What's the best way to respond to this accusation by leftists?

[lilymc]

I'm sure that many of you have noticed that leftists sometimes point to corporatism and call that "capitalism." I think that's why so many people on the left hate capitalism with a passion, because many of them confuse it with corporatism, cartels, etc.

I've had a few conversations with people who think that way, and I always try to explain that there is a big difference between corporatism and capitalism or the free market.

I've had a few people respond with, "Well, even if they are different, the free market always leads to corporatism. That is the logical end of what you support."

Then they go on to say that that's why regulations are needed, etc.

How would you respond to that? I think that if they could somehow be assured that the free market doesn't inevitably lead to corporatism (or fascism) they would be much more inclined to embrace it.

So what's the best way to handle that accusation?

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm sure that many of you have noticed that leftists sometimes point to corporatism and call that "capitalism." I think that's why so many people on the left hate capitalism with a passion, because many of them confuse it with corporatism, cartels, etc.

I've had a few conversations with people who think that way, and I always try to explain that there is a big difference between corporatism and capitalism or the free market.

I've had a few people respond with, "Well, even if they are different, the free market always leads to corporatism. That is the logical end of what you support."

Then they go on to say that that's why regulations are needed, etc.

How would you respond to that? I think that if they could somehow be assured that the free market doesn't inevitably lead to corporatism (or fascism) they would be much more inclined to embrace it.

So what's the best way to handle that accusation?

I would start to say that a free market has never truly been had. At least in modern history. Governments have been interceding in trade since their inception. If they are worried about fascism, why grant the state the power to make or break companies? Anti-trust laws make no sense. Protectionism is a negative for the consumer. Politicians represent their own interests (and the interests of those who funded their elections) more so than the American people. If people are inherently ill willed and tick like, why establish a tick like class that exudes power others do not possess? They should look into the Fifth Amendment and the cases regarding Eminent Domain, the BLM and their scams, etc. Virtually no agency is exempt from evidence of corruption. It is the nature of the beast.

I would encourage them to read, It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Napolitano, The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, The Law, followed by Economic Sophisms by Bastiat, and hell, for good measure throw in Government Bullies by Rand Paul.

And of course there's always more. Spooner is a treat. Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money?..... the information is available. Getting someone to actually read, listen, or watch it is the problem.

[Natural Citizen]

Are you familiar with the concept of mercantilism, lilymc? I've always found it to be practical to discuss the free market/capitalism in a way that demonstrates it's contradiction to what we really kind of have going on. Which really is mercantilism. We just need to look at it in a more geo-political way. The reason for that is that we kind of have an easier time helping people understand the truly destructive aspects of a bastardized free market system without having to limit ourselves to the mainstream terms of controversy and the language that comes with that when debating such things out in the www and even in the general public for that matter.

kcchiefs is giving what is probably okay advice and I'm not debating that but the reality is that nobody is going to take the time to read. You have to get it done live and in living color. In real time. And so an understanding of what we really have going on is practical.

I know for a fact that I've discussed this exact phenomenon in depth that you mention here around the boards. Maybe try a forum search for mercantilism. Although that thing seems buggy to me for some reason.

[lilymc]

I would start to say that a free market has never truly been had. At least in modern history. Governments have been interceding in trade since their inception. If they are worried about fascism, why grant the state the power to make or break companies? Anti-trust laws make no sense. Protectionism is a negative for the consumer. Politicians represent their own interests (and the interests of those who funded their elections) more so than the American people. If people are inherently ill willed and tick like, why establish a tick like class that exudes power others do not possess? They should look into the Fifth Amendment and the cases regarding Eminent Domain, the BLM and their scams, etc. Virtually no agency is exempt from evidence of corruption. It is the nature of the beast.

I would encourage them to read, It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Napolitano, The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, The Law, followed by Economic Sophisms by Bastiat, and hell, for good measure throw in Government Bullies by Rand Paul.

And of course there's always more. Spooner is a treat. Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money?..... the information is available. Getting someone to actually read, listen, or watch it is the problem.

Good points, thank you. I want to read those books first, so I can better explain these things to them.

I did recommend 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' - but as you said, getting people to actually read something that goes against what they believe is the problem. I think I'll have to buy them the book and give it to them as a gift.

