Spring Hill, FL, Wednesday, October 22, 2008:
Socialist Party presidential candidate Brian Moore will speak on “Socialism for America,” on Friday, October 24, 2008, from 1 to 3 PM, at the new Spring Hill Branch Library, 9220 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida 34608. (Main meeting room).
Moore will address the attributes of Socialism, its rich history in the United States, how it compares to Capitalism and how the United States can transform its economy to a socialist economic system in the next four years.
The socialist presidential candidate also accuses both major parties of misleading the public about socialism; plus, he says Obama and the Democrats are No Socialists!
Charles Jay, from the Boston Tea Party, another minor party presidential candidate, will also be in attendance, accompanied by a British television documentary team, filming third party candidates in the state of Florida. Moore said he will attempt to invite Mr. Jay to defend the capitalistic system during Moore’s presentation.
Via definition #4, capital is inherently privately owned.
I don’t think so. Socialism employs commonly owned capital: any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.
How would production take place otherwise?
Suppose you have land, labor and time.
Can you use that to manufacture steel, VCRs, computers, telephones, satellites, etc, without capital? How would you do that?
Land (earth resources, raw materials) and labor are factors of production, but they are not unique to capitalism. Capital is. Via definition #4, capital is inherently privately owned. Capitalism is thus the process in which the unique factor of capital, in addition to the common factors of land and labor, is employed in the rational self interests of its private owners to create more wealth. Anything that does not fit that bill (i.e. intervention) is not capitalism.
Marx’s use of the term was invalid. The definition of capital is incompatible with Marx’s capitalism.
BTW, there are several amusing and even sympathetic stories on this in the Florida press, such as:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article866862.ece
“Who would sasve his country must first rectify the meaning of words”-Comfucius, Analects
Capital is one factor of production, along with labor, land, time (there may be more I am not remembering off the top of my head).
Production can’t happen without all of them, so why would capitalism, laborism, landism, etc., be political ideologies? The political use of the term capitalism is divorced from the concept of capital in economics, although it evolved from it.
It matters not what Thackery or Marx meant. It’s the capital in capitalism that matters:
Definitions:
4. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.
5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.
6. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.
Debt is not wealth, and therefore we do not have capitalism.
The term “capitalism” was coined by Thackeray and popularized by Marx to refer to a state-regulated mixed/industrialized economy, not to the free market.
Advocates for state socialism have always found it easier to put the free market and “capitalism” in the same basket, because then they can discredit the free market by arguing against “capitalism.” Guilt by false association, so to speak. Indict capitalism — including its history of corporate influence over government going one way and favors coming back the other — and the free market is also indicted to the extent that it is falsely associated with those things.
Modern libertarians, especially those under the influence of Ayn Rand, haven’t resisted this ideological sleight-of-hand — and we’re worse off for having allowed ourselves to be manipulated in that way.
The whole problem is that the meaning is not clear.
The word capitalism has always had a dual meaning, which serves to get people to oppose a free market who wouldn’t oppose it otherwise, and gets other people to support corporatism who would otherwise oppose it. This is by design.
The term used to refer to a thing is not the same as the thing itself. “Capitalism” and “the free market” can refer to the exact same thing; they can also refer to different things. Ditto “liberal”, “conservative”, “libertarian” — pretty much any political term around.
Tom made a blanket assertion that “capitalism” refers to a state-regulated economy. This is false — it does not necessarily mean that because that is not how the term is always used (e.g. anarcho-capitalism). He then pointed out that Marx popularized the term, which is irrelevant. Finally, he asserted that the current system is equivalent to capitalism, which many would dispute. There is nothing that proves capitalism != free market, because it is not possible to prove that.
Words are defined by their usage. Usage of the word “capitalism” is perfectly relevant as long as the meaning is clear.
Even if one prefers to call “capitalism†the “free marketâ€,
The point was that they are two different things. I though Tom did an excellent job of making that abundantly clear.
it’s not wise to demonize “capitalism†because it undermines past work by libertarians and economists. It’s been called “capitalism†for ages, it’s too late to undo that.
The whole point was that libertarians have been mispositioned into defending the wrong thing for “ages” (well, OK, decades). It’s not too late to undo that, and it needs to be done, or we will continue to go nowhere, cut off from our natural constituency, our longer term history, and the logical and real world basis for our beliefs.
See
http://mises.org/story/2099
Long, but well worth it.
Even if one prefers to call “capitalism” the “free market”, it’s not wise to demonize “capitalism” because it undermines past work by libertarians and economists. It’s been called “capitalism” for ages, it’s too late to undo that.
Personally, I rarely use “capitalism”. I tend to say “free market” when I mean free-market capitalism, I say “interventionism”/”corporatism” for the middle-ground, and “socialism” for full-out leftism.
Though, even when I say “free market”, I mean it in a capitalist sense — I don’t feel like obliging mutualism or other so-called “free market” flights of fancy.
You agree on far more than you disagree on.
Andy,
Holy $#Wt! We agree on something!
“I hope that Mr. Jay will defend the free market as opposed to “capitalism,†and point out that:”
I was going to say the same thing.
Sounds interesting.
I hope that Mr. Jay will defend the free market as opposed to “capitalism,” and point out that:
a) “Capitalism” refers to a state-regulated mixed economy, not to laissez-faire;
b) “Capitalism” has always been defined largely in socialist terms (Marx popularized the word); and
c) That many of the failures of the existing system (which is somewhere in transition between Marx-defined “capitalism” and Burnham-defined “managerialism,” if not totally into the latter phase, which invalidates Marx’s theory of historical progression) are noted and opposed by libertarians and socialists alike (its “crony” aspects, corporate personhood, etc.).
Defense of “capitalism” as opposed to a free market by libertarians has always been a mistake on the part of libertarians, akin to allowing socialists to seize the high ground without even bothering to contest it, and then hurling ourselves forward in assault on their hill — occupied by people often at least partially naturally allied with us — on behalf of people often at least partially naturally opposed to us.