4 ms·

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.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I've yet to find a single instance of a coercive monopoly in history that wasn't enforced by a mechanism akin to royal patents. It doesn't help that much of the written record on which belief in the existence of coercive monopolies was based came from the Hearst newspapers - which were a sort of monopoly ( or at least a rather large amalgamation ).

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.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

I've yet to find a single instance of a coercive monopoly in history that wasn't enforced by a mechanism akin to royal patents. It doesn't help that much of the written record on which belief in the existence of coercive monopolies was based came from the Hearst newspapers - which were a sort of monopoly ( or at least a rather large amalgamation ).