From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.203639.17059@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.153509.3802@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)  
>writes:
>
>> However, to suggest a mixed economy is to suggest that the corporate sector
>> is less than completely in control. The state they have constructed to
>> service their profiteering does not make the economy somehow socialist. Thus
>> I find the idea of "mixed economy" a little dubious. 
>
>Yes, the good old left's "conspiracy of the capitalist". This ranks up there  
>with the internationalist jewish banking conspriracy.  
                             

Who said anything about conspiracy?
Do you have a conspiracy about conspiracy theories lurking everywhere 
or something?


>> State capitalism is where the corporate elite design the state to service
>> their profit system. For instance the  setting up of an unemployment
>> and welfare system  is designed to streamline the disgruntlement of the
>> dispossessed without seriously interrupting the flow of capitalism. In fact,
>> capitalists require a state to maintain their present system, and the talk
>> of libertarians about abolition of the capitalist state is mere silliness. 
>> Imagine what would happen to the capitalists without a welfare system or a 
>> ready pool of unemployed labour.
>> 
>
>Oh, fascinating, the bulwarks of European socialism are now a capitalist  
>conspiracy? 


Who said anything about conspiracy?


>> No, there is a name for feudalism. It is feudalism. There is no need to
>> confuse the relations of production under feudalism with those under
>> capitalism or socialism. You should step a little outside your own dogma
>> and see if there has been anything other than *two* systems over the last
>> 10,000 years. Even most libertarian theorists don't pretend that there
>> was nothing before Adam Smith.
>
>Good.  Feudalism is not a form of socialism even though it held to state  
>control and ownership of the means of production. I'll accept that. Now why  
>can't you see that you insist on using the same dogmatic arguments to describe  
>statist governments as capitalist systems when they operate under non free  
>markets? Lenin allowed some free markets in the 20's does that make him a  
>capitalist lackey?  

It is one thing to say that feudalism was a form of statism. It is quite 
another to claim it is a form of socialism.
There are all sorts of kinds of states; not all of them are socialistic.


>> I'm not saying there was success, only that the "most successful" sectors
>> in terms of profit realization, were the two I mentioned.
>> So let's hear you denounce Reagan as a sellout to capitalism then, instead
>> of remaining mute about his policies. Let's see you FIRST on the barricades
>> denouncing US foreign intervention and military aggression. What did you
>> do during the Persian Gulf War, for instance?
>> Come on, you can do it: "Reagan was a closet commie", "Bush is an 
>> imperialist butcher", etc etc....  
>
>Why do you automatically assume that I don't? If you want to go off on a tirade  
>denouncing Reagan and Bush have at it. The subject was libertarianism not  
>conservatism. 


Well let's hear it then. How do you define Reagan and Bush (not forgetting
what you called them in the past, of course...)?


>> I find that most libertarians end up accepting
>> that the Reaganite elite was not made of "pure" capitalists, but rarely do
>> they denounce the US economic/political system consistently. Only when
>> convenient. Otherwise they defend the US as a bastion of freedom and  
>capitalism,
>
>You take what you can get.  Better this than those wonderful people's  
>democracies. Since the left in this country can't bring themselves to denounce  
>any of the atrocities of the Soviets and their allies I don't lose any sleep  
>over my lack of self hate.  


Aha! "Better than those wonderful people's democracies", eh? I guess
that is the limit of your criticism of the statists Bush and Reagan, then?
And then, of course, you leap to the critique of the USSR etc etc etc.
In predictable form, etc etc etc..... 
So capitalist states are really bad, but "at least they are better than...."
etc.



>> Where I disagree with the ideological libertarians, is their justification
>> of private property (ultimately they agree that there is no theoretical
>> foundation other than the use of force for the concept) and thus their only
>> resort is to state that "That's the way the world is!" and I also disagree
>> with their claim  that capitalism does not inevitably 
>> lead to monopolization and thus the "abolition" of the free market.


>Since you don't like the concept from what appears to be an emotional level  
>there is no way you would allow someone to convince you otherwise. Force is not  
>the foundation of private property. Force is the province of the totalitarians  
>and the statists.  Every time you argue against the capitalists you bring state  
>force into the picture to be used by the nefarious capitalists against the  
>common man.  You still can't see that the state, either left or right is the  
>problem not the solution.  
                                  

 Where on earth is the emotionalism in my statement?  Please point it out
 before you go any further...

 We've gone into the origin of private property in other posts, and all
 libertarians have agree that force is the origin of the concept of 
 private property. That is an historical fact. Most libertarians simply
 state that "that is the way the world is" and leave it at that. But
 I would be interested in your further exploration of the issue....

 But you misread me.
 As a matter of fact I am critical of the state, both left and right, but
 you seem too blind to see that.


 Frank.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:15030 misc.headlines:5712 alt.desert-storm:1714 talk.politics.misc:40440