Thank you for your input!

[otherone]

It's really simple.

The enemy of big business is small business.
The enemy of small business is government.

[presence]

regulations CAUSE corporatism

Blaming Capitalism for Corporatism

NEW YORK – The future of capitalism is again a question. Will it survive the ongoing crisis in its current form? If not, will it transform itself or will government take the lead?
The term “capitalism” used to mean an economic system in which capital was privately owned and traded; owners of capital got to judge how best to use it, and could draw on the foresight and creative ideas of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers. This system of individual freedom and individual responsibility gave little scope for government to influence economic decision-making: success meant profits; failure meant losses. Corporations could exist only as long as free individuals willingly purchased their goods – and would go out of business quickly otherwise.
Capitalism became a world-beater in the 1800’s, when it developed capabilities for endemic innovation. Societies that adopted the capitalist system gained unrivaled prosperity, enjoyed widespread job satisfaction, obtained productivity growth that was the marvel of the world and ended mass privation.
Now the capitalist system has been corrupted. The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This system, however, is not capitalism, but rather an economic order that harks back to Bismarck in the late nineteenth century and Mussolini in the twentieth: corporatism.
In various ways, corporatism chokes off the dynamism that makes for engaging work, faster economic growth, and greater opportunity and inclusiveness. It maintains lethargic, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic newcomers and outsiders, and favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals’ economic freedom and responsibility. Today, airlines, auto manufacturers, agricultural companies, media, investment banks, hedge funds, and much more has at some point been deemed too important to weather the free market on its own, receiving a helping hand from government in the name of the “public good.”
The costs of corporatism are visible all around us: dysfunctional corporations that survive despite their gross inability to serve their customers; sclerotic economies with slow output growth, a dearth of engaging work, scant opportunities for young people; governments bankrupted by their efforts to palliate these problems; and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of those connected enough to be on the right side of the corporatist deal.
This shift of power from owners and innovators to state officials is the antithesis of capitalism. Yet this system’s apologists and beneficiaries have the temerity to blame all these failures on “reckless capitalism” and “lack of regulation,” which they argue necessitates more oversight and regulation, which in reality means more corporatism and state favoritism.
It seems unlikely that so disastrous a system is sustainable. The corporatist model makes no sense to younger generations who grew up using the Internet, the world’s freest market for goods and ideas. The success and failure of firms on the Internet is the best advertisement for the free market: social networking Web sites, for example, rise and fall almost instantaneously, depending on how well they serve their customers.
Sites such as Friendster and MySpace sought extra profit by compromising the privacy of their users, and were instantly punished as users deserted them to relatively safer competitors like Facebook and Twitter. There was no need for government regulation to bring about this transition; in fact, had modern corporatist states attempted to do so, today they would be propping up MySpace with taxpayer dollars and campaigning on a promise to “reform” its privacy features.
The Internet, as a largely free marketplace for ideas, has not been kind to corporatism. People who grew up with its decentralization and free competition of ideas must find alien the idea of state support for large firms and industries. Many in the traditional media repeat the old line “What's good for Firm X is good for America,” but it is not likely to be seen trending on Twitter.
The legitimacy of corporatism is eroding along with the fiscal health of governments that have relied on it. If politicians cannot repeal corporatism, it will bury itself in debt and default, and a capitalist system could re-emerge from the discredited corporatist rubble. Then “capitalism” would again carry its true meaning, rather than the one attributed to it by corporatists seeking to hide behind it and socialists wanting to vilify it.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/blaming-capitalism-for-corporatism

Dear Left: Corporatism Is Your Fault

By Jason Brennan On November 29, 2011 · 208 Comments · In Current Events, Democracy, Exploitation, Liberalism




