bourgeoisie/proletariat and specifically *not* employer/worker. — Moliere

The proletariat are thems who are paid just enough to live and make sure their kids live long enough to become workers themselves and start the process all over again. If you have more than that then even if you have nothing to sell but your labor you're a worker -- but not a proletarian. — Moliere

The proletariat are wage-laborers. I'm not sure why you're restricting the usage to those who are "paid enough to live and make sure their kids live long enough."

From CM, footnotes by Engels:

1. By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.

By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.

Emphasis mine.

A better argument might be what some call the managerial class, a class below the owners, being somewhat separate from your average worker despite also being an employee of the owner class. There's a case to be made for that, and I think Michael Albert has written about this. Otherwise I don't see much merit in your re-defining the terms.

"Guns flow in this country like water, and that's why we have mass shooting after mass shooting, and, you know, spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don't have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness because we're not an outlier on mental illness, we're an outlier when it comes to access to firearms and the ability of criminals and very sick people to get their hands on firearms. That's what makes America different."

Chris Murphy

If you are going to use historical precedence to justify your argument you ought to look at actual examples of US militia fighting against and being defeated by superior federal forces. US militia uprising are not the Viet Cong. They are not the Taliban. Otherwise, the argument that 2A is a viable bulwark against some sort of abstract military takeover remains a vague hypothetical in contradistinction to the tangible and on-going problem of gun violence and mass shootings that currently plague the country. We are sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to firearms each year in order to shelter an adult fantasy. — Maw

Hear hear.

I didn’t mention you NOS. I’d get more out of talking to a fork. Carry on railing against big government — you’re doing noble work.

Must be nice latching onto slogans, cult-like, all of your life. "Government is the problem." Easy, safe, and designed as to be impossible to falsify.

Except when Trump is in office. Then government isn't the problem. Then it's the deep state.

I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. I’m not asking you to waver in anything, nor did I follow your conversation with Streetlight, nor am I avoiding anyone with a Ph.D. You’re the one who seems to want to argue what was initially a complimentary response. I was brainstorming possible reasons for the “lack of understanding of capitalism.” My mistake for assuming you were sincere, I guess.

In case you’ve forgotten:

Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with.
— L'éléphant

It's commendable that you admit this rather than pretend the opposite. I think our way of life (including economic way of life) often gets overlooked precisely because it's taken for granted -- like gravity. "Just how things are." When challenged or questioned, it takes some getting used to. — Xtrix

Odd that you want to pick a fight with me for no reason.

Could you tell me why that is surprising to you? — L'éléphant

It’s not surprising. That’s my point.

I brought up Marx because he is a well known observer of capitalism, which is what this thread is about. You said you were struggling with understanding this thread. I think one reason could be that you’re unfamiliar with certain analyses of capitalism which much of this thread takes for granted.

Frankly I’m not interested in discussing this further. If it doesn’t apply to you, fair enough. I don’t care.

I'm afraid it's not clear to me then what you're proposing. Could you expound on it? Thanks. — Benkei

Sure. I’m only proposing democratizing the workplace. Two points on this:

1) I eschew “stakeholder capitalism” because of the connotations, as mentioned above to Isaac.

2) more importantly, I don’t consider worker ownership or community ownership to be a form of capitalism. While it will still involve private property, profit, and markets— it will be run democratically, rather than oligarchically (which is our current business governance model).

If by stakeholder capitalism you mean democracy at work, the entire community being involved in business, etc., that’s fine — then it’s just a matter of usage and personal preference. I’m thinking this is probably the case based on what you’ve written in the past.

This question is an important one. It was also handled thoroughly about 2,500 years ago by Aristotle.

Better to start a thread about his Ethics than attempt to reinvent the wheel.

I think there’s simply not enough time in life to waste rehashing long-refuted nonsense.

Anyone who wants to engage with it just hasn’t read enough yet.

