This Is Not Capitalism

Brownstone Institute ^ | Jeffrey A. Tucker

[Arlis]

Personally I do not care for the word to describe my/our beliefs.

I prefer the more simple term “Free Markets”.

Think it pretty much covers all.

Capitalism is a word used by communists/Marxists to attack our beliefs.

[dfwgator]

Isms are not good.

[Dr. Sivana]

I use “Free Enterprise” myself.

[HIDEK6]

I’m gratified to hear that some of us favor free enterprise.

[PubliusMM]

Excellent read. Thanks for the post.

[Pelham]

It sounds like Jeffrey Tucker is arguing that patents shouldn’t exist.

China surely agrees with him on that one.

I wonder if alcohol was involved in writing this essay.

[NorthMountain]

Eons ago in high school, I had a ‘social studies’ textbook titled “Political Ideologies”. It had chapters on all the usual suspects ... but nothing about “capitalism”.

I showed the book to Dad, and asked what he thought about that. Wisdom ensued ... he said that was correct. “Capitalism” isn’t an ideology. It’s just what happens when people are free to honestly work and trade with each other without interference. “Capitalism” is just the result of observing what works. All the other “isms” are theories with little foundation in fact ... and THEY DON’T WORK.

[ClearCase_guy]

Bfl

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting.

[i_robot73]

>
Personally I do not care for the word to describe my/our beliefs.

I prefer the more simple term “Free Markets”.

Think it pretty much covers all.

Capitalism is a word used by communists/Marxists to attack our beliefs.
>

Same as I don’t espouse the usage of “conversative” (conserving...WHAT, exactly, again??), but merely Constitutional. Like Free Markets, it’s only binary: It is, or is NOT.

Unfortunately, most have fallen into using the Leftists bastardization of the English lingo/definitions, losing the ‘debate’ from word one (via accepting their premises).

[EnderWiggin1970]

True. What I find is that when people attempt to criticize capitalism/free markets, they invariably come up with an example that is not a free market but a corruption of it. An unfree market either due to fraud or coercion (or both). A free market involves voluntary transactions between two willing and uncoerced participants without deception/fraud. Any alternative to a free market involves coercion or fraud, and that is simply what socialism and all the other alternatives these so-called critics of free markets are championing. Slave markets would be a fair description of what they really support.

[Boogieman]

“currencies that never rise in value”

Kind of buried the lede in #6. If your currency isn’t free, the rest of the market can’t be free either.

[Resolute Conservative]

I like “Freedom” myself.

[Resolute Conservative]

Like the misuse of “democracy”. It reminds me of the line from Princess Bride.

[Boogieman]

Intellectual property rights have been doomed by technological progress any way. I expect people will cling to the idea trying to prop it up for a while, but it will be a losing battle.

[bobbo666]

Of course China would not agree with patents. They are communists. Communism cannot admit to private ownership of anything — unless you are a commissar, of course.

Patents must exist. But, they have become corrupted — by greedy capitalists. Especially in Pharm. Adding another unrelated drug product to an existing drug (that is coincidentally running out of patent protection) and getting a reboot on the patent time frame is corrupt.

A capitalist, not a greedy one, would simply insist on the patent for the new, combined drug; but let the patent expire on the original one.

Pharm does not allow this and will bribe anyone trying anything different.

[Dr. Sivana]

I like “Freedom” myself.

Easily abused by lefties.

[caddie]

A patent system that grants private industry production cartels and stops competition for everything from pharmaceuticals to software to industrial processes. This is a subject too big for this essay but know that there is a long history of free market thinkers who regarded the patent power as nothing but a tool of industrial cartelization, wholly unjustified by any standard of commercial freedom. “Intellectual property” is not property as such but the creation of fake scarcity by regulation.

Otherwise excellent article, where all the points EXCEPT the one on patents, should be easily fixed IF the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were applied reasonably. Instead they have been completely ignored for the past 100 years of the Progressive/Socialist/Communist era in our government.

But Article I is in the body of the Constitution, not an amendment:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

There's nothing wrong with patent or copyright protection because it allows people to earn a living as writers and inventors, and the exclusivity provides incentives that are strong. Sure there must be disputes. But since the time of Franklin on (and way, way before in Europe and England), inventors and writers have been motivated to work hard and publish or manufacture with exclusive rights, FOR A TIME.

The rest of the points show clear deviation from the Constitution, but the author is completely wrong to point out intellectual property laws as a problem caused by government. On the contrary, they are some of the few things our government does right.

[Phlyer]

I prefer the more simple term “Free Markets”.

I think this is the key. You can't have free markets without capitalism (the voluntary exchange of economic value) but you can have capitalism without free markets. "Capitalists" of the robber baron variety love monopolies, not free markets. Most of today's 'tycoons' hate free markets and are doing everything they can to get the government to enable and enforce their monopolies.

I also agree that getting wrapped up in a particular word can get in the way of communication. For me, socialism, communism, fascism, marxism, coporatism and all other totalitarian systems are much more similar than different. The purpose of those words is to allow someone to claim a difference that is not real.