From: x551_003@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:25:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: University College Dublin

In article <37581@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
> Well, you seem to think that capitalism is the de facto system in
> most areas of the world...let me enlighten you (I hope).
> Before I go on, let 
>  1) A limited government whose sole purpose is to defend individual rights
>     and property rights (which are actually the same thing).
> 
>  2) Lack of government regulations on business transactions, including
>     exportation and importation of goods: no export or import tariffs.
> 
>  3) A stable currency, preferrable based on gold (a stable currency, as far
>     as I am concerned, is the ultimate foundation of capitalism and freedom),
>     and the absence of a government monopoly on currency issue, as well as a 
>     balanced government budget.
> 
>  4) Minimal Taxes to fund the necessary functions of government.
> 
> Note that according to my definition, capitalism does not exist currently 
> in the world...it has already been taken away and replaced by mixed
> economies, i.e., mixtures of freedoms and restrictions on actions, property,
> and business. 
> You are right that capitalism has been unable to develop a significant
> part of the world...it was never given the chance. True capitalism is the
> philosophical opposite of Imperialism...why attack a country with whom
> you trade peacefully goods and services?
> There is no such thing as "state capitalism." Capitalism rests on the 
> principles of freedom and responsbility for one's own life. 
> Wrong. Capitalism is already gone, replaced by massive Welfare States
> and Socialist states. We are on the path towards feudalism again,
> unfortunately.

Ive deleted what you were replying too and a good part of your repliesbecause
they were not relevant too what I want to say.  I think the rest of the stuff
is still in context, apoligies if you do not consider it so.

Your defination of capitalism is interesting but also very restrictive.  I
would define capitalism as any society based on classes where accumulation
plays a significant role.  Under modern capitalism almost anywhere for instance
those who own the means of production (factories etc) be they the state,
corporations or individuals are forced to re-invest a portion of the profits
into new equipment etc. 

What forces them is the need to compete either directly as they are selling the
same product or indirectly (eg Soviet vs US war economies). In reality of
course there are ways of limiting competition by getting a government to ban
imports, forming cartels etc.  The pressure to do this however is part of
capitalsim, because a country does this does notmake it non-capitalist.

Investment can also be indirect.  Taxes for instance represent an investment
for most companies as they are a way to pay for the infrastructure that company
would need but would otherwise have to pay for.  State owned companies are a
vital part of modern capitalism as they provide services like transport,
waterworks which might not otherwise be provided.  Mass nationalisations like
that in Britan at the end of WWII are sometimes used to bail capitalists out
from companies that need massive investment in them.  In short such things are
a integral part of capitalism and have nothing to do with socialism/anarchism. 
Another advantage for the capitalist ofstate owned companies is that they mea
the workers are forced to pay for some/all of the costs of providing
infrastructure for the bosses.  In Ireland multinationals pay almost no taxes
but even low paid workers are on tax bands of 35-45%.

You can of course dream of a 'pure' capitalism where free competition reigns
but in practise this is just a dream.  Tarrifs etc come out of the fact that
countries are run by a very small section of the population (the ruling class)
who have that influence because they are wealthy capitalists.  They may quarrel
over what degree of state intervention is in their interests but when it comes
to the crunch they will want and fight for a state which protects their
interests.

Imperialism is the highest expression (to quote Lenin on oe of his better days)
of normal capitalist competition.  After all if you are being outcompeted by a
company in another country why not knock the other company out of business by
changing the rules of trade in your favour.  If this does not work get your
country to invade and put them out of business.  If a country is threatening to
nationalise one of your branches their just get your government to invade to
stop them doing so.  If you need acess to cheap raw materials/labour force etc
why not get your governemt to set up a puppet regime elsewhere.  Central
Ameriaca has traditinally been forced into this role by US foreign policy. 
Ireland was forced into a similar relationship by England for many years.

Anyway as I hope I have demonstrated state capitalism is not only possible but
logical for the bosses in the modern epoch, nationalisation is compatable with
capitalism (and not particularly socialist, and imperialism is the logical
outcome of capitalist competition and not at all contradictory).  You may have
a different idea about how capitalism should work but the rest of us are
forced to operate in a world where it is a reality rather than a theory.