Seems that there are four greens in the House of Reps, along with a block of environmentally-minded independents whom the Labor Party will need on side; and a surge towards Green representation in the Senate. The stupidity of the previous ten years will be reversed. — Banno

Music to my ears.

Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding?
— Xtrix
Thank god I wasn't thinking of Marxism. — L'éléphant

The fact that you weren't thinking of it was my point, really.

And I don't know if this is even relevant to say, but I took economics in graduate level and political economic system in the undergraduate level, so I'm pretty sure my confusion did not come from that. — L'éléphant

What does "that" refer to? Not reading Marx?

I would say this comment isn't relevant though, yes. You could have a Ph.D. in economics and not been assigned a word of the critics of capitalism. If anything an education in this matter, on average, would make it harder to understand this thread.

It won't be profit over everything sure. For those part of that specific corporation. But they will continue to externalise costs where they can and there's also the nimby-principle. Don't get me wrong, I think stakeholder capitalism is already an improvement but I don't think it's enough. An additional step I would include is a dynamic equity system. That way every employee becomes a capitalist. — Benkei

I'm not really talking about stakeholder capitalism though.

I don't think I'd say I'd want to make every employee a capitalist either, really. But that's a tricky one. I think I wouldn't want to because the worker, by owning the factory he works in, has now taken control over his workplace. The capitalist is simply the owner/employer who doesn't have to set foot in the factory.

The problem is that it when both sides are out of steam for an offensive, it can just become static as before (in 2015-2022). — ssu

Perhaps then peace negotiations can start again and we can get a ceasefire, at the very least.

first, that employer-employee relations predated capitalism: contractual obligations between workers and employers can be found all through antiquity and the middle ages, even if not the predominant form of labour — Streetlight

Couldn’t feudal arrangements then be counted as a form of employment between lord and vassal? This relationship was a kind of contract too.

Like I said, this is a matter of definition. Perhaps it's all just a matter of scale, in the end. I think the word predominant there is important. Once that relationship rises to the degree that it does -- to the point where it's central to the socioeconomic system -- then we can call it a new system. It's no longer feudalism, even if feudal relationships still exist.

while I agree that the predominance of capitalist-worker relations do track with the advent of capitalism, they, again, follow from the dispossession of the means of production (farms, looms, equipment, institutions of learning and apprenticeship), and only once they are taken possession of by capitalists who turn it all into pure capital: means of profit making. Again, the market-dependence comes first. — Streetlight

As you rightly point out in the title of this thread, markets aren't capitalism and in fact pre-date capitalism. It's market-dependence that you highlight. But market-dependence follows from the existence of markets in the first place. Yet this fact doesn't negate your point that there's something sui generis about the emergence of this dependence.

I think I'm making a similar point about the employer/employee relationship that emerged. True, dispossession of the means of production comes first -- as does the idea of property, ownership, profit, etc. -- but the fact that it is a necessary condition doesn't make it a sufficient condition to define capitalism by. (After all, we can imagine a worker-owned company being market-dependent too.) I would only say that I think it's imprecise to say an enterprise is still a capitalist one without the capitalists.

As with forms of government, I think the classification comes down to who has the power -- viz., who gets to make the decisions in a state or in an economy. In the case of the latter, the current world economy is dominated by the corporations. Corporations are controlled by their owners, and are governed undemocratically, as essentially an oligarchy. The owners are capitalists. Let's get rid of the capitalists. No capitalists, no capitalism.

No doubt there will still be the question of production, markets, profit-making, private property, and so on. But that's another discussion, in my view.

These distinctions are primarily analytic before they are strategic. — Streetlight

Agreed.

how mitigate market-dependency? — Streetlight

enable and institute a robust thriving baseline from which people can participate in their communities: this means housing for all (and if this means abolishing housing rent, then so be it), deep and well oiled healthcare systems not subject to profit, expansive and accessible public transport systems (which means eliminating car dependency and vastly mitigating oil dependency!), the absolute commitment to food and water security, which would in turn mean agricultural production that itself is not dictated by market imperatives and so on. — Streetlight

I'm in favor of all of the above, wholeheartedly. So regardless of how we define matters, we can agree on the goals. Any steps leading towards these ends would be beneficial, no matter how we taxonomize things.