I’m not usually one for polemics. But sometimes polemics is called for. Here goes.
Dear members of the moderate left,
America is suffering from rampant, run-away corporatism and crony capitalism. We are increasingly a plutocracy in which government serves the interests of elite financiers and CEOs at the expense of everyone else.
You know this and you complain loudly about it. But the problem is your fault. You caused this state of affairs. Stop it.
Unlike we libertarianish people, you people actually hold and have been holding significant political power in the US over the past 50 years. What have you done with this power? You’ve greased the corporatist machine every chance you’ve gotten. You’ve made things worse, not better. Our current problems are your fault. You need to stop.
We told you this would happen, but you wouldn’t listen. You complain, rightly, that regulatory agencies are controlled by the very corporations they are supposed to constrain. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create power—and you people love to create power—the unscrupulous seek to capture that power for their personal benefit. Time and time again, they succeed. We told you that would happen, and we gave you an accurate account of how it would happen.
You complain, perhaps rightly, that corporations are just too big. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create complicated tax codes, complicated regulatory regimes, and complicated licensing rules, these regulations naturally select for larger and larger corporations. We told you that would happen. Of course, these increasingly large corporations then capture these rules, codes, and regulations to disadvantage their competitors and exploit the rest of us. We told you that would happen.
It’s not rocket science. It’s public choice economics. You recognized, rightly, that public choice economics was a threat to your ideology. So, you didn’t listen, because you didn’t want to be wrong. Public choice predicted that the government programs you created with the goal of fixing problems would often instead exacerbate those problems. Well, the evidence is in. You were wrong and public choice theory was right. If you have any decency, it is time to admit you were wrong and change. Stop making things worse.
You spent the past fifty years empowering corporations and the most unscrupulous of the rich. You created rampant moral hazard in the financial sector. You created the system that socializes risks but privatizes profit. You created the system that creates a revolving door between Obama’s staff and Goldman Sachs. There’s a reason why Wall Street throws money at Obama. It’s because you, the moderate left, are Wall Street’s biggest supporters. Oh, I know you complain about Wall Street. But your actions speak louder than your words.
You balk: Isn’t the problem the regressive pro-market post-Reagan politics? Please, people. Let’s be serious a moment. Reagan used a bunch of pro-market, pro-liberty, anti-big government rhetoric, but the man was no libertarian, and he did little to make the country more libertarian. Reagan spent and spent, and thus ran up the debt. He doubled the number of imports with trade restrictions. He pursued militaristic foreign policy. He increased rather than decreased the size, scope, and power of government. Reagan ramped up the war on Americans civil liberties drugs. He wasn’t even a big deregulator—that was Carter. Look past rhetoric to reality. Reagan was in practice just a more militaristic version of one of you. (More militaristic? Maybe I’m giving you too much credit. While we spent Black Friday shopping, Obama spent it having his military murder innocent Afghan children.)
Point your fingers at yourself. You did this.
Now, here’s the good news. Unlike we libertarianish people, you members of the moderate left will continue to hold and exercise power. So, learn some public choice, and use what you learn in practice. I’m ready to forgive you, if you’re ready to change.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...is-your-fault/

Roderick Long writes,

The vast regulatory apparatus that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was thus specifically campaigned for by the business community. ..The supposedly pro-labour legislation that emerged from this area was also mostly bogus, a matter of co-opting labour leaders into a junior partnership with government and business in exchange for not rocking the boat.

Read the whole thing. Much-appreciated pointer from Will Wilkinson. This phenomenon goes by many names. My father liked Murray Edelman's term, symbolic reassurance. The progressive symbols were used,, but underneath it was corporate-state co-operation. A more recent term is bootleggers-and-baptists coalitions. The bootleggers are the corporations who say that consumers need protection from dangerous products or from products made by cheap labor. The baptists fall for that. The result is regulated industries, free to operate in monopolistic fashion. I think that major auto companies are protected by regulation, including the many regulations that Ralph Nader forced on them several decades ago. You can't start a car company today. You'd need too many lawyers. Similarly, you can't bring a new drug to market as an independent company. You have to sell to big pharma. Thanks to progressives, the supposed enemies of big corporate power.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ssive_cor.html

[heavenlyboy34]

Good points, thank you. I want to read those books first, so I can better explain these things to them.

I did recommend 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' - but as you said, getting people to actually read something that goes against what they believe is the problem. I think I'll have to buy them the book and give it to them as a gift.

Thank you for your input!

