There exists in the country now — and there has existed for some time — an appreciable readiness to, if you will, suspend disbelief when it comes to the claims of politicians. An eagle-eyed professor of politics describes a detail of this picture in America:
“We carry in our heads this image of economic markets made up of small producers and rational and fully informed consumers, and we tell ourselves that this is perfect competition and an ideal world. But actually it is a fantasy world.”
A fantasy it is, one naturally far more easily comestible than its dark alternative: The truth.
This readiness itself hints at something worrisome, something deeply rooted in the political psychology of the nation. Fundamental things, big questions at the core of what seem to be unsolvable social and political problems, beyond or behind the mania of Donkey versus Elephant — these are not to be hounded. Red herrings are scattered to throw us off the scent, send us on the wrong track. And do we ever suppose that our definitions themselves – of apparently fixed notions like private property, trade, money, and competition – are properly to be subject to strict scrutiny?
In allowing the archists, the emissaries of authority and rulership, to decide what these things mean, we have already lost anything that we might hope to win by, say, voting. But, to be sure, slogans like “free market” mean different things to different people. The capitalists teach us early and often that centralization and expansion are natural and necessary as considered within the logic of economies of scale. Further and further integration of production processes within the firm are, they assure us, obligatory given the demands of efficiency.
But then, of course, the capitalists, these impassioned adulators of freedom and competition, never do introduce the fact that their claims about streamlining and concentration would, if carried out to their apogee, mean the embrace of all production within a single monopoly. I cannot imagine that — at such a point — it would matter whether that monopoly were administered by business suit-clad capitalists or by the mandarins of some “classless” total state.
Professor Coates pleads that the twentieth century American economy was no free market. Indeed, but it probably was and still is capitalism. Notwithstanding the contest that has dominated the past months, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney alike stand for it, and yet as a matter of fact the victor Obama has very little control as an individual over how capitalism will continue to function during the next four or forty years.
To hazard a guess, capitalism will likely appear how it has: Vast stretches of land will be penned in by fictitious claims of right; copyright and patent statutes will prohibit access to ideas, techniques, processes which a free and competitive market makes open to all; licenses, permissions, certifications, and credentials will limit competition to the anguish of the laboring classes and consumers; tax revenues will be withdrawn and then poured gratuitously into the miasmal megafirms of the capitalists.
Really, there will be nothing very competitive about the scene, but surely it will be approved by the political footmen of the men who own the nation. Still, let us at least remember that there have always been in this country free market sorts of a rather different branding. The Anarchists have long been of the mind that a fully liberated competitive system of economics would, simply by its operation, make equal exchange on the basis of cost the expected norm. Such economies could not intelligibly go by the family name of capitalism: They are of a very different pedigree to be sure.
Over the weeks to follow Tuesday’s election, do scrutinize the definitions of these men who pursue office. Test them and see if they fit those suggested by conscience and critical thought. If they do not, consider spending the next election day to come thinking about those core questions that the people listed on the ballot have so ignored.
A love this blog. That is all.
An excellent piece M. George van der Meer. Speaking as someone who started out as an Objectivist, and on the right-libertarian side of things, it was quite hard to shake off the definitions of property, money, trade, and competition.
Even harder was decoupling the words "capitalism" and "free market", treating them as separate concepts. It was hard coming to grips with the system's history, and the theft; slavery; privilege; exploitation; and even mass murder it was built on. But most of all was in seeing how far removed capitalism is from anything remotely like a free market.
The conflation of the two ideas has sown more than confusion; it has allowed injustice to proceed unseen. Consider Pinochet's Chile, for instance.
If this confusion were to cease…politics would make sense for the first time in a long time, and social change would be possible again. And I think this can be done. It must be done. No progress can be made until after it is done.
“We carry in our heads this image of economic markets made up of small producers and rational and fully informed consumers, and we tell ourselves that this is perfect competition and an ideal world. But actually it is a fantasy world.”
No, I do picture the above, ever. There is no such thing as perfect information or perfect competition, ever.
The above quote provided by a nameless professor is actually a straw man, allow me to explain. Statist use the concept of perfect competition as the benchmark to judge all free markets. As soon as the free market falls short of this unattainable benchmark of perfection, the statist use this failure as justification for more government.
What freedom lovers should be doing is holding government interventions to this bench mark of perfection. Then compare who came closer to perfection, the market or government intervention.
Reality tells me, the market, although not perfect, will always do better than goverment intervention.
One problem.
Where is this "market" you speak of?
I am not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that we have to answer the question of whether we have a market economy, free or otherwise, in existence.
No, we do not have a free market, however even if we did, why should the benchmark be a fantasy of perfect information and perfect competition? If for some reason the benchmark should be a fantasy of perfect information and perfect competition, the government should be held to this same impossible standard.
I do agree though, a more free market would be better for everyone however, the 1913 Federal Reserve Act and 4 more years of Obama guarantees America and the world will move further from a free market, towards, the slow to learn, quick to wrath, heavy hand of central planning.
I think the problem goes back further than the Federal Reserve, and I think Obama is not much worse than any other Democrat. Hardly left-wing. Socialism is also a broad term.
Like I said, I don't disagree with you in terms of theory. Perfect information & perfect competition is a bullshit notion; makes for beautiful mathematics, but does not correspond to the real world. In reality, knowledge is never perfect nor is competition. Human beings do not have perfect foresight and always faced bounded rationality.
What I contend is that the world is no more moving away from a free market than it is moving toward "socialism" or "central planning". This is all simply business as usual. The 'free market' doesn't exist, nor has it ever existed outside the pages of economic treatises and my own fevered imagination. You won't find a free market looking backward anymore than one would find "socialism", "fascism", or "central planning" going forward.
I would argue that we've had a centrally planned economy for a while. There is very little difference between a corporation and a government bureau.
What we have is capitalism.
I'd also like to add that by "we", I think the unnamed college professor means "most".
What is capitalism in theory?
What is capitalism in practice?
I never have been sure if capitalism has been corrupted or if this system we have is indeed pure capitalism?
Capitalism is not the free market.
Purity has nothing to do with it.