In a recent article for Reason, Ira Stoll praised the 2012 Olympics — not only in the body but the title itself — as a “Triumph of Capitalism” (July 23, 2012). He’s entirely correct — but not for the reason he thinks.
Stoll’s characterization of the Olympics as “capitalist” seems to reflect their funding “largely not from governments but from the private sector.” Oh, and also the fact that “private property” rights (of a sort) are being traded:
“NBC (not a Cuban or North Korean television company but an American one) agreed to pay a reported $4.38 billion for the rights to broadcast four Olympics, a sum that is itself made possible by NBC’s sale of commercial sponsorship time to advertisers. Even ‘broadcast’ is now a misnomer, as the games are streamed on the Internet and available on cable channels.”
Stoll is typical of the kind of “libertarian” for whom “private property rights” and large “private” revenue streams — whatever their source or legitimacy — are the be-all and end-all.
If you define “capitalism” simply as an economy in which most activities are carried out by private corporations and serve as sources of profit for them, then Stoll’s entirely correct. And if, like me and the other left-wing market anarchists at Center for a Stateless Society, you define “capitalism” as a system in which the state subsidizes big business, protects it from competition, and enforces the artificial property rights and artificial scarcity rents from which it derives its profit, the Olympics also fits the bill.
Whatever amount of private funding the Olympics gets, it also gets a pretty hefty chunk of change from taxpayers; and the core functions and infrastructure on which private investment piggybacks are mostly government-funded.
The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is a statutory corporation, accountable to the Department for Culture Media and Sport, created to oversee development of the Olympic Park and associated transport infrastructure. The ODA’s budget — in the billions of pounds — comes from a funding package agreed on by the Mayor and City of London. Of course this state funding (from both tax revenue and the National Lottery) doesn’t preclude the fact — no doubt comforting to Mr. Stoll — that it passes through some corporate hands along the way. The actual work is carried out by a private contractor — namely CLM, a parasitic consortium of CH2M Hill, Laing O’Rourke and Mace.
Stoll’s account of the money shelled out for “broadcast rights” is also quite telling as to what he means by “capitalism.” All those billions NBC is paying are an investment with what amounts to a state-guaranteed return. The London Olympics are one of the most heavily copyright- and trademark-protected events in human history. “Broadcast rights” are absolutely meaningless, unless you presuppose a state-granted monopoly on the right to distribute information. And you can bet your bottom dollar all that streaming content on the Internet will be proprietary, as well.
The “intellectual property” stupidity goes beyond the point of self-parody. Like Rupert Murdoch, who’s befuddled by any technology since 1970, the Olympics Committee actually thinks it can regulate the terms on which people link to them. See, you can’t link to their website (this website right here <http://london2012.com>) if you say anything unkind about them. Their “intellectual property” is apparently retroactive to include all prior cultural or historical references to the Olympics; they even went after a restaurant called Olympic Gyros.
And of course the Olympics are surrounded by the kind of police statism run amok for which London has become famous over the past two decades: Rooftop SAM launchers, Twitter censorship, public surveillance cameras, and armored riot cops on the ready. You’d think there was a WTO or G-8 meeting.
So if your idea of “capitalism” is not the free market, but a system in which the state socializes costs and risks and privatizes profit, me and the market anarchist comrades at C4SS are entirely in agreement. The only difference is that what Stoll is praising so effusively is exactly what we’re fighting against.
Translations for this article:
- Spanish, Las Olimpíadas de Londres: Capitalismo en Acción.
- Portuguese, Os Jogos Olímpicos de Londres: Capitalismo em Ação.
