In the most fundamental terms, ‘Capital’ can be seen as ‘the excess of production over consumption’. The basic question posed by differing political systems is ‘Who should control, or ‘own’, that excess – those who produced it or those who confiscate/expropriate it’? All social arrangements, from the individual self-sufficient recluse to nation states, produce ‘capital’ so it’s either free-market capitalism or state capitalism or something in between. It’s ALL capitalism. History tells us which works best, and when we allow our societies to drift towards state capitalism we become progressively worse off, heading toward inevitable collapse. The reverse is also true, as presently demonstrated by former totalitarian states permitting greater freedom.
Looking forward to hearing how we might adopt alternate semantics after abandoning the term.
======================
zorkthehun says:
2013-10-01 at 3:07 am
Your definition is another perfect example of the problem I was trying to illustrate. ‘Excess’, ‘surplus’ are negative, moralizing terms as they cannot possibly have an objective definition. ‘Excess’ is what I chose not to consume today. ‘Excess’ is what I chose not to consume because I wish to trade it for something else I need more. ‘Excess’ is what I may ‘consume’ over a very long time. Beyond the berries I pick and immediately put into my mouth everything is ‘excess’ production.
Let’s suppose that I pick enough berries to last me three days. I trade one day’s ration for a piece of bread and use the other to feed me while I build myself a chair that I am to use for many years to come. Where is the ‘excess’? I am desperately trying to save money so that I can stop working at some point to do…….. whatever. Is my saving ‘excess’ over production?
The Marxist framework is just ludicrously stupid as it assumes that there is a knowable amount of resources and a measurable, fixed amount of human needs. The root of socialist analysis of anything is this arrogant presumption of knowledge. Human needs are infinite because the moment we satisfy one, we invent another.
As I pointed out, saving for the future, capital accumulation is not only positive, but a necessary prerequisite of civilization itself.
I could go into a lot more detail, I could also go technical analyzing the nature of trade or the structure of wages and profit, but I should not try to debate Marx in a comment to a post.
As for your question, I don’t know. All I am certain of is that the Marxist framework is not helpful.
To start, it would make sense to separate the economic and the political aspects. (Maybe I should write a post looking at the reasons behind Marxism’s conflation of the two.)
I would call the Canadian reality we live in ‘mixed market social democracy’ which would be also true for most developed countries.
===================
Marco den Ouden says:
2015-04-06 at 5:09 pm
That’s an interesting article, Zork Gábor Hun. That’s one point where we may have to agree to disagree. I think capitalism is a very positive term. But there certainly has been a lot of shying away from it. The most obvious example of this shying away is with libertarians jumping on the bandwagon and denouncing so-called “crony capitalism” and trying to distinguish it from real capitalism. It takes the form of a libertarian hearing a leftist denouncing capitalism and saying, yes, we libertarians are also opposed to crony capitalism. As if the left sees or understands the distinction. Another example is the common use of the term “free enterprise” or other euphemisms instead of capitalism.
Perhaps my attachment to the term as a positive is because I was introduced to libertarian thought through Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I still think of it as an ideal.
If we eschew the term as you suggest, because the Marxists have framed the usage, what term should we use in its place? Free enterprise? Market economy? Free economy? It will not restrain the Marxist attack. They’ll still denounce capitalism, and by that they will mean exactly what we support – the free market economy where property is privately held. They will not be swayed by suggestions that the current mixed economy form of capitalism is bad and that our pure, unadulterated whatever-you-want-to-call-it is somehow good. In fact, from the virulent attacks on Ayn Rand and libertarianism in various moderate left-wing journals such as Slate, Salon, etc., it is clear that they hate libertarianism even more than the current state of affairs.
Recently I reviewed Alex Epstein’s book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. He argues that fossil fuels have been great benefactors of mankind and are a force for good. He concludes by noting that even the producers of oil have accepted the global warming fear-mongers terms of reference and bend over backward to prove how green they are. Some oil companies, he notes, have gone so far in their efforts to appease their enemies that they don’t even mention the word “oil” on their websites. This, he maintains, is folly. He delivers a clarion call for industrial progress. “We don’t need to save the planet from human beings; we want to improve the planet for human beings,” he declares. “We need to say this loudly and proudly.” Epstein has spoken to many oil companies about improving their image, and step one is to be proud of what they produce and the great service it brings to mankind.
For the same reason, I think libertarians need to stand loud and proud in favour of capitalism. Capitalism is freedom. Socialism is central control over human lives.
My migration from Wordpress to Substack was not as smooth as one could hope for.
