Capitalism vs. Free Enterprise by Keith Preston

[Jean Gove`]

Capitalism vs. Free Enterprise
Keith Preston, August 15, 2003

Every so often in the history of liberty a book or pamphlet has come along that has revolutionized libertarian thought and practice. One of these is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" which was largely responsible for popularizing the ideals of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. Another is Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" which utterly demolishes the absurd "social contract" theory on which constitutionalist states are ostensibly based. Hans Hermann Hoppe's recent work "Democracy: The God That Failed" thoroughly refutes the notion that modern democratic statism can be reconciled with liberty or even represents an improvement upon earlier monarchical states. Now comes Kevin Carson's "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand".(1) Just as Hoppe has revolutionized modern political philosophy by drawing and expanding upon the work of the late Murray N. Rothbard and his teacher, Ludwig von Mises, Carson has, in the space of twenty-four pages, revolutionized political economy by expounding upon the work of Rothbard and another of his influences, the nineteenth century individualist-anarchist Benjamin R. Tucker.

....

Carson ably demonstrates that the division between contemporary anarchists on economic matters need not be as wide as it seems. Like the anarcho-capitalists, Carson favors a genuinely stateless free market. However, he argues effectively that the economic arrangements that an authentic free market economy would likely produce are remarkably similar to those typically advocated by anarcho-socialists. Serious free market economists, such as Rothbard, have long recognized that the corporatist structure of modern "Big Business" rests on state intervention rather than lassez faire. The state creates the fictitious legal infrastructure of corporate "personhood". The state protects and assists corporations by means of limited liability laws, subsidies, government contracts, loans, guarantees, bailouts, purchases of goods, price controls, regulatory privilege, grants of monopolies, protectionist tariffs and trade policies, bankruptcy laws, military intervention to gain access to international markets and protect foreign investments, regulating or prohibiting organized labor activity, eminent domain, discriminatory taxation, ignoring corporate crimes and countless other forms of state-imposed favors and privileges.

Full article: http://www.theidyllic.com/php/article.php?article=35

[Freedom]

Corporatist structures and the state are mutually perpetual. The state favors corporatist structures for employment and economical prosperity and the corporatist structure favor the state, being able to control it and set up a cultural hegemony.

Like the socialist states could not exist without corporatist structures and failing to find an alternative eventually fell; corporatist structures cannot exist without the state since they would not be able to support their existance by controlling the people's social and economical values.

Thus i regard anarcho-capitalism as fallacious since capitalism needs a collective union to overcome and control, ie the state.

[Jean Gove`]

I would love some reaction from those Rightists who favour Capitalism as is.

In reaction to Einherjar's last assertion, I find it obvious that an anarcho-capitalist favours an open market without state intervention, and would hopefully be consistent enough to say that capitalism as is, is not capitalism at all.

I've always been of the opinion that out of the three main factors which make up Capitalism - separation of production and consumption, domination of the economic sphere over the political sphere, and free enterprise - it was only the latter idea that we as Rightists should embrace, while refuting vigorously the other two.

[Freedom]

Why do you think capitalism prefers total freedom?
In my opinion, for capitalism to work there must be a cultural hegemony in which the life purposes for the proletariat, the consumers are the same as those of of the bourgeouse.
I find it difficult to imagine how such a cultural hegemony could exist in a stateless society.

I've always been of the opinion that out of the three main factors which make up Capitalism - separation of production and consumption, domination of the economic sphere over the political sphere, and free enterprise - it was only the latter idea that we as Rightists should embrace, while refuting vigorously the other two
Those three types of capitalism are not necessarily seperate from each other.
Historically in certain regions like africa, free enterprise always brought about domination of the political spehere.

[Jean Gove`]

Why does free enterprise presupposes a cultural hegemony? Have you read the article? It defends free enterprise against capitalism, by the way.

How does free enterprise without state intervention bring about domination of the political sphere?