I see what you mean, though what you'd need here is stakeholder ownership, rather than just worker ownership... but I suppose if you define capitalism that way, then yes, eliminating the owning class would eliminate capitalism. I'm just not sure capitalism is sensibly defined that way. — Isaac

Sure. Worker ownership is just one logical step towards a more inclusive system. There should be community involvement on every level, ultimately.

I try to avoid "stakeholder" because of the recent rise of "stakeholder capitalism," endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable. But your point is taken.

private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making.
— Xtrix

Well... with limits. It's not the mere existence of private property that's a problem, but the effect of private property in constraining the decisions people make to those dictated by a market. One only need remove that private property which is effecting that constraint. — Isaac

Sure, but removing private property is not necessary to eliminate capitalism, in my view. It certainly would, but there are other ways you can do so as well. If workers own a business, that's a form of private property too. But that takes away the power dynamic central to corporate governance that (again, in my mind) basically defines capitalism. From workers you can go to a community, like a town. One can go to town hall meetings across the United States and give input/talk to representatives, etc. No reason this cannot extend to things like utilities (and often do) or supermarkets or drugstores or factories. There are all kinds of ways to organize business -- I'm not even particularly knowledgeable about it, but it happens.

while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction.
— Xtrix

Interesting. I kind of see the two as quite separate (although I agree that worker control is a great thing). How do you see them as linked? — Isaac

For the reasons above. I think of it much like a form of government. Easier to get to, say, direct democracy from a republican form of government than it would be from an absolute monarchy. Right now the economy, as a system, is governed as a plutocracy. If we chip away at that by giving workers control, while we're not eliminating private property, we can see that it's not as big a jump to make towards a system run by the community as a whole.

How long do we think this war will carry on for, now that the Russians have Mariupol?

Very glad to hear some good news. I hope it translates into climate action.

Who's to blame for Russian boots on Ukraine soil. I'd say Russia. — Hanover

Of course. Again— I don’t see who’s denying this.



I’m not in favor of increasing nuclear weapons — so I disagree.

A lot has changed since 1993, incidentally.

Anyone working in a system with private property (in terms of land, means of production) will have decisions about how to run their business constrained by the conditions of that system - such as a need for sufficient income to pay the rent/mortgage, and a reliance on the returns from that system (product value) to cover them. — Isaac

Certainly...but again, we're talking about capitalism. If one argues that private property is the defining feature of capitalism, then to talk of dismantling capitalism would have to be a discussion about how to abolish private property. That could very well be true, but if we define capitalism as being what it is because of its relationship of one class to another, then it's this relationship which should be the target -- and so abolishing this relationship topples capitalism. I think worker ownership/control can do that -- co-ops being one model, a step beyond unionism.

But ultimately yes, I think the entire idea of private property should eventually be phased out. It's just that private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making.

All the while these constraints are in place, democratisation of the decision-making only widens the number of people whose decisions are thus constrained. It doesn't actually work to remove any of those constraints. — Isaac

With the above being said, my response would be that while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction.

If I could snap my fingers and make the system of private ownership and private property disappear, I would. But we're a long way from that in my view. Cooperatives already exist, unions are (weak, but) around, our state legislatures and local governments are there to experiment with, etc.

Also, China has gone much further than the US towards your point, with limited rights on private property -- yet they too have capitalist enterprises (in the sense I mean). Huawei is an example; Alibaba, etc.

I don't think anything was going to deter Putin from invading Ukraine except its membership in NATO. He thought he could just waltz in and take over the country. — RogueAI

Who knows what Putin was thinking. Whatever he was thinking, this was a stupid decision.

