkin, but there really aren't that many) The problem with capitalism however is that those who work hard doesn't get much of a reward - this is because someone else owned their labor - not the worker who is being productive. Capitalism is not specifically property rights, capitalism is the right to own and profit of the labor of others. Note: This is not the same as being rewarded for increasing production as a manager, or driving the company as a CEO, it is money purely due to the right of owning the labor of others. This is a problem. If you want to make the case that those who are productive should get the most, then poor people working 3 jobs would be the top earners, not lazy stock owners lazying away while a broker does their trading for them. Obviously, simply working does not mean producing value, and you may find cases of people truly so gifted that they produce the value of hundreds if not thousands, but that has little to do with the issue at hand. As for why economists should care about inequality, that is a strange question. Inequality, in a broad enough extent, is certainly part of the economy and is deeply relevant to how the economy operates - it can also be a direct risk - even cause economic crashes. Furthermore, economics can be applied in more specific ways, for instance how to create a mutually beneficial world - and look at principles of how to create a functioning society with opportunity, growth and even well-being.

[@mtanousable]

@BloodskullMannoroth It is. More specifically, it "explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power." (Amazon description) To basically argue for free markets without delineating that this is NOT capitalism in the common sense would make no sense - you MUST use the common definition ("whatever we have now") to make that argument.

[@faanlouw6109]

Fantastic how easy it is to talk about fundamental issues, yet solutions are not obvious. This guy spoke at length about his book but never mentioned responsibility. Granted, responsibility is not an issue of state control, but personal. Simplifying things is part of the scientific method, but the complexity of real life will not tolerate simplified assumptions. How to cross this issue is a problem that needs attention.

[@InvincibleNumanist]

yes 100 percent. and theres nothing you can do to stop us.

[@acandycoloredclown7005]

Based

[@CabbageNappa]

@DOHC2L The USSR was socialist. It isn't communist- not by definition. Socialism is a stage in the emergence communism in which the state promotes the advancement of a stateless, classless, propertyless society.

[@Joe11Blue]

I'm 100% sure about Emergent Properties. You ever hear of Hayek? Like I said, if you wish to take this somewhere where we can be fully elaborate do pick a place and I will follow. You shouldn't make claims about what Anarchists think, unless you can read our minds all of the sudden.

[@mtanousable]

@BloodskullMannoroth What book? The only book he worked on with the word "Capitalism" in the title is the one he edited titled "Markets Not Capitalism". His other books are "The Conscience of an Anarchist", "Economic Justice and Natural Law", and "The Analogy of Love: Divine and Human Love at the Center of Christian Theology".

[@hobbit2245]

You are, of course, right

[@Johny_Locke]

@luke55664 It actually is. The very word libertarianism was invented by french anarcho-communists and then got picked up by non-authoritarian socialist of the individualist anarchist school. It's the statist right that misuse the word. Libertarianism was always closely associated with Anarchism.

[@KarlSnarks]

And still is in some non-English countries

[@juliaisafilmbuff123]

@DOHC2L The USSR was state-monopoly capitalist. It wasn't even socialist (capitalism = boss controls the MoP; socialism = workers control the MoP).

[@cheesechoker]

@quantumG Showing why they're not what libertarians advocate is important. But most people have no patience for arguing semantic differences. They see "capitalism" and think it means corporatism, bailouts, etc. And who can blame them? Both left & right have promulgated this confusion for decades. Calling free markets "anti-capitalist" might seem provocative, but in that sense it's accurate. Ultimately the battlefield is ideas, not just terminology.

[@ADavidJohnson]

KZbin thought I wanted to see this video after Malatesta. For some reason.

[@retrofuturepi]

He looks absolutely baked

[@evilsceptic]

@BloodskullMannoroth He is actually just using the word everyone except libertarians uses it. I just searched 'capitalism' on google news: all of the results were things like "capitalism saved" or "capitalism in crisis", which clearly refer to capitalism as the current system of economic organisation.

[@zazszdzfzgzhzjzkzlzx]

I'd have to say I disagree; I don't think that language should yield to public ignorance.

[@TeceraOfficial]

Like anyone gives a fuck what a fascist thinks.