[Freedom]

Why does free enterprise presupposes a cultural hegemony?
I did not say that. I said 'capitalism' presupposes a cultural hegemony. My argument is that free enterprise must be interlinked to capitalism.

Have you read the article? It defends free enterprise against capitalism, by the way.
Yes, i read something.

How does free enterprise without state intervention bring about domination of the political sphere?
Just notice the african economical system.

[Jean Gove`]

I did not say that. I said 'capitalism' presupposes a cultural hegemony. My argument is that free enterprise must be interlinked to capitalism.
Ok, we agree that free enterprise is linked with capitalism. Free enterprise is one presupposed ideological factor within capitalism. My contention is that free enterprise can be separated from capitalism (that is, from the other two factors of capitalism) if the state is removed. After all, if the anarchist dream comes true what would happen in the economic sphere? Not complete freedom? If not what is anarchism?

Just notice the african economical system.
Under the domination of "American" multinational companies who still enjoy state intervention in the US and in Europe. If state intervention disappeared completely what do you think would happen to these overbloated empires?

[Freedom]

After all, if the anarchist dream comes true what would happen in the economic sphere?
I'm still evolving on this question.
But how much will free enterprises remain really 'free'; especially in a stateless society?
How would you compare free enterprises with other alternatives such as co-operatives?

If state intervention disappeared completely what do you think would happen to these overbloated empires?
If state intervention disappeared globally, there would be less need for economical globalisation. Judging from these moments, proletarian exploitation would be balanced out globally.

And can an anarchist society be totally free? Wouldn't that conflict with the preservation of the ethnos?

[Jean Gove`]

I'm still evolving on this question.
But how much will free enterprises remain really 'free'; especially in a stateless society?
How would you compare free enterprises with other alternatives such as co-operatives?
One would have to ask, if anarchism does not provide for a free economy, if it is anarchism at all. Free enterprise would allow for different kinds of economical alternatives, simply because it is free. I don't mean anything else by free enterprise. Communist communes could exist in a free enterprise society.

If state intervention disappeared globally, there would be less need for economical globalisation. Judging from these moments, proletarian exploitation would be balanced out globally.
Agreed, and what is economic domination ultimately if not economic globalisation? International economy is the grave of national politics, is it not?

And can an anarchist society be totally free? Wouldn't that conflict with the preservation of the ethnos?
Well, I'm not really sure that I am for a completely anarchist society. I am quite schizo on this issue actually - in love simultaneously with the strength of a fascist state and with the liberty of an anarchist society. And certainly I am not for the preservation of any ethnos that does not wish to preserve itself - such a preservation would be artificial at best. I am for instilling a healthy mindset in such a sickened ethnos, such as the European ethnos (plural).

[Freedom]

One would have to ask, if anarchism does not provide for a free economy, if it is anarchism at all. Free enterprise would allow for different kinds of economical alternatives, simply because it is free. I don't mean anything else by free enterprise. Communist communes could exist in a free enterprise society.
I agree to a certain extent, though some economical alternatives cannot coexist with each other. Maybe a capitalist corporation produces better-valued product than a co-operative and so it will naturally prevail.
For example, do you agree with controlling multinational corporations which easily swallow every other producer in their sector? How does such a free economic system fight such predators which ultimately lead to monopolies and hence inefficiency?

Agreed, and what is economic domination ultimately if not economic globalisation? International economy is the grave of national politics, is it not?
Yes, i agree.

Well, I'm not really sure that I am for a completely anarchist society. I am quite schizo on this issue actually - in love simultaneously with the strength of a fascist state and with the liberty of an anarchist society. And certainly I am not for the preservation of any ethnos that does not wish to preserve itself - such a preservation would be artificial at best. I am for instilling a healthy mindset in such a sickened ethnos, such as the European ethnos (plural).
Same here; maybe we'd like the order and sense of identity of totalitarian states be applied in an anarchist society.