Here are the non-migrated comments on this post:
stonecoldtruth2011.wordpress.com says:
2013-09-29 at 10:04 pm
In the most fundamental terms, ‘Capital’ can be seen as ‘the excess of production over consumption’. The basic question posed by differing political systems is ‘Who should control, or ‘own’, that excess – those who produced it or those who confiscate/expropriate it’? All social arrangements, from the individual self-sufficient recluse to nation states, produce ‘capital’ so it’s either free-market capitalism or state capitalism or something in between. It’s ALL capitalism. History tells us which works best, and when we allow our societies to drift towards state capitalism we become progressively worse off, heading toward inevitable collapse. The reverse is also true, as presently demonstrated by former totalitarian states permitting greater freedom.
Looking forward to hearing how we might adopt alternate semantics after abandoning the term.
======================
zorkthehun says:
2013-10-01 at 3:07 am
Your definition is another perfect example of the problem I was trying to illustrate. ‘Excess’, ‘surplus’ are negative, moralizing terms as they cannot possibly have an objective definition. ‘Excess’ is what I chose not to consume today. ‘Excess’ is what I chose not to consume because I wish to trade it for something else I need more. ‘Excess’ is what I may ‘consume’ over a very long time. Beyond the berries I pick and immediately put into my mouth everything is ‘excess’ production.
Let’s suppose that I pick enough berries to last me three days. I trade one day’s ration for a piece of bread and use the other to feed me while I build myself a chair that I am to use for many years to come. Where is the ‘excess’? I am desperately trying to save money so that I can stop working at some point to do…….. whatever. Is my saving ‘excess’ over production?
The Marxist framework is just ludicrously stupid as it assumes that there is a knowable amount of resources and a measurable, fixed amount of human needs. The root of socialist analysis of anything is this arrogant presumption of knowledge. Human needs are infinite because the moment we satisfy one, we invent another.
As I pointed out, saving for the future, capital accumulation is not only positive, but a necessary prerequisite of civilization itself.
I could go into a lot more detail, I could also go technical analyzing the nature of trade or the structure of wages and profit, but I should not try to debate Marx in a comment to a post.
As for your question, I don’t know. All I am certain of is that the Marxist framework is not helpful.
To start, it would make sense to separate the economic and the political aspects. (Maybe I should write a post looking at the reasons behind Marxism’s conflation of the two.)
I would call the Canadian reality we live in ‘mixed market social democracy’ which would be also true for most developed countries.
===================
Marco den Ouden says:
2015-04-06 at 5:09 pm
That’s an interesting article, Zork Gábor Hun. That’s one point where we may have to agree to disagree. I think capitalism is a very positive term. But there certainly has been a lot of shying away from it. The most obvious example of this shying away is with libertarians jumping on the bandwagon and denouncing so-called “crony capitalism” and trying to distinguish it from real capitalism. It takes the form of a libertarian hearing a leftist denouncing capitalism and saying, yes, we libertarians are also opposed to crony capitalism. As if the left sees or understands the distinction. Another example is the common use of the term “free enterprise” or other euphemisms instead of capitalism.
Perhaps my attachment to the term as a positive is because I was introduced to libertarian thought through Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I still think of it as an ideal.
If we eschew the term as you suggest, because the Marxists have framed the usage, what term should we use in its place? Free enterprise? Market economy? Free economy? It will not restrain the Marxist attack. They’ll still denounce capitalism, and by that they will mean exactly what we support – the free market economy where property is privately held. They will not be swayed by suggestions that the current mixed economy form of capitalism is bad and that our pure, unadulterated whatever-you-want-to-call-it is somehow good. In fact, from the virulent attacks on Ayn Rand and libertarianism in various moderate left-wing journals such as Slate, Salon, etc., it is clear that they hate libertarianism even more than the current state of affairs.
Recently I reviewed Alex Epstein’s book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. He argues that fossil fuels have been great benefactors of mankind and are a force for good. He concludes by noting that even the producers of oil have accepted the global warming fear-mongers terms of reference and bend over backward to prove how green they are. Some oil companies, he notes, have gone so far in their efforts to appease their enemies that they don’t even mention the word “oil” on their websites. This, he maintains, is folly. He delivers a clarion call for industrial progress. “We don’t need to save the planet from human beings; we want to improve the planet for human beings,” he declares. “We need to say this loudly and proudly.” Epstein has spoken to many oil companies about improving their image, and step one is to be proud of what they produce and the great service it brings to mankind.
For the same reason, I think libertarians need to stand loud and proud in favour of capitalism. Capitalism is freedom. Socialism is central control over human lives.