[@DrunkenGodMode]

@curtd59 I guess I can side on your point of Capitalism and Corporatism because of the loose terminology for capitalism. One thing that's a little off would be that Capitalism is ownership of capital but a corporation isn't a person. Knowing the perks of a corporation you could see why there is such an advantage. What truly separates this from the free market would be the fact that a corporation couldn't lobby for regulation which helps artificially distort supply/demand to increase profits.

[@Loathomar]

@vonGleichenT If we agree that competition is healthy, the next question is, how do we get there? Businesses does not like competition, and will strive to kill it how ever possible. Free markets do lead to monopolies/oligopolies/cartels, it least in the short term, which can cripple markets and massively hurt productivity. So then what?

[@mtanousable]

@MrCivilLibertarian How is wage labor impossible without the State? Why could I not contract my labor at a set rate per hour (a wage) with an employer even without the State?

[@egoistsolidarity8501]

You could do it, but it would not be to the your employers benefit. In a true free market society the risk of failure would be too high in taking an employee who can collectively bargain his wage and pay them a salary. Instead it would be far better if you were in charge of how to sell your product at optimal value to you and pay your employer for the benefit of supervision.

[@UTubekookdetector]

2:34-3:30 Good point, our health care system is assumed by many leftists (& apparently some Republicans) to be free market and that's just not true. On the state-level, there are 2100+ mandates on the books, health insurance corps must off coverage for X if they want to do business in State Y. Many of these mandates are not utilized by a large segment of the population, but it still increases their premiums. Community rating provisions are particularly bad.

[@bandpractice]

@quantumG Why? It's only a word, why are you so emotionally attached to it. Words are for communication. Why waste time defending an unpopular *definition* of a word. Explain ideas, not words.

[@copycat042]

@InvincibleNumanist I have been thinking about this. Maybe it should be called "Markets: Not Rent-seeking". This would accurately describe the behavior of both the crony capitalists and the social welfare crowd.

[@olican101]

Markets ARE capitalism. We need freedom from both!

[@PinoyBoyRuss]

you can have markets without having private ownership of the means of production.

[@luke55664]

@GompCelticPL Not according to the literal definitions. I have posted/pasted the differences of the two. So argue that with those that have defined the terms as such on wiki.

[@jsebastianfilms]

@InvincibleNumanist I agree with half your statement. Why does every corporation and bank want to do business and headquarter in China? Corporations operate much the same way a communist societydoes; a Bourgeoisie class(executives), a proletariat class(worker). No upward mobility. If there is any (middle management)they push down the proletariat class. Both models think alike.

[@Virtueman1]

I think my headphones shit themselves at the end

[@hob976]

@GompCelticPL Wow. I've never heard a general "anti-hierarchy" position stated before. Where can I find a really succinct description of that idea? Who are it's major proponents?

[@treboleekem499]

Hopefully you found something by now... lol

[@InvincibleNumanist]

@glennd7962 why dont you read the book? They strongly argue against communism in the book, using passages from people like the anarchist coltairine decleyre. Hes an individualist anarchist, not an AnCom. and yeah Locke was outdated.

[@luke55664]

@Shezmu When you say NDAA are you meaning National Defense Authorization Act? I am not one that believes we are not in need of a national defense. I don't know of any libertarians that differ from that belief.

[@curtd59]

@DrunkenGodMode How does that have any impact on "capitalism not corporatism", when he's just substituting market for capitalism, and capitalism for corporatism?

[@MGsven]

capitalism and markets are kinda the same, all we have now is economic fascism. thanks keynes for making things way worse if the govt get involved economically in ANY way, capitalism s gone, its immediatly fascism at that point but i agree with the guys message, lets not get hung up on linguistics

[@luke55664]

@Moragauth If you say so. Your the expert. By now.

[@christhornycroft2731]

The problem with libertarianism is that it's rigid. In some cases, libertarian philosophy DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. To not admit that is to be intellectually dishonest and ignorant. You can be predominantly libertarian and recognize that fact in the real world. It would be nice if a completely and wholly free market were possible, but SOME government has to be required to protect citizens from corporations taking over the economy and rigging the system. That's just a reality. And health care can't be left to the private sector if you don't want millions to die. I used to be a total libertarian until I became aware of these realities. The role of government should be to protect individuals from the overreach in power of big business. Corporations are not people and should have no rights under the law. You get your rights because you're a human being. Government needs to be involved in a modest way to ensure that that is the case in all circumstances.