But to argue nothing would have deterred him from invasion except for NATO membership, when there's reason to believe that it was NATO's advancement that contributed to the decision, is pretty unrealistic -- in my view.

I tend to listen to the likes of John Mearsheimer on this issue. Pretty good scholarship there. Been lecturing about this for years.

But there's the anti-US team that thinks everything bad happens because of the US and is extremely unhappy about anything taking the focus off from how the bad the US is. Their main argument is that it's the actions of NATO and the US which lead Russia to start the war and hence it's the fault of the US. And the rest is just ad hominems. — ssu

"Everything bad happens because of the US" is, of course, an exaggeration. Who believes this? Think about it. Does anyone believe this?

No.

So let's leave that aside. Has the United States, as the world superpower, contributed to this mess in Ukraine? Yes, of course it has. Does anyone argue that this isn't the case?

So what the fuck are we talking about here?

And thus Putin's narrative (propaganda-style) has been adopted and propagated. :up: :grin: Worked. — jorndoe

And same stupid arguments are given on page 245 as in the early 10's and 20's.

Somehow not interested to reply to such bullshit. — ssu

There's a lot of Russian propaganda around -- but listening to the reasons given has to be done, no matter how absurd one thinks they are. Sometimes there's a kernel of truth in it, other times a surprising amount of truth.

It's far harder to make the attempt to understand than it is to cheer for the home team. I don't think Russia is in the right here -- they're not, and military aggression like this is unacceptable. That's fairly obvious. But if we care about Ukrainians, we have to do more than cheer. We can see if and how we've contributed to this situation and make moves in the direction of peace. Can anyone argue that the United States' actions over the last 30 years have encouraged peace? I don't think so, any more than one could argue it for the middle east.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Putin is a good guy or is in the right.

Hmm, but without eliminating or curtailing the private property form, are we eliminating capitalists, or expanding the pool of capitalists such that everyone gets to be one? — Streetlight

I think of worker control as public control. It’s simply putting the power in the hands of the community (represented by the workers) rather than a handful of wealthy owners. It’s not public in the sense of being state-owned, but it skips over the state in that respect and goes directly under community control.

But on the other hand, you’re right — a co-op corporation that’s worker owned can also become national or multinational in scale and so disconnected from local communities. Production for profit is still there as well, even if not the sole motivating force — and this can turn into a problem as well. And I can anticipate a flaw in my argument you probably notice: workers controlling a factory or business isn’t the ENTIRE community. Not everyone gets a vote or input into how the company functions. But since I’m assuming the workers represent the community, that this will work itself out. Plus other channels for public input can be created by governments or companies themselves.

Maybe abolishing private property altogether is the ultimate answer. I tend to agree with this. But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism.

But let me assume market-dependency is the primary problem. I’m interested in hearing potential solutions.

It seems a small trifling thing to call even a worker democracy capitalism, but the worst thing than can happen is to believe we are beyond capitalisn even while we remain firmly in its grip. — Streetlight

Absolutely. Which is why it's important to have these conversations. As I said at the beginning, I don't pretend to know exactly what will happen. It's largely speculative. But we do know how it's currently organized, and we can see very clearly how that's turning out. So some new goals need to be talked about either way.

I'm a complete rubbernecker when it comes to your threads.

You've had 10.9 thousand tries. But I hope you're right.

That had me laughing.

This thread is dead. What a shocker that NOS finally put everyone to sleep.

Sure, once you say anything whatsoever of substance. Or by all means continue dropping your Twitter-like one-liners on every thread that gets made.

Anywhere where exchange is not impersonal: families, friends, strangers asking for directions in the street, co-workers passing pens to each other across the room. Market exchanges make up a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of our lives. It just so happens their influence is unimaginably deep. Their extensity does not match their intensity in society. Markets are parasitic on non-market exchange that happen everywhere, all the time, among everyone, at all levels. I'm not even charging you for this
— Streetlight

This is utter nonsense. — frank

It's exactly right, in fact.

