5 ms·

The World Bank pushes privatization of infrastructure, natural resource extraction, agricultural resources, etc. the IBRD's Articles of Agreement explicitly id

The World Bank pushes privatization of infrastructure, natural resource extraction, agricultural resources, etc. the IBRD's Articles of Agreement explicitly identify "promoting private investment by private investors" as a goal. If that's not part and parcel with capitalism, I'm not really sure what is. Perhaps you protest the other investments WB makes, which fall under its goal of producing "suitable conditions" for private investment (in practice, that means sucking governments dry until/unless they agree to privatization and occasionally ousting non-capitalist leaders from power.) But saying that capitalism stops being capitalism as soon as private investment starts controlling governmental decisions is just defining your way out of a very real and substantive critique of capitalism. Reality and real problems don't go away just because you're being pedantic about the definition of capitalism. The World Bank may not embody "your" capitalism. But by any reasonable definition that avoids this sort of No-True-Scotsman distinction, the World Bank is aggressively capitalist. And certainly the bankers describe themselves (earnestly!) as capitalists. So instead of saying "that's not capitalism", we should discuss whether any system which deifies private investment will eventually end up with organizations like the World Bank. And how to curb those excesses. (Also, the world bank is not really a central bank. If the World Bank is a central bank then we might as well call any very large bank a central bank as well. In both cases, there are analogies but also important distinctions.)

djschnei 9y ago
Would you not agree that distinguishing between free-market capitalism and crony-capitalism brings important value to the discussion? The inclusion of government force or government collusion is hardly a secondary consideration. The ability to wield what is essentially a monopoly on force, is THE most important factor when discussing capitalism vs cronyism. The world bank is the physical embodiment of cronyism, and I maintain, not capitalism. I think it's kind of BS that you can point to THE distinguishing factor between something I argue for and something I argue againsts and say "pedantics"...
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Would you not agree that distinguishing between free-market capitalism and crony-capitalism brings important value to the discussion? As I said, >> saying that capitalism stops being capitalism as soon as private investment starts controlling governmental decisions is just defining your way out of a very real and substantive critique of capitalism Money can buy political power, and in a system that incentivizes profiteering, that political power will eventually be used to generate profit. You call that cronyism. I claim it's the logical conclusion of human nature unfolding within an unabashed free market. You're more than free to re-define terms, but it doesn't change the reality that free market systems invariably cycle through periods of cronyism. Playing around with the definition of capitalism is terminally non-responsive to the claim that free markets, given enough time, invariably breed this style of cronyism. It's like claiming that sugary/fatty foods can't cause coronary artery disease because heart disease is caused by plaque. Technically true, but literally everyone's response is going to be an eye-roll. > The ability to wield what is essentially a monopoly on force Ugh. There's no such thing as a "monopoly on force". It's literally the great equalizer among not just humans but all organisms. You're more than free to go out and build an unbeatable military and take down the evil crony-(not?)-capitalist world order. Who's gonna stop you? If you can't or won't build up the resources and mind share to do so, well, welcome to reality.
  - djschnei 9y ago
    Completely illogical... > You call that cronyism. I claim it's the logical conclusion of human nature unfolding within an unabashed free market. A free-market is reliant on government power to protect/enforce property rights. You claiming a system which strictly enforces property rights always leads to a system which disregards property rights is absurd. Are you arguing that in order to keep people from wielding governmental power against others, we need to strengthen government? Really? Why not make it so government power being wielded is a non-issue? > It's like claiming that sugary/fatty foods can't cause coronary artery disease because heart disease is caused by plaque. Technically true, but literally everyone's response is going to be an eye-roll. A terrible analogy... What you're arguing is that a diet that avoids sugary/fatty foods will cause heart disease because people end up ignoring diets. That's not a good argument against dieting...

djschnei 9y ago

Would you not agree that distinguishing between free-market capitalism and crony-capitalism brings important value to the discussion? The inclusion of government force or government collusion is hardly a secondary consideration. The ability to wield what is essentially a monopoly on force, is THE most important factor when discussing capitalism vs cronyism. The world bank is the physical embodiment of cronyism, and I maintain, not capitalism. I think it's kind of BS that you can point to THE distinguishing factor between something I argue for and something I argue againsts and say "pedantics"...

throwawayjava 9y ago
> Would you not agree that distinguishing between free-market capitalism and crony-capitalism brings important value to the discussion? As I said, >> saying that capitalism stops being capitalism as soon as private investment starts controlling governmental decisions is just defining your way out of a very real and substantive critique of capitalism Money can buy political power, and in a system that incentivizes profiteering, that political power will eventually be used to generate profit. You call that cronyism. I claim it's the logical conclusion of human nature unfolding within an unabashed free market. You're more than free to re-define terms, but it doesn't change the reality that free market systems invariably cycle through periods of cronyism. Playing around with the definition of capitalism is terminally non-responsive to the claim that free markets, given enough time, invariably breed this style of cronyism. It's like claiming that sugary/fatty foods can't cause coronary artery disease because heart disease is caused by plaque. Technically true, but literally everyone's response is going to be an eye-roll. > The ability to wield what is essentially a monopoly on force Ugh. There's no such thing as a "monopoly on force". It's literally the great equalizer among not just humans but all organisms. You're more than free to go out and build an unbeatable military and take down the evil crony-(not?)-capitalist world order. Who's gonna stop you? If you can't or won't build up the resources and mind share to do so, well, welcome to reality.
- djschnei 9y ago
  Completely illogical... > You call that cronyism. I claim it's the logical conclusion of human nature unfolding within an unabashed free market. A free-market is reliant on government power to protect/enforce property rights. You claiming a system which strictly enforces property rights always leads to a system which disregards property rights is absurd. Are you arguing that in order to keep people from wielding governmental power against others, we need to strengthen government? Really? Why not make it so government power being wielded is a non-issue? > It's like claiming that sugary/fatty foods can't cause coronary artery disease because heart disease is caused by plaque. Technically true, but literally everyone's response is going to be an eye-roll. A terrible analogy... What you're arguing is that a diet that avoids sugary/fatty foods will cause heart disease because people end up ignoring diets. That's not a good argument against dieting...