Comments on: Whither Capitalism? Only When There is No Government

By: Alex R. Knight III

Alex R. Knight III — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:51:59 +0000

Well, that's the Marxian line on capitalism. I think that by now things have evolved to the point where one definition of the word is "free markets" (albeit I know that involves room for voluntary leftist constructs as well), just as "anarchy" no longer simply means "no rulers" but is now, unfortunately, associated almost exclusively with chaos.

By: Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:39:28 +0000

"How does it in any way differ from the other three economic models?" It doesn't -- it's part of model #2, socialism. Although Thackeray coined the term, it was specifically popularized by Karl Marx as an historical stage in his theory of economic evolution -- mercantilism supplanted feudalism; industrialization and the increasing power of the bourgeoisie, i.e. capitalism, supplanted mercantilism; the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat would displace capitalism.

By: Alex R. Knight III

Alex R. Knight III — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:39:12 +0000

Tom: Sorry, but I've never seen it that way. If we accept that as true, then why even make capitalism a distinction? How does it in any way differ from the other three economic models? See also: http://strike-the-root.com/72/knight/knight4.html

By: Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:42:55 +0000

"By definition, capitalism is the entirely private production and ownership of goods and services provided on a for-profit basis, and regulated only by the laws of supply and demand."

Um, no — unless by "definition," you mean "some shit right-libertarians made up long after the term had already been well-defined otherwise in the academic literature, the political literature and the public mind."

"Capitalism" refers, and always has referred, to a state-regulated mixed industrial economy.

You can have "capitalism" or you can have a free market. You can't have both.