There's my Twitter response for a Twitter post.

I think this is the first time in my posting on this philosophy forum that I have not successfully gotten the gist/understanding of the OP and further exposition on the OP on this thread. — L'éléphant

Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with. — L'éléphant

It's commendable that you admit this rather than pretend the opposite. I think our way of life (including economic way of life) often gets overlooked precisely because it's taken for granted -- like gravity. "Just how things are." When challenged or questioned, it takes some getting used to.

Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding?

To the degree that capitalism ultimately makes a change at the level of production so that production becomes production-for-market, so long as this remains in place, I think what we have is still capitalism. A key notion here is that of market-dependency. If our social (and thus life) arrangements are dependent on markets to reproduce themselves, then, to put it bluntly, we're in trouble. It's simply a matter of imperatives and necessities: if even a democratically governed workplace will be subject to market imperatives, there's every chance that the planet-killing imperatives to further commidification and assestization will chug along regardless. — Streetlight

This is important to dwell on I think.

It helps me to take an example. Take energy. Is there a market for energy? Obviously. But there’s no reason we have to get our energy from fossil fuels. It’s often argued that what’s produced is produced due to market pressure, but as you know this is usually complete nonsense. The fossil industry in particular loves to frame things this way. The reality is that choices simply don’t get presented — by industry or by government.

My point is: as political policies can change depending on who’s in power, both output and markets will change depending on who’s in control of production.

Cars are another example. There’s a market for them— but there’s also a market for public transportation. (Or at least a desire for it.) But public transportaiton really isn't offered, because there’s little money in it -- despite it being better for the environment, the population, for traffic and smog and so on.

If you eliminate the owners, then businesses get run not by far-removed individuals from some headquarters but by the local workers, which will definitely have communities in mind -- what's needed, what's useful, etc. So this would tend to cut down on externalities— much harder to pollute, for example, when it’s your own back hard you're polluting.

Market dependence needs to go lest we recreate similar issues— I think that’s right. I think production should be driven by needs and by use. But since it’s the capitalists that create many markets to begin with, deliberately trying to cultivate desire and demand -- even when that demand is harmful to the population or to local communities -- I would speculate that if you eliminate the capitalists, the markets will improve as well.

But as I said to @Benkei, I don't pretend to know for certain. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

Even if IN the co-op it is now democratic and presumably fair, then it's interaction with the rest of the world isn't. — Benkei

One potential consequence is that our political governance changes along with corporate governance. Externalities and foreign trade would still exist, but would be much less of a problem — because the state would be acting under different pressures from a different set of interests. It wouldn’t be “profit over everything”, there would be less short term thinking, more investment in communities and general welfare.

Of course I have no certainty of this— it’s speculation really. I wouldn’t pretend to know how it all pans out. There’s bound to be flaws in any system. But unless we move in this general direction, I don’t see how we survive much longer as a species. That alone is reason enough to push for it.

I hope you push back a little on this and elaborate, because there may very well be scenarios I’m overlooking.

Land - and capital - starts to belong directly to merchants, or, at this point, capitalists. — Streetlight

:up:

Certainly a far more conciliatory capitalism than we know, but to the degree our conditions of life are dictated by markets - and not the other way around - this would still be a case of capitalism ascendant. — Streetlight

That makes sense.

It’s a matter of definition, but here my own answer would be “no.” I think if workers controlled production— if we essentially democratize the workplace — then it’s no longer a capitalist system, despite the fact that markets, production-for-markets, and profit-making continues. It implies that people will decide what to produce, where to produce, how to do so, and what we do with the profits/surplus — so I see this changing the markets/conditions of life you mention as a natural consequence. But this is speculation on my part.

The co-op model is a real world example. All that’s really changed is throwing out the small group of owners — which is what so much of this system creates and is designed to perpetuate.

Interesting.

It is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. — Streetlight

A necessary thread indeed.