Have you tried handing out mp3s/CDs? I'd like to know if people listen to those and how they respond. I find it difficult to get people to read as well. :/ (even certain folk on RPFs who should know better :P )

[TaftFan]

Socialism leads to fascism. Fascism=corporatism.

[presence]

Just point them to this wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Bootleggers and Baptists is a catch-phrase invented by regulatory economist Bruce Yandle^[1] for the observation that regulations are supported by both groups that want the ostensible purpose of the regulation

and groups that profit from undermining that purpose.^[2]

Explain that meme to them and let the "bootleggers and baptists" rattle in their heads.

[lilymc]

Are you familiar with the concept of mercantilism, lilymc? I've always found it to be practical to discuss the free market/capitalism in a way that demostrates it's contradiction to what we really kind of have goingf on. Which really is mercantilism. We just need to look at it in a more geo-political way. The reason for that is that we kind of have an easier time helping people understand the truly destructive aspects of a bastardized free market system without having to limit ourselves to the mainstream terms of controversy and the language that comes with that when debating such things out in the www and even in the general public for that matter.

kcchiefs is giving what is probably okay advice and I'm not debating that but the reality is that nobody is going to take the time to read. You have to get it done live and in living color. In real time. And so an understanding of what we really have going on is practical.

Thanks, NC. That is what I want to do, demonstrate the difference between the free market and what we have going on.... but also, as I said, respond to what they always say - that one leads to the other. I was just at a dinner party last night, and this very conversation came up. Next time I want to have a much better response.

It's really simple.

The enemy of big business is small business.
The enemy of small business is government.

regulations CAUSE corporatism

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/blaming-capitalism-for-corporatism


http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...is-your-fault/


http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ssive_cor.html

Socialism leads to fascism. Fascism=corporatism.

Just point them to this wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists



Explain that meme to them and let the "bootleggers and baptists" rattle in their heads.

Thanks you guys, that's definitely helpful! And I'll take a look at those links.

Have you tried handing out mp3s/CDs? I'd like to know if people listen to those and how they respond. I find it difficult to get people to read as well. :/ (even certain folk on RPFs who should know better :P )

No, I haven't. But I know a left-wing woman who listens to a lot of audio books (because she's always commuting and spends a ton of time in the car) so that's actually a good idea.

[otherone]

Visual proof that progs are useful idiots:

[jmdrake]

I'm sure that many of you have noticed that leftists sometimes point to corporatism and call that "capitalism." I think that's why so many people on the left hate capitalism with a passion, because many of them confuse it with corporatism, cartels, etc.

I've had a few conversations with people who think that way, and I always try to explain that there is a big difference between corporatism and capitalism or the free market.

I've had a few people respond with, "Well, even if they are different, the free market always leads to corporatism. That is the logical end of what you support."

Then they go on to say that that's why regulations are needed, etc.

How would you respond to that? I think that if they could somehow be assured that the free market doesn't inevitably lead to corporatism (or fascism) they would be much more inclined to embrace it.

So what's the best way to handle that accusation?

Ron Paul seemed to have the right idea.



Here's the basic idea.

Q. Who runs Washington DC? The people or the lobbyists?

Q. Who ultimately drafts new regulations? Regulators? Our elected officials? Or the lobbyists?

Q. Who's more likely to benefit from new regulation? The people or the lobbyists?

Find some issue where there "mad as hell" at what congress did (like the bailouts) and see if they can process rationally from there.

[limequat]

Step one to winning any argument: Agree with them.

Find your common ground and go from there. Why do they hate capitalism (grit your teeth and bear it here, it'll pay dividends later)? Maybe because corporations are "greedy" maybe they pollute too much? They don't care about their workers? These are some common leftist arguments.

Here's how I would address them:

Greedy. Corporations are created by limiting liability through the legal fiction of incorporation. If companies were responsible for their actions -fully at-risk- they would act in the interests of their customers instead of the interests of their rich, greedy shareholders. If there was some way to remove that power of incorporation...Oh? it's government that bestows that? You don't say!

Pollution: Yeah, companies are always dumping polluted waste in rivers or crap into the air. Wouldn't it be cool if the people had some sort of recourse? Some sort of property protection...like property rights or something. So if a company polluted, the people could sue the pants off of 'em.

