Quote:
Originally Posted by schex86
Not according to my understanding of a market economy, in which market forces are determined by the individual choices of the many. In fact, true open market capitalism is the exact opposite of communism.
However, in the case of crony capitalism, which I mentioned earlier, the collusion of special interest and gov't coercion combine to grant an economic advantage to groups or industries which would not otherwise survive in an open market economy, thus postponing the process of creative destruction so essential to capitalist innovation.
It could be said to be a form of communism, in which a self serving few dictate economic terms to the masses, but only in a small sector of the overall economy. Regardless of the rationale used to justify this, such arrangements always result in a net loss, as the capital allocation will always be handled in a less efficient manner than if the gov't interference had not occurred. This inefficiency is further exacerbated in scenarios such as our current copyright scheme, in which the interests of society are dismissed as irrelevant, and the exercise of the natural rights of its members labeled as "theft". Any arrangement must include the interests of all concerned, or it will invariably be ineffective.
No wonder the various publishers have struggled in their campaign to propagandize the public. Though the concept of modern "piracy" certainly benefits their bottom line, it goes against the basic understanding most people have in the US about sharing formation. Just like Ben Franklin and his free library and book sharing club, we see a great benefit in pooling our resources and sharing knowledge, art, what have you. It is how we believe society has advanced throughout history, and the past 100 years of copyright legislation is not going to change this.
Some might call it "theft", but I call it sharing for the benefit of all. Others might call it "hoarding", I call it the use of my own property and technology as I see fit, sans any control they might have arranged amongst themselves to have over me.
|
The end result of a truly capitalist society can only ever be the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a very few.
For example, one company produces books and is in competition with another company that does the same. If the market is truly free then both will compete until only one company can survive. The only reason this does not happen is because of anti-competition laws designed to prevent monopolies.
Now, take that example and apply it to the entire markets. Soon there is only one company for each field or product. They then must start to canabalize each other in order to continue to grow.
Again, if the market is truly free as it should be in a truly capitalist society, the end result can only be one company that produces everything.
Now take the same principle and apply it to ownership of said companies. Those with wealth are in a position to increase their wealth at a greater rate than others. Hence, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Eventually there is a small minority who control all the wealth.
Now, in the real world it doesn't work exactly that way of course. However, it is a fact that approximately 90% of the worlds wealth is controlled by 1-5% of the worlds population. And as the golden rule states...."he who has the gold, makes the rules".
So I don't see how it is any different to your defining characteristic of Communism. That being "it completely concentrates power in the hands of a privileged few, who decide with impunity what is best for everyone."
Cheers,
PKFFW