My only comment is that I’m surprised you didn’t include the existence of owners/employers as a distinguishing feature of this socioeconomic system.

We can imagine a world where production was controlled by workers and yet geared towards markets. Would this still be considered capitalist?

Which is why we should ban nuclear weapons. But even if a crazy dictator did get his hands on nukes— say the threat or possibility was real. Is it worth losing literally everything?
— Xtrix

That's because you are a coward. — M777

:roll:

Okay— bye.

And yes, there is a flaw in your logic, because according to it the most crazy dictator can get his hands on a nuke and rule the world by threatening to blow it up. — M777

Which is why we should ban nuclear weapons. But even if a crazy dictator did get his hands on nukes— say the threat or possibility was real. Is it worth losing literally everything?

This isn’t the same as sacrificing your life for freedom— or even many lives. I wouldn’t want to live under a dictatorship either, of course. But that’s not really the question. The question concerns the survival of the species. Is it worth it to sacrifice everything for a principle or ideal?

I don’t think so. Much better to find another way. Dictators don’t live forever— neither do empires. Assyrian rule or Mongol rule was pretty bad, I’m sure. Would it have been worth it to destroy everything rather than be ruled by them?

Our forefathers fought for a host of freedoms over centuries. To give them up is an insult and thankless, so I really don't agree. Mere survival, life without dignity is not enough. I don't believe Russia poses such an existential threat. China might eventually. — Benkei

I agree it’s an awful choice. But would China rule, for example, be so bad as to warrant destroying everything? I’m talking specifically about nuclear war. Quite apart from whether a ruler orders a strike, ground wars increase the risk of accidents— which are very real.

I would go so far as to say even a worse regime would still be worth enduring if it means the species survives. No regime is permanent. The annihilation of humans is.

Question for everyone on this thread: If you could avoid countless deaths and possibly nuclear war by allowing Russia to take Ukraine, would you?

The Russians aren’t the Nazis, after all, and Putin isn’t Hitler. It wouldn’t have been just, or fair — I don’t agree with Russia’s decision to invade — but a quick German victory in WW1 would also have been unfair; yet it would have prevented WWII if allowed to happen.

I’d like to prevent WWIII. So to answer my own question: yes.

Maybe one could argue doing so could have the unintended consequence of WWIII — perhaps even a greater chance of it. But I’ve yet to come across that argument.

I suppose it’s irrelevant now. But I think this question gets to the foundation for offered solutions.

A world under China or the USSR in the 20th would have been better than no world at all. Ditto Nazism. Many terrible regimes throughout history, and all eventually changed. I don’t see how anyone can justify a higher priority than survival of the species — without that, there is nothing else. Do we all agree with this or not? Is there a flaw in my logic?

It is not capitalism, per se, that is the corruption point, but rather the elevation of corporate over individual rights, and the over-concentration of capital. — Pantagruel

Which is a natural consequence of capitalism left to its own devices.

I'd like to think I'm realistic -- I realize that capitalism isn't going to be overthrown in my lifetime. I would like to at least see a move away from the more "laissez faire" side of the spectrum (neoliberalism) to a system that we had in the 1940s-70s, the era of "regimented capitalism." But that really isn't going to solve this issue long term.

The issue, ultimately, is whether private ownership and private profit should be at the core of our economy. A society based on greed and personal gain will not only be an ugly one -- as the United States is -- but will potentially destroy the human species, as we're seeing with environmental destruction, global warming, and the war industry. I see no reason why replacing monarchy with plutocracy, which is what has happened, is the way to go -- even regulated plutocracy.

The solution is democratizing the economy, and that starts with corporations. Other countries organize this much better than the United States. (I mention the United States over and over not only because I'm a citizen, but because it's the most powerful country in world history, and what it does has wide ranging effects.)

Why a handful of owners -- a capitalist class (also the ruling class) -- should be given the power over economic (and political) life is the question. I don't think they should.

