3 ms·

Capitalism is free competitive markets and inability to lobby the government into protecting coercive monopolies. I don't know if anywhere in the world pure cap

Capitalism is free competitive markets and inability to lobby the government into protecting coercive monopolies. I don't know if anywhere in the world pure capitalism exists.

bad_user 11y ago
Many monopolies are natural and the free market concept isn't infallible. That a truly free market doesn't exist might hint that it's not possible. True communism has never happened either.
- atemerev 11y ago
  This is why I mentioned _coercive_ monopolies. Natural monopolies are OK (e.g. Google search), as long as nobody tries to protect them by law and force.
  - kristofferR 11y ago
    How do you define force? If natural monopolies are left unchecked to grow in power, how can you be sure that they won't become powerful enough to use force to protect their or their cartels' interests?
    - atemerev 11y ago
      Because the ability to use force is generally a monopoly of the government, precisely for that reason. A better question would be "how can I be sure that capitalists and government won't cooperate for establishing monopolies"? For that, I don't have an adequate answer. At least, in capitalism, there are competitors lobbying against it, creating some virtual political market. Full government monopoly is generally much worse.
      - kristofferR 11y ago
        I think we disagree on the definition of force. I don't think of force as just the power of law, but also the power of size and power. A natural monopoly could, without any government interference or help, exert a lot of the same coercive tactics a government-supported monopoly can. With a large enough size, a natural monopoly could make the barriers of entry for any potential competitor so insurmountable that it would have the same effect as making competition illegal.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Yes, but once a monopoly happens, that market is no longer free, competition becoming impossible without regulation. A monopoly can also supply virtually unlimited resources for expanding in other markets without breaking any antitrust laws. The only thing that can break monopolies naturally is technologicall progress, because only new technologies can make older monopolies obsolete. But then again, relying on a constant stream of innovation to keep our economy from collapsing seems like a losing battle. And also, lately technology is all about making rich people richer and poor people poorer. So much for hope.
    - atemerev 11y ago
      Why you can't compete with Google? It is a monopoly, but there are some competitors (Bing, DuckDuckGo). One misstep from Google, and its monopoly is lost.
      - bad_user 11y ago
        You can't seriously claim Bing and DuckDuckGo are competition. Bing only survives because Microsoft has deep pockets, a result of their monopolies and huge war chest of course. It now powers Yahoo's Search (since their own search engine is long dead) and DuckDuckGo. You see, DDG is nothing more than a glorified UI over Bing's infrastructure. And no, competing with Google Search isn't possible, unless you're Microsoft and like to play pretend.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        rtehfm 11y ago
        You don't think that Google search enjoys being on hundreds of million devices? Remember 1999-2001 when Google unseated Yahoo from the king of search? It was a feat that seemed impossible when you had established search engines like Lycos, Ask Jeeves, Excite, DogPile, etc. all competing in the space. As with most industries and its enterprises, you'll always have an event horizon and then singularity until markets are saturated and the industry becomes irrelevant to the consumer.
  - conjectures 11y ago
    Why would natural monopolies be OK in general? The screwed up train system in the UK is a natural monopoly under lax regulation. It means we face high fares, bad service and low investment.
    - atemerev 11y ago
      Railroads are doomed anyway (except maybe cargo, though self-driving trucks can change that), when London to Paris plane ticket can bought for £30. Lost cause. This is possible because railroads are hierarchical, and all other means of travel are point-to-point. Networks always win against hierarchies.
kristofferR 11y ago
Isn't pure capitalism also the inability of the government to prevent/dissolve coercive monopolies?
- atemerev 11y ago
  No. This notion originated in the theory of none other than Vladimir Lenin, who took Marx framework and extended it. See his famous "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" essay. While this essay is not without merit, I doubt that Lenin can be counted as the expert on what capitalism is.
  - kristofferR 11y ago
    That's basically a reverse appeal to authority. "Lenin had that idea and Lenin was a bad guy" isn't a real argument on why you disagree with the idea. Please explain why, I'm actually interested in understanding your point of view.
    - atemerev 11y ago
      Because using government power (and physical force in general) to coerce people into using some product or service isn't a free market anymore, and therefore isn't capitalism. In the US (arguably still the freest economy in the world), there is no free market in healthcare, education, and other heavily regulated sectors — not without the influence of current market monopolies willing to keep the status quo. So, Lenin was right in that capitalism can easily evolve into government cronyism if left unchecked. But then it isn't capitalism anymore.
      - kamaal 11y ago
        >>Because using government power (and physical force in general) to coerce people into using some product or service isn't a free market anymore, and therefore isn't capitalism. This is precisely what British East India Company did in India. >>So, Lenin was right in that capitalism can easily evolve into government cronyism if left unchecked. But then it isn't capitalism anymore. Capitalism or Communism, the issue is accumulation of a lot of power in a few hands. Once that happens, things are basically done for the benefit of a few banks/dictators/rulers and then things start going downhill from there.
icebraining 11y ago
Capitalism is more specific than that; you also need private property, including of firms.
- atemerev 11y ago
  Free markets mean free trade. You can't freely trade anything without private property, can you? A corporation is just the convenient legal form to aggregate earnings and liabilities from cooperative action.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Many people have written about markets without capitalism; this book includes a nice collection of writings on that topic: http://distro.libertarianleft.org/for/bookshelf-of-the-libertarian-left/chartier-and-johnson-markets-not-capitalism/?referredby=c4ss.org http://distro.libertarianleft.org/for/bookshelf-of-the-liber...
spriggan3 11y ago
> Capitalism is free competitive markets and inability to lobby the government into protecting coercive monopolies Isn't more the definition of classical liberalism rather than capitalism as an economical system ? Because you could argue that China's economy is capitalist yet there is virtually no difference between the state and most of the Chinese industry.
WalterSear 11y ago
It only describes a temporary state of events. A free market gets sold, or it's not a free market.

