A couple of groups are coming together to host a conference entitled “In Defense of Capitalism” in Copenhagen on April 24 and 25. Full information is here. Speakers include Lars Seier Christensen, Indra de Soysa, Thorsten Polleit, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Philipp Baggus, and myself. I’m reprising my “Common Objections to Capitalism” lecture from Mises University (audio here, article here).
Here are a few questions as I revise, and your contributions will be acknowledged: How do you define “capitalism?” How do you define “socialism?” Do you find capitalism objectionable? If so, why? Do you find socialism objectionable? If so, why? No flame wars, please.
FInally, a bit of trivia: Philipp and I were roommates at Mises U in 2002.
{ 14 comments }
I believe that Mises defined “capitalism” as a system of social cooperation in which the means of production are privately owned, whereas under “socialism”, the means of production are owned by the state. Thus, under capitalism a market-based price system develops for the allocation of the factors of production; a market-based price system, and hence economic calculation, is logically impossible under socialism.
Of course, ownership implies, within extremely large bounds, the ability to use your property as you see best; true ownership necessarily means control. This issue is particularly significant in the mixed economy (interventionism) in which most of the means of production are (nominally) owned by individuals, but individuals’ ability to utilize their owned factors are significantly hindered by the state.There is also the concept of market socialism, and Mises specifically addresses the fallacies in this system in “Human Action.” Hayek has also discussed the problems of market socialism, albeit from a different perspective than that of Mises.
Capitalism and socialism should be seen as a continuum with state ownership of all property on the left and private ownership on the right. Anything in between is a mixture of more or less socialism/capitalism. Capitalism is not just free markets; free markets are nothing but the instantiation of property rights because property requires that the owner be free to use and dispose of it as he sees fit within the rule of law.
Free markets are nothing more than free people. Socialists love to portray the market as some inhuman force to which we must submit. But free markets are just a simple way of describing free people in commerce. Socialists also like to claim that laissez-faire markets require chaos with no rule of law, and utlimately the rule of brute force. But capitalism has always and everywhere recognized the need for the rule of law. In fact, capitalism and the rule of law are almost synonyms. Socialism is the opposite of the rule of law; socialism is arbitrary rule by a group of elites. Capitalism is the rule of law in which the state is limited to protecting life, liberty and property as understood by Locke. Any intervention by the state beyond those limits erodes property by taking control of that property from the owner and giving it to the state. So any form of intervention is an introduction of socialism, and society moves to the left on the continuum.
Art,
How about these:
How do you define “free market?”
How are minority wants and needs satisfied in a socialist system? How are they satisfied in a capitalist system?
Is it better for individuals to make their own decisions or for experts to make decisions for them?
If it is better for individuals to make their own decisions what is better at summarizing these decisions than the market? What is better at providing satisfaction of wants and needs than the market?
Do criminals become less criminal in a centrally based social system?
Which system is better at detecting criminal activity, a capitalist system or a socialist system?
Which system disciplines criminal activity better, a capitalist system or a socialist system?
Good questions, Dick. How about one more: which system takes criminal behavior off the street, redefines it as the “public good” and makes it state policy ?
Capitalism vs Socialism = Law vs Ethics
Capitalism vs Socialism = Indiviual vs Whole
Capitalism = I am better than you because I did something for myself
Socialism = I can help you do better for yourself because I have done better for myself
Capitalism breeds money which breeds hierarchy which breeds anger, hatred and distrust
Socialism breeds unity, peace and trust. Money is not an object.
Free Will is not affected by socialism.
While socialism is indeed the public ownership of means of production, it should be necessary to point out the difference between voluntary socialism and state socialism. Voluntary socialism is where individuals donate their privately-owned means into a common pool. State socialism is a systematic coercive effort to undermine the feasibility of private uses of means of production.
Thus, I see fascism as a form of socialism. Nominally, property is still private; however, it is to a large extent controlled by the state, because its use is rendered unprofitable or illegal when used outside of the state’s ends.
I once thought of fascism as a form of socialism, but now I understand that fascism isn’t any kind of political or economic or social ideology. Fascism is simply a willingness to coerce people by any means necessary — a willingness to use the bundled axe blade to draw the blood of anyone who dares to challenge pretense of authority.
The “leaders” of socialist societies rely more & more on fascist tactics in response to the natural expression of people’s resistance toward central planning, until eventually government turns totalitarian to prop up its now-extreme demands for compliance with corporatist/collectivist planning. Capitalist societies, on the other hand, rely on the voluntary catallactics that only free markets can offer, and thus cannot become fascist until the thin edge of the socialist wedge starts prying apart freedom and encouraging fascist tactics among those holding the pry bar.
I started a discussion of this on another Web site lately. My definition of “socialism” is
As an ideology, advocacy of an economic system in which decisions regarding production, distribution, and consumption are not based on buying, selling, or other forms of exchange
As an economic system, a form of economic organization in which economic decisions are predominantly not based on buying, selling, or other forms of exchange
Bill Stoddard
Props for the new mobile interface to the mises blog. My only complaint is that I can’t change the text size.
Everyone,
Thank you for your responses. I’m revising my talk now, and I think it’s going to be recorded and put on the internet.
Art
Dear Mr. Carden,
I just want to say, that we here in Denmark is looking much forward to you presentation and the rest of the In Defense of Capitalism Conference.
One of the main coordinators behind this event is Jacob de Lichtenberg with whom I myself was a roommate at Mises U 2009.
The interest in Austrian Economics is surely growing in Denmark, and we, the Danish participants of Mises U 2009, are certainly doing our bit in both BA-thesises, blogs, public appearences and now this conference.
It is great that you, and so many others, travel this far to aid us in opening up to these discussions.
/ Jacob Hedegaard
Look forward to seeing y’all there!
Fascism is simply a willingness to coerce people by any means necessary — a willingness to use the bundled axe blade to draw the blood of anyone who dares to challenge pretense of authority.
If charity is causing a great deal of miser and suffering though ‘good intentions’ and ‘unintended consequences’ then there can be a case to made that it could be a criminal offence to dispense alms.
Comments on this entry are closed.