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, The London Olympics: Capitalism in Action, Jamaica, Wisconsin Gleaner, 07/29/12
- Kevin Carson, London Games shows off capitalism in action, China Post [Taiwan], 07/28/12
- Kevin Carson, The London Olympics: Capitalism in Action, Baltic Review, 07/26/12
- Kevin Carson, The London Olympics: Capitalism in Action, Citizen of Laconia [New Hampshire], 07/26/12
Excellent analysis, Kevin. The London Olympics will gouge taxpayers, benefit multinational corporations, gentrify neighborhoods and give police free reign to go after anyone (activists, homeless, etc) that isn't considered pretty enough for the international spotlight. And the IP crackdown has been outrageous. Here's a protest chant for the London Olympics: Tell me what neo-liberalism looks like. THIS is what neo-liberalism looks like!!!
Oh, and want to make Ira Stoll's head spin. Tell him that the early libertarians or anarchists (I'm thinking of PJ Proudhn or Benjamin Tucker) explicitly called themselves socialists. This is a hard lesson for those who think that a bunch of Austrians or University of Chicago professors perfected libertarianism back in the 40's and 50s. Know your history, Mr. Stoll (and Reason and Mises.Org and CATO and Lew Rockwell, etc).
Here's a piece I did a few years ago:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4536-a-libertari…
My recent post Anarchists & the Occupy Movement
The commenters at Reason aren't fooled.
"Stoll is typical … [of some belief as] the be-all and end-all." If
so, the Kevin Carson might be "typical" of those who start out with
hominem attacks.
But that's not so bad (yet), let's go on to EXPLICITLY set up a straw
man: "If you define 'capitalism' simply as an economy in which most
activities are carried out by private [something something, but if] you
define 'capitalism' as [state action, then]…" Well, if you define
'capitalism' as a strawberry malt, then you can just drink it.
Possibly, there is a difference of substance between left and right
libertarians, about which reasonable people can debate and come to
understanding, a truce, or even agreement. But starting out by covering
your opinions in logically fallacies will not help.
Oh it's even worse than that. Have you seen this?
http://ind.pn/OdyvyS
This on top of the private security firm (G4S) hired for the games was unable to field the personnel they contracted for. So in the end the government had to provide the manpower anyway. I'm sure G4S has still been paid though.
There are huge differences, and I frankly do not think any truce is possible.
This is no mere semantic issue. This gets right to the core of what 'capitalism' and even 'libertarianism' means.
The question is, do you love liberty or capitalism? Taking into account the history of the system under which we live; the history of anarchism (which is a subset of socialism) & liberalism; and of the American libertarian movement since 40's & 50's, this is not a mere disagreement.
The American libertarian movement made a fateful decision when it chose to follow Milton Friedman & other 'practical, moderate' folks. More radical paths were open: Robert Lefevre; Samuel Edward Konkin III; and Karl Hess. Even Rothbard, pre-Paleo, was a more radical path. Even Rand, on a good day, was one way. They represent what the American movement could have been, especially Hess.
This moment in history asks whether abandoning radicalism was a mistake-or worse. To be the junior partner in neo-liberalism, the abused spouse in the Buckleyite 'fusionism'; to be the free-market wing of paleoconservatism (paleolibertarianism); is that what we want to be? Is that what I want this movement to be?
I am a libertarian because I consider liberty to be the most fundamental need of human beings (along with equality, since I am more thoroughgoing). Capitalism was not born of the free choices and contract of individuals. It was born of exploitation, deprivation, theft, and violence. It is not the free market, which remains an ideal existing only in economics textbooks. Besides, the free market is not the main reason I am a libertarian. I love liberty, I need it. And everyone needs it. If freedom is to be found in anarcho-communism, I will support that. Mutualism? Then that. Collectivism? Then that. Parecon? Then that. Free market? Then that. Syndicalism? Then that. More likely, it will vary from place to place.
That is what is at stake here. No, this is not a mere semantic issue. The line between right and left is very real.
We live in interesting times.
"And if, like me and the other left-wing market anarchists at Center for a Stateless Society, you define “capitalism” as a system in which the state subsidizes big business, protects it from competition, and enforces the artificial property rights and artificial scarcity rents from which it derives its profit, the Olympics also fits the bill." — Kevin Carson, http://c4ss.org/content/11309
What you (Kevin Carson) are defining here is "state capitalism" or what those on the "right" sometimes call "crony capitalism." To define capitalism per se as this, however, is in my view a very a poor idea.