Chris Thornycroft actually I think the current system is unsustainable and left market libertarianism is sustainable. You are confusing American libertarianism with real libertarianism. Do some research on the history of libertarianism not the American version.

[@ElGringoCastellano]

I'm not sure I would be happy with conceding the definition of Capitalism, conceding semantics, to the Left. I do like the shift to different, non-status-quo-implying language, though.

[@jimisback]

I agree with the stoned guy too.

[@greatleaper]

sounds interesting but I can't wrap my head around free markets not being capitalism. sounds like he's just against corporatism.

[@siginotmylastname3969]

greatleaper the thing is corporatism is the natural result of capitalism as it has been understood historically. Capitalism allows private ownership of the land together with profit incentives to hoard property. Since we don't exactly have an infinite amount of land and everyone has to live somewhere, this degenerated into corporatism, but freed market anarchism generally doesn't involve land ownership and questions other things about capitalist property which produce both government and corporate corruption.

[@KarlSnarks]

@@siginotmylastname3969 The word "corporatism" gets thrown around a lot by advocates of capitalism, but the funny thing is that corporatism is an entirely different ideology of its own. It regards society as a body (corpus) with different interest groups as organs working together. (Representatives of) these groups come together to decide in favour of the common good.

[@Berelore]

Is it me or was his argument of why not capitalism semantic. Capitalism is free markets any thing other than free markets isn't capitalism (what we have now included) he just doesn't like that Americans on the whole are too ignorant to know what capitalism really is.

[@Joe11Blue]

That's hardly the case, because you can't be free without free markets.

[@InvincibleNumanist]

@copycat042 "Capitalism does not allow for such government favor as regulation to protect market share, or incorporation to limit the liability of a firm." Perhaps not in the eyes of the mises institute. But thats not what most of the world believes, including many conservatives who too speak out in favour of "capitalism". hence "markets, not capitalism". Besides semantics, what else is there you disagree with?

[@alby1529]

Holy shit this is 8y old???

[@silvermushroom-gamifyevery6430]

@luke55664 - Okay, this is a complete digression from my point. My point was that maybe libertarians are teaming up with anarchists because things are getting really crazy.

[@TheGoblinoid]

Capitalism: The Damage Control Edition.

[@mtanousable]

@BloodskullMannoroth You are saying he misused the word "capitalism" in his book ABOUT HOW THE WORD IS MISUSED? Are you daft, man?

[@curiositygun93]

COME ON GUYS, USE YOUR IMAGINATION'S

[@JerryThorpeStory]

Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism is hugely superior to the conventional definition of capitalism. The conventional definition is "private ownership of the means of production". This is a very bad definition. It implies slavery is capitalism; slavery is private ownership of the means of production, the means of production in this case being slaves. Ayn Rand's definition emphasizes rights: "social system based on recognition of rights".

[@siginotmylastname3969]

Jerry Story I guess definitions don't have to be historically literate? Also if you think your point is so great, try researching all the products in our daily lives which involve slavery at some point, replacing them with ethical alternatives where possible and watching the price go up. Slaves aren't an essential part of the means of production which is taken to mean land and resources generally, but capitalists use them when push comes to shove.

[@siginotmylastname3969]

And yeah the thing which tends to differentiate capitalism from other economic systems in which the means of production play a role, is that who gets to be in the capitalist class is determined solely by accumulation of private property, rather than hereditary or maybe religious practices.

[@luke55664]

@Berelore We would like to think that anyway. There are many form of capitalism. More accurately, capitalism can subsist in any ethos. Free market principals allow all to participate equally in capitalism. All other forms don't.

[@juanche978]

But capitalist companies are trash

[@ancapistan]

@quantumG Capitalism, as a term, has always been used to explain conditions that actually exist, and not conditions that could exist in the absence of state intervention for the plutocratic class. Capitalism has always been a system of exploitation based on the separation of labor from capital, to keep the mass of people in a servile condition, and the moment we realize how much of our "crony capitalism" is dominated by that same characteristic flaw, the sooner we'd abandon the word.

[@gebatron604]

What's the difference between capitalism and the market?

[@Visfen]

None, this book is just communist word-sell.

