• @RGB3x3
    link
    -201 year ago

    As a left-centrist (but like, european-type left centrist, not American “left,” but is actually right), a good mix of a regulated freeish market I think is a good balance between pure capitalism and socialism.

    There are very many things better about a socialist system because of the power of the collective. But like, I don’t need my fast food restaurants being regulated more than health and safety.

    The government should be promoting competition and pure capitalism inherently trends toward less competition.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      181 year ago

      As a billionaire I agree, instead of forming unity to take me down I much rather you idiots keep on suckling on my bullshit to keep the gravy train going. Keep licking my boots 👍👍👍👍

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      The problem is that capitalism is a force incompatible with balance or restraint, eternal competition isn’t a sustainable status quo. Eventually someone will conpete their way into a position where they can change the rules and break containment. As long as there is capitalism and Capital, nothing is safe forever.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      The problem is that we started with competition and it led to imperialism (monopoly finance capitalism) as a matter of historical fact. What forces are powerful enough to break those monopolies? What forces could prevent them from forming again if they were broken? And if they were effectively broken, why would those forces simply re-install early capitalism, knowing how terrible it was, given that they have organised the power to overthrow the most violent people in history? What safeguards in the hypothetical model of early non-monopoly capitalism could prevent climate change, given that capitalism still requires unlimited growth? How could non-monopoly capitalism work in a world with AI and advanced tech available only to a few?

      I say this to suggest there is no room for a balance between capitalism and socialism. Either the capitalists own the means of production or the workers own the means of production. What you propose requires a dictatorship of the proletariat. But if that happens, we’re already at socialism, and they would have zero reason to give the capitalists just a little bit of power back.

      If you’re here in good faith and want to read some theory that underpins this view, see Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, chapter IX:

      spoiler

      The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it engenders, or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty-bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became merged with it in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism.

      In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists,” the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be “criminal,” regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.” [2] But as long as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development, it remained a “pious wish”.

      This is also the main attitude taken by Hobson in his critique of imperialism. Hobson anticipated Kautsky in protesting against the “inevitability of imperialism” argument, and in urging the necessity of “increasing the consuming capacity” of the people (under capitalism!). The petty-bourgeois point of view in the critique of imperialism, the omnipotence of the banks, the financial oligarchy, etc., is adopted by the authors I have often quoted, such as Agahd, A. Lansburgh, L. Eschwege, and among the French writers Victor Berard, author of a superficial book entitled England and Imperialism which appeared in 1900. All these authors, who make no claim to be Marxists, contrast imperialism with free competition and democracy, condemn the Baghdad railway scheme, which is leading to conflicts and war, utter “pious wishes” for peace, etc. This applies also to the compiler of international stock and share issue statistics, A. Neymarck, who, after calculating the thousands of millions of francs representing “international” securities, exclaimed in 1912: “Is it possible to believe that peace may be disturbed … that, in the face of these enormous figures, anyone would risk starting a war?” [3]

      Such simple-mindedness on the part of the bourgeois economists is not surprising; moreover, it is in their interest to pretend to be so naive and to talk “seriously” about peace under imperialism. But what remains of Kautsky’s Marxism, when, in 1914, 1915 and 1916, he takes up the same bourgeois-reformist point of view and affirms that “everybody is agreed” (imperialists, pseudo-socialists and social-pacifists) on the matter of peace? Instead of an analysis of imperialism and an exposure of the depths of its contradictions, we have nothing but a reformist “pious wish” to wave them aside, to evade them.

      Here is a sample of Kautsky’s economic criticism of imperialism. He takes the statistics of the British export and import trade with Egypt for 1872 and 1912; it seems that this export and import trade has grown more slowly than British foreign trade as a whole. From this Kautsky concludes that “we have no reason to suppose that without military occupation the growth of British trade with Egypt would have been less, simply as a result of the mere operation of economic factors.” “The urge of capital to expand … can be best promoted, not by the violent methods of imperialism, but by peaceful democracy.” [4]

      This argument of Kautsky’s, which is repeated in every key by his Russian armour-bearer (and Russian shielder of the social-chauvinists), Mr. Spectator, constitutes the basis of Kautskian critique of imperialism, and that is why we must deal with it in greater detail. We will begin with a quotation from Hilferding, whose conclusions Kautsky on many occasions, and notably in April 1915, has declared to have been “unanimously adopted by all socialist theoreticians.”

      “It is not the business of the proletariat,” writes Hilferding “to contrast the more progressive capitalist policy with that of the now bygone era of free trade and of hostility towards the state. The reply of the proletariat to the economic policy of finance capital, to imperialism, cannot be free trade, but socialism. The aim of proletarian policy cannot today be the ideal of restoring free competition—which has now become a reactionary ideal—but the complete elimination of competition by the abolition of capitalism.” [5]

      Kautsky broke with Marxism by advocating in the epoch of finance capital a “reactionary ideal,” “peaceful democracy,” “the mere operation of economic factors,” for objectively this ideal drags us back from monopoly to non-monopoly capitalism, and is a reformist swindle.

      Trade with Egypt (or with any other colony or semi-colony) “would have grown more” without military occupation, without imperialism, and without finance capital. What does this mean? That capitalism would have developed more rapidly if free competition had not been restricted by monopolies in general, or by the “connections,” yoke (i.e., also the monopoly) of finance capital, or by the monopolist possession of colonies by certain countries?

      Kautsky’s argument can have no other meaning; and this “meaning” is meaningless. Let us assume that free competition, without any sort of monopoly, would have developed capitalism and trade more rapidly. But the more rapidly trade and capitalism develop, the greater is the concentration of production and capital which gives rise to monopoly. And monopolies have already arisen—precisely out of free competition! Even if monopolies have now begun to removed progress, it is not an argument in favour of free competition, which has become impossible after it has given rise to monopoly.

      Whichever way one turns Kautsky’s argument, one will find nothing in it except reaction and bourgeois reformism.