I hate to harp on this incessantly, but the status quo in "capitalist" countries, unfree, imperfect, and improvable as it may be, is nevertheless the best thing that ever happened to the human race. No society in history has been richer, healthier, or freer.
"Almost all self-styled 'anti-capitalists' hate free markets per se."
I totally agree! I say this as a contributor to a book called "Markets, Not Capitalism." I doubt it convinced any socialist/communist. When I use the word "capitalist," I often do what Ayn Rand did: I emphasize that I mean laissez-faire capitalism so there's no misunderstanding.
Personally, I just distinguish between "state capitalism" and "free market capitalism." Yes, the term 'capitalism' has been vilified by the socialists, and one SHOULD take one's intended audience into account when commenting, posting or publishing one's messaging.
The same sort of smear has been applied to other terms, including 'anarchy' and 'Ayn Rand.'
But to simply stop using those terms not only admits defeat, it sets up whatever alternative terms we use for the same eventually-successful attacks: If we can't defend our own terminology, then we won't be able to defend it, no matter what terms we switch to.
I've identified as a "socialist," or more specifically, a "market socialist," based on the opposition you described ("Etymologically, capitalism does sound like a system of rule by capitalists for capitalists – and socialism sounds like a system of rule by society for society.") for ages. Maybe these distinctions don't serve your needs from your position, but I think they're crucial for advancing my needs from my position as a "moderate leftist" or whatever.
"By the way, I am actually a socialist. Just not the kind that shifts resources from most productive to least productive, pretending to do good, while actually causing harm. True socialism seeks greatest good for all."
I also think liberty and the free market produces the best result for society as a whole, and therefore am a "socialist" in that sense.
I have a feeling the CCP defines it that way too, mostly. They don't act on it very consistently, but they don't get enough credit for having defenestrated Marx.
I think the real problem is that too many people compare the reality of capitalism to the ideal of socialism. It is far better to compare the reality of each and note that those who fight for the ideal of socialism systematically fail to implement their ideal.
This interestingly addresses an argument I’ve been having lately. I have taken to saying that our travails are not due to the failure of capitalism but more the success of corporatism? Globalism has not been, as free marketeers had hoped, a Friedmanite revolution. Supranational bodies, inept/corrupt policymakers & multinational companies have seen to that.
If you want a free market, you must have equal access to land (including all natural resources). That is only possible if they are charged for by the community on a fair market value. Monopolies, patents and first grabbed land tenure are all generators of economic inequality of opportunity.
You are slipping in "commonly owned resources" which isn't what was being discussed as brought up by Ff. He seems to be arguing for making all land and natural resources (which needs to be defined) commonly held instead of privately owned. Ff seems not to notice that the "community" owning and allocating all land and natural resources creates exactly the monopoly he is worried about.
I hate to harp on this incessantly, but the status quo in "capitalist" countries, unfree, imperfect, and improvable as it may be, is nevertheless the best thing that ever happened to the human race. No society in history has been richer, healthier, or freer.
I mean, our poor are OBESE.
Except for the Hieronymus Bosch hellish torture experienced by a large majority of the highly sentient beings our poor get obese on.
I was talking about humans. But you do have a point - one of many the ways in which the status quo is imperfect and improvable.
Please harp on. It's evidently needed.
So it seems. I find it strange that so many people are so angry about the greatest economic success in human history.
"Almost all self-styled 'anti-capitalists' hate free markets per se."
I totally agree! I say this as a contributor to a book called "Markets, Not Capitalism." I doubt it convinced any socialist/communist. When I use the word "capitalist," I often do what Ayn Rand did: I emphasize that I mean laissez-faire capitalism so there's no misunderstanding.
Personally, I just distinguish between "state capitalism" and "free market capitalism." Yes, the term 'capitalism' has been vilified by the socialists, and one SHOULD take one's intended audience into account when commenting, posting or publishing one's messaging.
The same sort of smear has been applied to other terms, including 'anarchy' and 'Ayn Rand.'
But to simply stop using those terms not only admits defeat, it sets up whatever alternative terms we use for the same eventually-successful attacks: If we can't defend our own terminology, then we won't be able to defend it, no matter what terms we switch to.
I've identified as a "socialist," or more specifically, a "market socialist," based on the opposition you described ("Etymologically, capitalism does sound like a system of rule by capitalists for capitalists – and socialism sounds like a system of rule by society for society.") for ages. Maybe these distinctions don't serve your needs from your position, but I think they're crucial for advancing my needs from my position as a "moderate leftist" or whatever.
FWIW at https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1008013111058526209?lang=en Elon Musk said:
"By the way, I am actually a socialist. Just not the kind that shifts resources from most productive to least productive, pretending to do good, while actually causing harm. True socialism seeks greatest good for all."
I also think liberty and the free market produces the best result for society as a whole, and therefore am a "socialist" in that sense.
I have a feeling the CCP defines it that way too, mostly. They don't act on it very consistently, but they don't get enough credit for having defenestrated Marx.
I think the real problem is that too many people compare the reality of capitalism to the ideal of socialism. It is far better to compare the reality of each and note that those who fight for the ideal of socialism systematically fail to implement their ideal.
Hate capitalists, love capitalism.
This interestingly addresses an argument I’ve been having lately. I have taken to saying that our travails are not due to the failure of capitalism but more the success of corporatism? Globalism has not been, as free marketeers had hoped, a Friedmanite revolution. Supranational bodies, inept/corrupt policymakers & multinational companies have seen to that.
If you want a free market, you must have equal access to land (including all natural resources). That is only possible if they are charged for by the community on a fair market value. Monopolies, patents and first grabbed land tenure are all generators of economic inequality of opportunity.
This tired trope?
What's tired about intergenerational equality of access to land and natural resources?
Equality is impossible, and even if you could, it would be immoral.
Why?
Equality of outcomes is neither possible nor desirable nor moral. Equality of access to commonly owned resources is another story.
You are slipping in "commonly owned resources" which isn't what was being discussed as brought up by Ff. He seems to be arguing for making all land and natural resources (which needs to be defined) commonly held instead of privately owned. Ff seems not to notice that the "community" owning and allocating all land and natural resources creates exactly the monopoly he is worried about.
I don’t want everyone to have the same access to scarce resources.