Capitalism is free competitive markets and inability to lobby the government into protecting coercive monopolies. I don't know if anywhere in the world pure capitalism exists.

bad_user 11y ago

Many monopolies are natural and the free market concept isn't infallible. That a truly free market doesn't exist might hint that it's not possible. True communism has never happened either.

atemerev 11y ago
This is why I mentioned _coercive_ monopolies. Natural monopolies are OK (e.g. Google search), as long as nobody tries to protect them by law and force.
- kristofferR 11y ago
  How do you define force? If natural monopolies are left unchecked to grow in power, how can you be sure that they won't become powerful enough to use force to protect their or their cartels' interests?
  - atemerev 11y ago
    Because the ability to use force is generally a monopoly of the government, precisely for that reason. A better question would be "how can I be sure that capitalists and government won't cooperate for establishing monopolies"? For that, I don't have an adequate answer. At least, in capitalism, there are competitors lobbying against it, creating some virtual political market. Full government monopoly is generally much worse.
    - kristofferR 11y ago
      I think we disagree on the definition of force. I don't think of force as just the power of law, but also the power of size and power. A natural monopoly could, without any government interference or help, exert a lot of the same coercive tactics a government-supported monopoly can. With a large enough size, a natural monopoly could make the barriers of entry for any potential competitor so insurmountable that it would have the same effect as making competition illegal.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Yes, but once a monopoly happens, that market is no longer free, competition becoming impossible without regulation. A monopoly can also supply virtually unlimited resources for expanding in other markets without breaking any antitrust laws. The only thing that can break monopolies naturally is technologicall progress, because only new technologies can make older monopolies obsolete. But then again, relying on a constant stream of innovation to keep our economy from collapsing seems like a losing battle. And also, lately technology is all about making rich people richer and poor people poorer. So much for hope.
  - atemerev 11y ago
    Why you can't compete with Google? It is a monopoly, but there are some competitors (Bing, DuckDuckGo). One misstep from Google, and its monopoly is lost.
    - bad_user 11y ago
      You can't seriously claim Bing and DuckDuckGo are competition. Bing only survives because Microsoft has deep pockets, a result of their monopolies and huge war chest of course. It now powers Yahoo's Search (since their own search engine is long dead) and DuckDuckGo. You see, DDG is nothing more than a glorified UI over Bing's infrastructure. And no, competing with Google Search isn't possible, unless you're Microsoft and like to play pretend.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - rtehfm 11y ago
        You don't think that Google search enjoys being on hundreds of million devices? Remember 1999-2001 when Google unseated Yahoo from the king of search? It was a feat that seemed impossible when you had established search engines like Lycos, Ask Jeeves, Excite, DogPile, etc. all competing in the space. As with most industries and its enterprises, you'll always have an event horizon and then singularity until markets are saturated and the industry becomes irrelevant to the consumer.
- conjectures 11y ago
  Why would natural monopolies be OK in general? The screwed up train system in the UK is a natural monopoly under lax regulation. It means we face high fares, bad service and low investment.
  - atemerev 11y ago
    Railroads are doomed anyway (except maybe cargo, though self-driving trucks can change that), when London to Paris plane ticket can bought for £30. Lost cause. This is possible because railroads are hierarchical, and all other means of travel are point-to-point. Networks always win against hierarchies.