One reason is that you will needlessly alienate people who agree with the vast majority of your views. I am a great example of this. I was introduced to libertarianism and market anarchism through many people who identify as "anarcho-capitalists."
The meaning of "capitalism" that I got from these people was that the term referred to a system characterized by "capitalists," people who accumulate capital. This definition is compatible (at least logically) with an anarchical free market system of voluntary relationships between people due to the fact that it need not necessarily be true that the capitalists accumulated capital using state aggression.
Note, however, that by your definition of "capitalism" the label "anarcho-capitalist" would be a blatant contradiction of terms (just as "anarcho-state-capitalist" is a contradiction of terms). So how do you think I reacted when I first encountered the "anti-capitalist" rhetoric of the "leftists" here at C4SS given my understanding of the term "capitalism"?
Naturally I thought I had some great disagreements with these "anti-capitalist" people. I was not anti-capitalist. I was pro-free-market and simply thought that a genuinely free market would turn out to be capitalist (i.e. I thought a genuinely free market would be characterized by capitalistic patterns of ownership). If it didn't then so be it–I was fine with that. So I was not really pro-capitalist either (even though I did have a personal preference for capitalism) and can see now why the label "anarcho-capitalist" can be misleading.*
Anyway, remembering that I was not anti-capitalist due to my understanding of the meaning of the word you can see why the first few times that I encountered the anti-capitalist language of the writers at C4SS I was turned off. Eventually a piece by Roderick Long overcame this language problem and I learned for the first time that I did not really disagree with the leftists at C4SS much, if at all, after all.
…continued…
My recent post James Holman, The Blind Traveler
…continued…
Roderick Long is really good at this, by the way. I have noticed a lot recently how much his writings bridge the gap (a gap which I don't think is nearly as big as many make it out to be) between anarcho-capitalists at the Mises Institute, for example, and the "left" market anarchists of C4SS. I think more of the C4SS people should reach out the Mises Institute's audience and vice versa.
Lastly I will say that left-wing market anarchist Charles W. Johnson's use of the term "capitalism" in his Daily Bell interview is a far better definition to use than the definition that Kevin Carson provided above. His definition is basically the definition that I use. It is the same definition that most anarcho-capitalists use and is a definition compatible with the free market and anarchism. Define "capitalism" as "an economic system or arrangement characterized by capitalistic patterns of ownership." "Capitalistic patterns of ownership" are defined by Charles Johnson in the quotes below:
"Throughout his career, even in his most "leftist" days, [Murray Rothbard] consistently believed that market relationships would naturally tend to produce capitalistic patterns of ownership – conventional employer/employee relationships, large corporations, and a great deal of economic centralization, which left-wing market anarchists have been inclined to reject." — Charles Johnson, http://thedailybell.com/bellinclude.cfm?ID=3837
"…capitalistic patterns of ownership… large-scale concentration of wealth or capital goods or social power in the hands of a select class of employers, landlords, or financial institutions." — Charles Johnson, http://thedailybell.com/bellinclude.cfm?ID=3837
Note: If the left-wing market anarchists at C4SS including Kevin Carson agree with Charles Johnson that Murray Rothbard's view that genuinely free "market relationships would naturally tend to produce capitalistic patterns of ownership" is wrong then that is fine. Many anarcho-capitalists would love to hear about it, I am sure. I just think that far fewer would want to hear about it (as is currently occurring) if you pretend that non-state capitalism (i.e. capitalistic patterns of ownership that could hypothetically occur in a genuinely free market anarchist society) does not exist. Of course it exists. You can argue that you don't think it would be likely to occur in a free market and you can explain why you personally don't prefer it, but if you pretend that it doesn't exist (as Kevin Carson does when he defines "capitalism" as the subset of capitalism known as "state capitalism") then I don't think you will get nearly as much discussion with the Mises Institute type people who generally identify as "anarcho-capitalists". So again, I would recommend that we all be more in the spirit of Roderick Long (Check out his awesome essay "Equality: The Unknown Ideal" at the Mises Institute: http://mises.org/daily/804 ).