[@Visfen]

Bigdawgphilleep Not only have I read the book, I've read Proudhon, Carson, Tucker and others who have contributed to the book. They're not libertarians by any modern definition of the term, they're radical leftists that have in common that they think capital accumulation is a problem. You could call them left-libertarians, but that term is kind of dead and the association with libertarianism would confuse people, since left-libertarians are more like communists than libertarians. As an ancap, they're my enemies and they have more in common with communists than many seem to realize. Sure, the mutualists are critics of Marxism in how it deals with the issues described, but they agree with the percieved problems of class-struggle, alienation and have updated it with post-modernist thought (incluiding things like third way feminism). The contributors to this book believe things like working for a wage is paramount to slavery. It's completely moronic. Don't let them fool you, they're not allies of the libertarian movement, they're enemies.

[@Visfen]

Bigdawgphilleep The subtitle should actually give you a hint. Libertarians are not against bosses. We're not against inequality. We deem corporate power in the market to be a good things and the only crowd I know that accepts structural [anything]-theories are leftists or people with little understanding of the post-modernist rejection of thought. Heck, most liberals don't even accept structural theories, at the very core of that is a rejection of objective reality and the replacement of scientific methodolgy with things like standpoint theory, which is at its core about replacing objective measurement with subjective experiences from select classes of "subjegated" people. It's radical leftism. I don't even know why anyone with a brain associate with C4SS or why Reason even interviewed them. They have about as much in common with libertarians as neo-conservatives, if not even less.

[@Samsgarden]

Guy Potts It's semantics really but he has a point. The latter-day system is not free-market

[@portadordenanismo]

Visfen I don't think you are an anarchist. Why would i, a fellow anarchist, be "your enemy"? Because i believe that the system has dynamics inherent in it that incentive some nasty behaviours and make the state become a tool for control? Just because we sympathize with Feminism and we see hierarchy as a bad thing and a thing that is mirrored in social relations, gender roles and family structure? Just because we think real free markets would gravitate towards coops instead of the crazy theories you guys came up of private police forces protecting mansions or whatever? If you were a real anarchist, you'd sympathize with any fellow anarchist. I sympathize with primitivists and call them my brothers. I sympathize with syndicalists and call them my brothers. I want to sympathize with ancaps but people like you ruin any sympathy i try to gather. It's like all you care about is being an edgy right winger who idealizes psychopaths that run the corporations and banks you love so much and want to stay away for us dirty hippies who see more how the state and it's dynamics influence our lives beyond "overtaxing corporations" as you probably think. In a real situation of economical Panarchism, a situation where there is no state and people would be free to choose what laws and what life they want, the people would sort out what system would work. No movement will build alone any form of anarchism. The only hope for humanity is if we all get together and try to influence people into seeing beyond the bullshit and social constructs and how life could work without a state. But it seems that you're more interested in defending corporations and private propriety and some myth of climbing a corporate ladder because you're worthy and that 'exceptional' people like bankers and CEOs are the reason life is wonderful. Or else why would we scare you enough that you have to call us your "enemy"? Oh, and just a tip. Most of the countries of the world do not call liberals like Ayn Rand or Ron Paul by the name of "libertarians". Only Canada and the United States really. In the rest of the world, people still think of anarchists and the left when they hear "libertarian" and think of capitalism when they hear the word "liberal". When you go out on the internet, you should assume some if not most people are not American. Or else you risk sounding like an arrogant stereotypical american republican from some flyover state or something.

[@copycat042]

@InvincibleNumanist not too far in, yet, the "use as ownership" principle seems problematic, immoral and unethical. This is only from other left libertarian sources so may not be in the book. For instance: if I make a plough and pay you a gold coin to plough and plant my garden, who owns the plough and the garden? If I sell the produce, who owns the plough, and the garden? Why, in each case? I really want to understand.

[@juliaisafilmbuff123]

@mtanousable Try enforcing your ownership of your private property that you don't actively use without the state.

[@Johny_Locke]

@Moragauth Yeah, there are "anarcho"-capitalists and anarcho-"capitalists". Rothbard was ok even tough he wouldn't embrace essential parts of anarchism like opposition to hierarchy (also in the workplace), land lordism etc. But when I hear or read someone like Hoppe talking how great middle ages were I'm seriously like WHAT THE FUCK.