Don't care about their workers: Well it's hard to argue this one without sounding like an anarchist. Basically, don't like it don't shop there. If it's so bad, why don't the workers get some skills and go to a employer. If there's not, why not create your own company and compete?

[kcchiefs6465]

Lysander Spooner, No Treason, audiobook.
https://mises.org/media/categories/2...f-No-Authority

For some reason it starts from the end and proceeds to the beginning.

What is Free Trade? Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16106

Economic Sophisms Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44145

Harmonies of Political Economy by Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45002

Lysander Spooner:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=spooner

I'd recommend the audio book more so than the various sections offered on the internet.

[RJB]

FOX and MSNBC only talk of capitalism and socialism when in reality we have neither. It's all corporatism and it's labeled either one to rile up the bases on both sides.

Look at how many republicans call Obama care socialism.

That's why I wouldn't mind a straight up socialist getting elected president-- I'd rather a libertarian of course. I dislike socialism, but at least the dialogue would be honest for a change.

[Natural Citizen]

Thanks, NC. That is what I want to do, demonstrate the difference between the free market and what we have going on.... but also, as I said, respond to what they always say - that one leads to the other. I was just at a dinner party last night, and this very conversation came up. Next time I want to have a much better response.

Good. Then the idea is that we want to discuss (specifically) instances where some who come into the subject matter in those kinds of discussions may tend to use government to protect themselves from the free market while maneuvering into a position to dictate foreign and domestic policy. That's really the main thing happening at the moment. Of course discussion would be dependent upon the moment. That's the old fashioned way, of course.

Good luck.

[otherone]

Don't care about their workers: Well it's hard to argue this one without sounding like an anarchist. Basically, don't like it don't shop there. If it's so bad, why don't the workers get some skills and go to a employer. If there's not, why not create your own company and compete?

Or how about public schools teaching kids to be self-reliant instead of obedient wage-slaves?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Smash their face in the lemon meringue pie you brought to the dinner. Show them the frozen box it came in. Instruct them that the old Soviets couldn't have had such an economical laugh.

[Uriah]

We should first stop calling them "leftists". The term is divisive and separates us into opposing factions. We are all on the same side. They see corruption and we see corruption the only difference is in where to place the blame. Some say corporations while others say government. Corruption is the real issue. Corporatism and big government are diversions that give us a false identity as to the source of the problem. The nuances of rhetoric have only divided our country into opposing factions. Trying to change peoples minds about where to place the blame won't get you far. Unity will bring us much farther.

Seek agreement on the source of the problem, corruption. Discuss where corruption is seen. Brainstorm ideas to remove corruption. Friends and allies are made. Allies and friends work together towards common goals instead of working against each other.

[lilymc]

Visual proof that progs are useful idiots:

That's awesome, thank you!!

Ron Paul seemed to have the right idea.



Here's the basic idea.

Q. Who runs Washington DC? The people or the lobbyists?

Q. Who ultimately drafts new regulations? Regulators? Our elected officials? Or the lobbyists?

Q. Who's more likely to benefit from new regulation? The people or the lobbyists?

Find some issue where there "mad as hell" at what congress did (like the bailouts) and see if they can process rationally from there.

Excellent, thank you JM. And that's kind of what I was trying to get across last night, that the government is not the "good guy" in this, the government is corrupt.

Next time I'll bring up the lobbyists. And I'll watch that vid, thanks!

Step one to winning any argument: Agree with them.

Find your common ground and go from there. Why do they hate capitalism (grit your teeth and bear it here, it'll pay dividends later)? Maybe because corporations are "greedy" maybe they pollute too much? They don't care about their workers? These are some common leftist arguments.

Here's how I would address them:

Greedy. Corporations are created by limiting liability through the legal fiction of incorporation. If companies were responsible for their actions -fully at-risk- they would act in the interests of their customers instead of the interests of their rich, greedy shareholders. If there was some way to remove that power of incorporation...Oh? it's government that bestows that? You don't say!

Pollution: Yeah, companies are always dumping polluted waste in rivers or crap into the air. Wouldn't it be cool if the people had some sort of recourse? Some sort of property protection...like property rights or something. So if a company polluted, the people could sue the pants off of 'em.