* Wendy McElroy has written about this in a brief post titled "Capitalism versus the free market" ( http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.855 ). Note that I agree with everything she says in the blog post except the last sentence "May the best system win." I critique that sentence by saying that I think multiple economic systems ("arrangements") can coexist and that is fine. No economic system needs to (or even necessarily should) win out. I think McElroy would agree with me on this.
My recent post James Holman, The Blind Traveler
(EDIT: Oh yeah, I thumbed-up both Tom Howe's and Null Void's comments above because others had down-voted them. Hopefully they were just trolled by some nobodies. I wouldn't be proud if people who are genuinely interested in liberty such as anarcho-capitalists and left market anarchists stooped down to the level of down-vote-wars rather than engage in discussion about their alleged differences.)
I'm still struggling to understand what this "huge difference" is. Your post did not help enlighten me as to what it is at all, but instead reinforced my view that there *is* a semantic problem here.
You wrote, "Capitalism was not born of the free choices and contract of individuals. It was born of exploitation, deprivation, theft, and violence. It is not the free market…."
I agree that the state capitalism that we have now was born of exploitation, theft, and violence and is not the free market, but I deny that a capitalistic economic arrangement must necessarily have these scars. "Capitalism," as I understand it, is compatible with a free market anarchist society. The semantics involve how we define "capitalism."
We may still have disagreements. For example, you may personally prefer an economic arrangement without capitalist patterns of ownership, while I prefer one with capitalistic patterns of ownership. But, this is not really a disagreement at all. We can happily coexist each choosing our own economic arrangements in a free market without forcing either system on each other.
Another disagreement we may have is our economic predictions. I would guess that if we were to have a genuinely free market society then we would observe that sufficient capitalists (people who accumulate capital) would exist to say that the system exhibited capitalism. You, on the other hand, might believe that a genuinely free market would not exhibit capitalistic patterns of ownership. We can argue these points and may still have disagreements. But again, I don't think that this disagreement would amount to a difference in political opinion either. It would only be a difference in our economic predictions, not our political views.
Since neither of believe that it is just to use violence to force any particular economic arrangement on the other, then I still have my doubts about the alleged "huge differences" in your views and my views or various anarcho-capitalists' views.
In two more comments below I elaborated on the semantic issue of the definition of "capitalism" and why I think that it is harmful to the liberty movement to have one group defining it one way (an economic arrangement possible both in a free society and an aggression-plagued society with a state) and another group defining it another way (a system necessarily involving state aggression).
I think it is harmful because we are all opposed to "capitalism" as defined by the latter group and so that's decision to define the term in that manner often turns off people from the former group, causing there to be a lack of what would be fruitful discussion between members of the two groups.
My recent post James Holman, The Blind Traveler
I think one of the best ways to describe the difference between capitalism and socialism is in the former property is owned privately, and in the latter property is owned publicly. It all boils down to who owns the property. I thank Robert Lefevre for that logic.
So, if you look at the definition of each as above, we can determine we aren't living in a truly "capitalis" society. Left and Right Anarchists want the same ends, but with different means. Left Anarchists don't fully understand the implications of their "means" of achieving the ends they desire.
Not always. Socialism is opposed to property, it is true. But, there is a difference of definition.
I do not oppose the rights of occupancy, use, and possession. But property goes beyond all of that.
Second, there is no such thing as a right-anarchist. Anarchism, anti-statism, is left-wing by definition.
Third, Robert Lefevre can't define the word capitalism any way he likes. It is a word that is historically rooted, and its roots don't go back to the free market. The latter has never existed, which I think you and I can agree. Where we differ is in the definition of capitalism.