If that's too abstract, take one S&P 500 or Fortune 500 company, public or private, and see how it functions -- and that's essentially the economy writ large: a handful of people (boards of directors) and executives (CEOs, COOs, etc) make all the decisions, and all do the bidding of the "owners" (usually major shareholders). The more shares you own, the more votes you have for board seats; executives' compensation is made up mostly of stocks, as well.

People who defend such a system have very poor arguments, based on poor values and even poorer beliefs about human beings and human nature. Self interest, greed, and gain become "natural" -- as if these are the only human characteristics that matter. That's capitalism. I don't think it's oversimplifying things to say this needs to go.

"If we abolish the state, people can cooperate and trade on their own. Have some faith in human beings!"

This picture is missing one important piece: provided we get rid of capitalism first. Since it's precisely capitalism that is at the heart of most awful modern human behavior to begin with, it's laughable to want to abolish or minimize the state while keeping capitalism intact. Show me nearly any problem today (obesity, drug abuse, climate change, environmental degradation, social media-driven division, poverty, low wages, debt, poor healthcare, inflation) and I'll show you terrible behavior justified by capitalist principles at the core.

It's like fighting the system of slavery by abandoning government...while ignoring racism.

NOS is a statist to the bitter end.

Your ability to earn it comes partly from your education, partly from your health, partly from your clean air, water, refuse collection, coworkers, laws, trade deals, security, policing... The taxed portion is you paying for all that. — Isaac

It’s the same thing for corporate taxes. They want to conveniently forget this part. Since the state is always evil, taxation is seen as theft.

Yet these are the same people who are fine with government subsidies, bailouts, patent protection, etc.

It’s an oddly circular, contradictory, and mostly incoherent view.

In case anyone is wondering what all this "laissez faire" talk is really cover for (or diversion from):

Corporate profitability is not translating into shared prosperity.

For this lack of shared prosperity, the allocation of corporate profits to stock buybacks bears considerable blame. From 2003 through 2012, 449 S&P 500 companies dispensed 54% of earnings, equal to $2.4 trillion, buying back their own stock, almost all through open-market repurchases. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of earnings. Scant profits remained for investment in productive capabilities or higher incomes for hard-working, loyal employees.

Large-scale open-market repurchases can give a manipulative boost to a company’s stock price. Prime beneficiaries of stock-price increases are the very executives who decide the timing and amount of buybacks to be done. In 2012 the 500 highest paid executives named on proxy statements averaged remuneration of $24.4 million, with 52% coming from stock options and another 26% from stock awards. With ample stock-based pay, top corporate executives can gain from boosts in stock prices even when for most of the population economic progress is hard to find. If the United States is to achieve economic growth with an equitable income distribution and stable employment opportunities, government rule-makers and business decision-makers must take steps to bring both executive pay and stock buybacks under control. — William Lazonick

The neoliberal era for you. Neoliberal policies all approach laissez faire, and use the concept to justify them.

The attitude shows up in the slogans. "Free markets." "Government is the problem." Etc. This is the era we're currently living in, and the above is but one sample of what's actually going on -- and that was back in 2014. It's continued.

It always helps to take things from the abstract to the specific. So taking this one specific issue, the question (for laissez-faire proponents) becomes: is the state to blame?

In a sense, yes. These neoliberal policies are implemented through government, after all. Deregulation among them -- like the rule that the SEC instated in 1982 that allowed for this behavior to go unchecked. All justified on "free market" principles, of course.

The point is -- according to the laissez-faire perspective, wasn't the government (the state) doing the right thing back then? Isn't deregulation the right move?

I wonder if anarcho-capitalists or "conservative libertarians" even care about this. Probably not, since it's out of the realm of the abstract, where any ol' person can bullshit in circles from their armchair.

Meanwhile, it's had truly awful effects on the United States population and transferred trillions in wealth to the wealthiest people (according to RAND, around $50 trillion).

Link to the Lazonick article.