kristofferR 11y ago

Isn't pure capitalism also the inability of the government to prevent/dissolve coercive monopolies?

atemerev 11y ago
No. This notion originated in the theory of none other than Vladimir Lenin, who took Marx framework and extended it. See his famous "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" essay. While this essay is not without merit, I doubt that Lenin can be counted as the expert on what capitalism is.
- kristofferR 11y ago
  That's basically a reverse appeal to authority. "Lenin had that idea and Lenin was a bad guy" isn't a real argument on why you disagree with the idea. Please explain why, I'm actually interested in understanding your point of view.
  - atemerev 11y ago
    Because using government power (and physical force in general) to coerce people into using some product or service isn't a free market anymore, and therefore isn't capitalism. In the US (arguably still the freest economy in the world), there is no free market in healthcare, education, and other heavily regulated sectors — not without the influence of current market monopolies willing to keep the status quo. So, Lenin was right in that capitalism can easily evolve into government cronyism if left unchecked. But then it isn't capitalism anymore.
    - kamaal 11y ago
      >>Because using government power (and physical force in general) to coerce people into using some product or service isn't a free market anymore, and therefore isn't capitalism. This is precisely what British East India Company did in India. >>So, Lenin was right in that capitalism can easily evolve into government cronyism if left unchecked. But then it isn't capitalism anymore. Capitalism or Communism, the issue is accumulation of a lot of power in a few hands. Once that happens, things are basically done for the benefit of a few banks/dictators/rulers and then things start going downhill from there.

icebraining 11y ago

Capitalism is more specific than that; you also need private property, including of firms.

atemerev 11y ago
Free markets mean free trade. You can't freely trade anything without private property, can you? A corporation is just the convenient legal form to aggregate earnings and liabilities from cooperative action.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Many people have written about markets without capitalism; this book includes a nice collection of writings on that topic: http://distro.libertarianleft.org/for/bookshelf-of-the-libertarian-left/chartier-and-johnson-markets-not-capitalism/?referredby=c4ss.org http://distro.libertarianleft.org/for/bookshelf-of-the-liber...

spriggan3 11y ago

> Capitalism is free competitive markets and inability to lobby the government into protecting coercive monopolies Isn't more the definition of classical liberalism rather than capitalism as an economical system ? Because you could argue that China's economy is capitalist yet there is virtually no difference between the state and most of the Chinese industry.

WalterSear 11y ago

It only describes a temporary state of events. A free market gets sold, or it's not a free market.