Private ownership is a feature of capitalism, but it is not capitalism itself. Capitalism is a pattern of ownership. Eugene Debs said it better than I can: Those who work don't own, those who own don't work. This is expressed in the hierarchical boss/worker relationship. Which too is a legacy of the state. This is a historical legacy of the origins of capitalism, a name given to the actually existing economic system by its critics.
History matters. Words don't emerge in a vacuum.
What is the difference between "public" and "private" property? Currently I think most people use the terms to differentiate between property owned by the government and property owned by non-government individuals or groups of individuals.
However, as an anarchist it is my view that various coercive government's claims of ownership of this property typically called "public property" are illegitimate. Also note, however, that I believe many of the claims of ownership of "private property" by private individuals and businesses are also unjust.
Are you using these common definitions of "public" and "private" property or do you have a different meaning?
Thanks.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
"Third, Robert Lefevre can't define the word capitalism any way he likes."
Yes he can. Anyone can define any word any way they want to.
"Capitalism is a pattern of ownership."
I like this definition of capitalism as a certain pattern of ownership. It makes it so that capitalism is logically compatible with an anarchical society. You may argue that this pattern of ownership would not occur in a free society without a coercive state (which I think you would argue given your statement "…[capitalism] is a legacy of the state"), but at least you don't consider "anarcho-capitalist" to be a contradiction of terms, which I think is important in trying to encourage discussion between different sorts of anarchists.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
No, I don't think anyone can define a word anyway they want to. It betrays a certain intellectual dishonesty. I don't think capitalism is compatible with an anarchial society because the pattern of ownership requires hierarchy. And hierarchy of any kind is incompatible with anarchy. Anti-statism is not enough.
I suppose I should retract my statements, some of them at least, before I get back to you. SInce you do not defend current patterns of ownership at all, I think we can have a civilized discussion.
Dear Null Void and PeaceRequiresAnarchy,
I have enjoyed reading this exchange. I would like to extend an offer to each of you to participate in a Mutual Exchange on C4SS devoted to a topic like: "What is capitalism and is it compatible with anarchism?"
What do each of you think? If you are interested, please email me at james.tuttle@c4ss.org.
ALL the best,
–James
My recent post C4SSdotORG: The Longest Con
"I do not oppose the rights of occupancy, use, and possession. But property goes beyond all of that." – Let me ask, where do those rights come from? Who transferred those "rights" onto the occupants who use and possess said property? Ownership implies the arbitrary "right" to occupy, use, and possess. Hence in socialism, the benefits of ownership are extended from a previous or ultimate owner (the state), but in an individualist, or capitalist society – ownership is of the individual.
A capitalist society is one in which the individual determines his own value system. Hence individual liberty and ownership.
Furthermore, your argument that because something is "historically rooted", that is somehow objective truth is false. Objective truth is universal, whether you believe it to be or not.
Definition aside, the ideals upheld by property, individualism, and collectivism still stand no matter what you call them.
Do you feel that you have ownership over your own body? If so, then you cannot make the claim that ownership of other property does not exist. Because in order for that property to become "unowned" by others, you must infringe on their bodily property rights, as I'm sure they will defend against your intrusion.
Now if you do not believe in self-ownership, we have other issues, and you pave the way for slavery. Either ownership exists or it doesn't, and there are no degrees to the level of ownership that does exist. It is universal.
i've found the article very interesting, much more than the conversation and commentaries.. I myself always prefer anarchism without objectives. My definition of anarchy is a negative one, against all agression, coertion, exploitation over (each) individual. It starts and finishes here.. I really don't understand the adjectives since they mean a specific economic system which in the last would be changed, modified, arranged, abolished by the individuals to who it is concerned..
Neverthless, in a second level i can appreciate discussions about economy.. So it seems to me that true anarchists don't need to refeer themselfs to a specific economic system, unless it is in a negative way. What i think is that from left to the right political spectrum, there are people trying to appropriate anarchy to their own economic system, and using it as a mean to meet their goals..
