Discussions about economics on the internet inevitably degrade to nonsensical one-liners even if by some miracle they didn't begin there. I know a lot of anarchists favor a more collectivist, socialistic society, but their usual arguments against markets are truly cringe-worthy.
Terminology Confusion
Well-defined terms are essential to rational discourse. I know this could be construed as an if-by-whiskey equivocation, but my intent is a clear distinction.
Capitalism seems to mean different things to different people. Some mean private ownership of the means of production with voluntary exchange in a laissez-faire free market economy. Others mean corporate collusion, subsidies, bailouts, protectionism, regulatory capture, and other political interventions in the market. These meanings are diametrically opposed, and the American right is particularly egregious in conflating them, while the American left refuses to consider the former definition as a viable option for a free society.
With that in mind, how do these anti-capitalist arguments fare? Here is my dissection of a few bumper-sticker slogans.
"Capitalism is a system based of thievery, burning and violence."
Destruction is the realm of politics, not market action. Governments rely on thievery, burning and violence. Markets, in contrast, rely on voluntary exchange for mutual benefit in a creative, productive, and peaceful decentralized system with an open information network of prices.
"Capitalism demands limitless economic growth, yet research shows that trajectory is incompatible with a finite planet."
Paradoxically, many online socialist arguments also insist that natural abundance is turned into artificial scarcity by profiteers on the market. Free market capitalism does not imagine limitless growth, but rather observes that profits are the organic, decentralized reward for innovative use of scarce resources to serve the limitless wants of consumers.
Meanwhile, governments ham-handedly create shortages where scarcity could otherwise be alleviated, and corporate interests rely on such mechanisms to guarantee their income.
"Capitalism is impossible without government protecting property claims."
It is impossible to impose socialism without a state. Governments operate exclusively by violating property rights. Taxes, eminent domain, war, prohibition laws. . . the list of abuse is long, and coercion is foundational to any political action. If you would impose any socio-economic system upon someone else without their consent, you are acting politically.
Conversely, people cooperate under market principles all over the world in spite of political intervention, and they also cooperate in mutual aid societies and other social support systems without governments, too. Good ideas do not require coercion.
"But your free markets are coercive, because if I don’t agree to be a wage slave, I die!"
The natural condition of humanity is abject poverty and starvation. Consumption always requires prior production. Do we find a method of production and consumption based on coercion or consent?
An employer does not create that state of natural poverty, he offers to trade present wealth for labor toward future potential wealth. There is no inherent exploitation. There is mutual benefit, and the potential higher reward of the employer based on prior investment, time preference and risk tolerance is not exploitation of the worker.
It is true that the State interferes with such cooperation, and certain corporate interests use the coercion of the State to enrich themselves at the expense of others, but that is politics, not market production and voluntary exchange.
A Thought Experiment
Suppose I have money, and I want some good or service you have. I make an offer. You are free to accept or decline according to your value scale. That value is not inherent in the goods or services exchanged, but in each of our endlessly-fluctuating scales of wants. If we find a mutually-acceptable ratio, we both benefit.
Now suppose a government goon demands my money and threatens further robbery, kidnapping, or death if I refuse.
Which situation is abusive?
If I am taxed, I am prevented from offering an exchange. My potential customer or employee and I both lose. That unseen loss is masked by whatever grand program the goon offers, but the economy did not gain or even break even by that government spending. I lost, and whoever would have accepted the exchange lost. That is the real nature of redistributionist policy.
Suppose instead the goon demands we trade at a rate one or the other of us does not perceive as beneficial.
If a price control or mandatory exchange is imposed, one party loses, and may stop making such exchanges possible altogether, or reduce productive output for potential exchange. The would-be buyer and seller, or employee and employer, lose as a consequence. That is the real result of all price controls and mandates.
Conclusion
The only real winners of political intervention in the market are the government goons and their corporate cronies, not the common man. That is why governments exist: plunder. Don't fall for their promises of progress if we surrender more control. Wealth and power are their priorities. Even assuming our well-being is on the list, it is way down toward the bottom. Meanwhile, the more centralized the power, the more devastating the effects of either well-meaning ignorance or outright malice.
We may differ in our preferences for social interaction and productive ventures, but we must surrender the impulse to rule others if we are ever to escape the morass of politics that surrounds us today. And the first step is to stop making strawman arguments about fellow anarchists who prefer alternative means of exchange.
Excellently put, sir!
Well said.
I am constantly seeing capitalism conflated everywhere and it is painful to see the disconnect, Shared to spread the knowledge.
This here is our biggest problem in understanding the system.
We do not understand T.H.E.I.R. thoughts on us, or what is considered "well being" and in such we cannot even comprehend how horrifying the system is.
Lets take the word "Mortgage"
Mortgage literally means death - note. Or, you will pay for the rest of your life. Until you are dead. This will help make you dead.
Any system that was even slightly beneficial would get rid of this term immediately.
MoneyCurrency as debt is a means to enslave the masses. To bring about more suffering while dangling money in front of the people's noses. (bankruptcy exists else the system NEVER having enough cash in it, would crash in on itself)