Don't care about their workers: Well it's hard to argue this one without sounding like an anarchist. Basically, don't like it don't shop there. If it's so bad, why don't the workers get some skills and go to a employer. If there's not, why not create your own company and compete?

Ah, you guys are awesome. More good points, and very helpful. Thanks!!!

Lysander Spooner, No Treason, audiobook.
https://mises.org/media/categories/2...f-No-Authority

For some reason it starts from the end and proceeds to the beginning.

What is Free Trade? Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16106

Economic Sophisms Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44145

Harmonies of Political Economy by Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45002

Lysander Spooner:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=spooner

I'd recommend the audio book more so than the various sections offered on the internet.

Cool, thanks again kcheif!

[GunnyFreedom]

Corporatism is to capitalism, as phariseeism is to christianity. If even some of the more rational people around here can't or refuse to separate phariseeism from Christianity, then I don't know what hope there is to convince the irrational to separate corporatism from capitalism. People get so invested in the comparison that even when proven wrong it almost seems their identity is invested in the conflation.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well 'Capitalism' in the presence of Government will always lead to Corporatism. It's always easier to buy levers of power, than meet consumer demand in a market. So, they are partially correct - and why I don't find any lasting hope in 'minarchism' since we'll inevitably be right back at where we are. Nature of the beast and so on and so forth. It's much harder to start a Government than to take-over an all ready existing one.

[lilymc]

Smash their face in the lemon meringue pie you brought to the dinner. Show them the frozen box it came in. Instruct them that the old Soviets couldn't have had such an economical laugh.

We should first stop calling them "leftists". The term is divisive and separates us into opposing factions. We are all on the same side. They see corruption and we see corruption the only difference is in where to place the blame. Some say corporations while others say government. Corruption is the real issue. Corporatism and big government are diversions that give us a false identity as to the source of the problem. The nuances of rhetoric have only divided our country into opposing factions. Trying to change peoples minds about where to place the blame won't get you far. Unity will bring us much farther.

Seek agreement on the source of the problem, corruption. Discuss where corruption is seen. Brainstorm ideas to remove corruption. Friends and allies are made. Allies and friends work together towards common goals instead of working against each other.

I do try to find common ground in these kinds of discussions. Because most people do want what is best, we just have very different ideas on how to get there. That's the problem.

I also try to explain that the powers-that-be try to divide people and get the "sides" to hate or fear each other so that people are constantly bickering and distracted. I try to tell them that they aren't my enemy, and we're not their enemy. The real enemy is behind the scenes, being subversive and trying to destroy our country as we know it.

Speaking of that, I did a little video on that topic, earlier this year. I guess the style was slightly sarcastic, but the main point was that the powers-that-be are manipulating the public in order to maintain the "left vs right" constant bickering. Here it is, for anyone who didn't see it the first time I posted it.

Corporatism is to capitalism, as phariseeism is to christianity. If even some of the more rational people around here can't or refuse to separate phariseeism from Christianity, then I don't know what hope there is to convince the irrational to separate corporatism from capitalism. People get so invested in the comparison that even when proven wrong it almost seems their identity is invested in the conflation.

Well said. And the last thing you said is an interesting point. Maybe some people don't want to know the difference, because they are so invested in their anti-capitalism position.

[nobody's_hero]

I usually don't respond.

[Antischism]

People are generally misinformed on both sides, even on here. Except with people on the right, it's that they confuse real socialism (libertarian socialism) with the state/authoritarian "socialism" of Mao, Trotsky, etc. Heck, people call Obama a socialist when he's nothing more than a corporatist. McCarthyism is alive and well. Even Ron Paul admits this. Both parties are full of corporatists.

I agree that trying to educate is always better than berating others. You would have to approach each person differently depending on where they're coming from, though. Are the people on the left you're talking to anarchists? Statists? Their argument certainly makes sense if they're saying 'capitalism' under the rule of government leads to cronyism/corporatism. Or are they saying it will happen even in the absence of government?

[osan]

I'm sure that many of you have noticed that leftists sometimes point to corporatism and call that "capitalism." I think that's why so many people on the left hate capitalism with a passion, because many of them confuse it with corporatism, cartels, etc.