Capitalism has always been an exploitative system, which had emerged from a feudal system.. It doesn't matter the definition you give to it! Trying to mix it with anarchy is suicide.. almost the same for communism which is a more broader concept.. you always fail trying to recover anarchism for a specific economic system, because you cannot predict what each person will choice in different moments.. unless you believe in a kind of misantrope scientific libertarianism..
Yes. If anything "winner take all," while maybe good for sport (although I question that) is almost certainly bad in economics. I don't entirely agree with the old saw that "competition brings out the best in products and the worst in people," but I do think high-stakes competition brings out the worst in both, especially when survival itself is at stake.
>> Even ‘broadcast’ is now a misnomer, as the games are streamed on the Internet and available on cable channels.” <<
It gets worse. The Internet streams are available only to those who are cable subscribers whose lineup includes MSNBC -and- CNBC. Although it's past its Sunday night heyday, you might want to check out (and contribute to) the #NBCfail hashtag on Twitter.
My recent post Random thinks
I'm not quite ready to jump on the "anarchism w/o adjectives" bandwagon, but I sincerely thank you for including exploitation in your three-item laundry list. I also thank you for the expression "[misanthrope] scientific libertarianism" which I intend to "steal." If I had a penny for each time some vulgar libertarian said something about employees (a French word that means "used," BTW) exploiting employers…
My recent post Random thinks
Yes, putting aside difficult boundary cases involving zygote-fetus-babies, etc, people own themselves. And yes, people can own other property.
You were probably responding to my statement that "I believe many of the claims of ownership of "private property" by private individuals and businesses are also unjust."
To clarify, with that statement I was referring to things like when the government "sells" land to a large business despite the fact that there were already people living on that land who had legitimate claims to the property. In such a case, the private business' claim of ownership to the property that is recognized by the state is unjust in my view and the legitimate owners are the people who were living on the land before the state (which did not legitimately own the property in the first place) decided to "sell" the property to the private business.
As for how people gain ownership of property, the first occupier of an unowned scare resource becomes the owner. This person is said to "homestead" the property. From there they can transfer title to that property to others to make them the legitimate owners of the property.
For more detail, I tend to agree with Stephan Kinsella's views on property rights. See his article "What Libertarianism Is" ( http://mises.org/daily/3660/ ), which does a good job summarizing the sort of property rights that I believe are legitimate. Note also that there are many resources in the footnotes of that article which go into more depth on the theory of property rights.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
First, let me retract my retraction, partially. It is not surrender, more an expression of stress. I find the comment sections of a blog/website/whatever exhausting.
Next, I am open to that. As long as I can talk things over between me and PeaceRequiresAnarchy. I want us to establish some form of mutual understanding before we begin.
Deep_Thinker,
I'll present my case in the mutual exchange thing if it works out.
Just a quick note, when the government does what you attribute to capitalism – protecting the business interests of big business, providing pro-business laws (esp. at the cost of individuals), and enforcing broad standards (FDA as you mention; EPA, SS, CIA, FBI, ATF, SEC, et al) across all entrants to a "market" field; then there is not Capitalism, but rather Cartelism. Cartels are government and business in bed together, raping the customers/"little people" in the society.
It is in fact why you will find the same goods in a Target in Oklahoma as in Alaska, for the SAME PRICE. (Or, to highlight further: Jersey City, New Jersey vs. Chaldron, Nebraska.) There SHOULD be a difference – different rent levels for the store, different fuel costs for transport, different wages and costs for employees, different power and water costs. But from sea to shining sea, the costs (and selection, BTW) are virtually constant.
One nation under Walmart – with our Cartel overlords insulated from the "rabble" by a few billion dollars, and police protection at OUR cost.
Yes, that statement was what I was referring to. I agree that coercion by a judicial constuct such as the state of taking something that is owned and transferring it is wrong.
I will take your recommendations. I have heard a lecture by Kinsella via audio cd from the Mises institute in 2011 and I remember typically agreeing with him. I thought it was a good case for abolishing IP.
Sure, please let me know if it does.