Is capitalism statist?
While we're on topic,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/27/crony-capitalism-and-corporatism/
Intriguing article by a prominent anarchist and proponent for a classless society. He argues that history has provided vast amounts of empirical evidence for capitalism being inherently statist in nature. I hesitate to put him in the same league with right-libertarianism, as I've noticed those tend to argue that corporatism, or "crony capitalism", is a sort of distortion of capitalism, i.e. an impure form thereof.
I'd be especially interested to have some feedback from free-market advocates, and understand better their attitude towards what the author calls "illegitimate state interventions in the market on behalf of plutocrats and big business: “Intellectual property,” absentee title to vacant and unimproved land and corporate limited liability, for example".
I've often heard the argument that capitalism isn't necessarily inherently statist, although achieving government objectives with businesses could at times necessitate a statist implementation of capitalism. And that whenever we use the term "corporatism", it actually has a lot to do with a government-business axis, where business depends on the government for sustained revenue, and conversely, politicians depend upon businesses for campaign contributions - i.e. "unfree" market.
There's also the argument that capitalism inherently requires the existence of the state; that they're mutual products. Because capitalism requres the aid of the state to create, maintain and manage markets and uphold the laws of private property, contract law and other vital laws for society (and keep the working class in check, one might argue - as well as bail out those capitalists that are "too big to fail" whenever necessary).
What say you? Apart from the issue which precedes which, the egg/state or chicken/capitalism... are the two completely separate from each other, or are they inherently interdependent?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/27/crony-capitalism-and-corporatism/
Intriguing article by a prominent anarchist and proponent for a classless society. He argues that history has provided vast amounts of empirical evidence for capitalism being inherently statist in nature. I hesitate to put him in the same league with right-libertarianism, as I've noticed those tend to argue that corporatism, or "crony capitalism", is a sort of distortion of capitalism, i.e. an impure form thereof.
I'd be especially interested to have some feedback from free-market advocates, and understand better their attitude towards what the author calls "illegitimate state interventions in the market on behalf of plutocrats and big business: “Intellectual property,” absentee title to vacant and unimproved land and corporate limited liability, for example".
I've often heard the argument that capitalism isn't necessarily inherently statist, although achieving government objectives with businesses could at times necessitate a statist implementation of capitalism. And that whenever we use the term "corporatism", it actually has a lot to do with a government-business axis, where business depends on the government for sustained revenue, and conversely, politicians depend upon businesses for campaign contributions - i.e. "unfree" market.
There's also the argument that capitalism inherently requires the existence of the state; that they're mutual products. Because capitalism requres the aid of the state to create, maintain and manage markets and uphold the laws of private property, contract law and other vital laws for society (and keep the working class in check, one might argue - as well as bail out those capitalists that are "too big to fail" whenever necessary).
What say you? Apart from the issue which precedes which, the egg/state or chicken/capitalism... are the two completely separate from each other, or are they inherently interdependent?