I've had a few conversations with people who think that way, and I always try to explain that there is a big difference between corporatism and capitalism or the free market.

I've had a few people respond with, "Well, even if they are different, the free market always leads to corporatism. That is the logical end of what you support."

Then they go on to say that that's why regulations are needed, etc.

How would you respond to that? I think that if they could somehow be assured that the free market doesn't inevitably lead to corporatism (or fascism) they would be much more inclined to embrace it.

So what's the best way to handle that accusation?

Firstly, they make the assertion. Therefore, onus rests with them to prove it. They must provide the evidence that proves the assertion or else they are guilty of the proof-by-assertion fallacy, which constitutes major FAIL. "Even if they are different, the free market always leads to corporatism." That is almost a bald-faced concession that they are different. I would ask them, "do you then admit that they are fundamentally different?" The moment you get them to accept this, you have them by the balls, if for no other reason than you can then ask them to demonstrate a SINGLE significant and true free market that has existed in a nation-state in the past 500 years that was not gray or black. Naturally, they will be unable to cite such an example because none exist. Any such cite will be false and all you have to do to demolish their argument is to counter-cite the factors of government interference in non-criminal market activities. Taxation is an example, though they will see it as weak. There are plenty of others such as blue laws, ordinances such as the 16 oz. soda limit by that neurotic control freak Bloomberg, business licensing, practice licensing, business occupation taxes, excise (sin) taxes... perhaps you get the idea. These brands of interference by the king have been going on since the days of Sumer and Akkad, meaning that free markets have essentially never existed under the various tyrannies of Empire. Given this, it is blatantly false when one claims that free markets lead to failure X, for any given X. These people are fools who see only what they want to see and they ignore logic when left to their own devices. Most are dishonest cretins who ignore logic when it is laid out for them in clear and failsafe fashion. Those who are honest will at least take pause and think about what you have offered before running back to the comfort and darkness of their feel-good ignorance. On the rarest of occasions, one will see that they have labored under gross misconceptions and failed reasoning and change their tunes. I have a friend like this, let us call him Wray... mainly because that is his name.

Wray is a fabulous metal artist whose career has been spent building body panels for very expensive automobiles from scratch. He used to be a full-blown socialist. We were on a mailing list together called "artmetal" and he told me he used to think I was nuttier than a fruitcake until one day something I wrote, combined with other observations caused him to twig to the fallacies of collectivist philosophy. We became good friends after than and he is now a staunch libertarian running his own business and he really hates what government does to him in terms of both taxation and regulation. I am proud to have been a pernicious factor in converting him away from the dark side.

Oh, and an aside: if you are interested in sheet metal fabrication, Wray makes the finest English wheels in the world.

[RJB]

Very good point.

You would have to approach each person differently depending on where they're coming from, though. Are the people on the left you're talking to anarchists? Statists? Their argument certainly makes sense if they're saying 'capitalism' under the rule of government leads to cronyism/corporatism. Or are they saying it will happen even in the absence of government?

I've found some democrats are as diverse as the people who frequent here. You have the Party-bots/MSNBC fed people who are just as bad as Ditto-heads.

I've found FAR more in common with dissatisfied Kucinich type democrats over McCain/Romney republicans.

'The technique of infamy is to invent two lies and to get people to argue heatedly over which one of them is true.'--Ezra Pound

[Acala]

Corporations were CREATED by government, not the market. Government created the corporate business form by passing laws that force everyone to recognize corporate existence and special privileges.

[thoughtomator]

Corporations are a function of government, not of markets. If you're going to argue the point with a leftist (whether they call themselves "progressive" or "conservative") that is the key point to hammer home. Incorporation is an act of government - corporations do not exist in a free market (businesses do).

[GunnyFreedom]

Well said. And the last thing you said is an interesting point. Maybe some people don't want to know the difference, because they are so invested in their anti-capitalism position.

Well, it was more pessimistic than it should have been, but the underlying point remains valid. People get their whole identity wrapped up in this, and really the only way to erode their position is to try and divorce the position from their identity. Maybe first taking several ancillary and tangential approaches that separate separate their identity and investment from the position you want to erode first, and then working on the position itself might be more fruitful.