My second source for definitions is a relatively minor one, but well worthy of being quoted. Brent W. Baccala, whose essay Capitalism And Christianity appeared in 2000, provides the following meanings for the word capitalism:
"capitalism¹ -- a laissez-faire economic system, characterized by the separation of economy and state, anti-socialism, free markets, free trade, relatively light taxation, and a minimum of government interference in commerce;
"capitalism² -- an industrial model of production, illustrated by Henry Ford’s assembly line, characterized by heavy specialization of both capital and labor, economies of scale, with the cost of goods reflecting the distributed costs of production;
"capitalism³ - a pseudo-religion of greed, characterized by pursuit of self-interest, often associated with the claim that each individual, by advancing his own self-interest, ultimately advances the good of society."
Granted that Mr. Baccala does not lay claim to perfect scholarship or to an exhaustive grasp of his subject, his three distinctions are demonstrably incomplete, but charmingly refreshing in their own right.
Dr. Ian Harper’s (University of Melbourne) definition of market capitalism, in his 2003 Lecture Christian Morality and Market Capitalism: Friends or Foes?, is as follows:
"Market capitalism is a system for organizing economic activity based on three core principles:
--private ownership of the means of production;
--generally free markets; and
--limited, but not absent, government."
Once again, how does the question of ownership affect the definition of capitalism? Once we have accepted, for purely technical reasons, the fact that the State can function as a pseudo-private owner, the concept itself of private versus public ownership has to be fine-tuned to reasonable satisfaction.
And now, here is Wikipedia on capitalism. My last source, not for any claim of exhaustiveness, but only for the purposes of this entry:
"Capitalism generally refers to an economic system, in which the means of production are mostly privately or corporately owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production, and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. Usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as legal persons or corporations to trade capital goods, labor and money. The term also refers to several theories that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and Cold War, meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets."
The interesting catch in this definition is the phrase “mostly privately or corporately owned,” which opens the door to some major interpretations and reinterpretations of ‘capitalist’ ownership. Once the latter term is taken out of the equation, what are we left with? Markets, investments and that most pleasurable euphemism for “usury” -- credit?
One thing, however, is clear, no matter what, and in any of the many definitions of capitalism. It concerns the notion of what I am calling, paraphrasing Alexander Dubcek, “capitalism with a human face”:
Capitalism with a human face is nothing but government-regulated capitalism, a total historical defeat for the ideology of laissez-faire…
Finally, as an added irony, it has become a conventional wisdom that while the word capitalism is widely used in Europe, it is far less so in American usage (except on the Fox News Channel, where it is used most frequently and with great pride), perhaps, due to the awareness of this word’s pejorative connotations. The phrase private enterprise is always more readily available, and free enterprise may fare even better due to its pleasant association with the word freedom. In the last case, free enterprise has also been another term for laissez-faire, in which capacity it hardly qualifies to cover the comprehensive nature of modern functioning capitalism, and even less so, its way of the future. No wonder so much confusion is still, after so many years of continuous tinkering, clouding the capitalist phenomenon and creating so many ambiguities and grotesque misconceptions.
"capitalism¹ -- a laissez-faire economic system, characterized by the separation of economy and state, anti-socialism, free markets, free trade, relatively light taxation, and a minimum of government interference in commerce;
"capitalism² -- an industrial model of production, illustrated by Henry Ford’s assembly line, characterized by heavy specialization of both capital and labor, economies of scale, with the cost of goods reflecting the distributed costs of production;
"capitalism³ - a pseudo-religion of greed, characterized by pursuit of self-interest, often associated with the claim that each individual, by advancing his own self-interest, ultimately advances the good of society."
Granted that Mr. Baccala does not lay claim to perfect scholarship or to an exhaustive grasp of his subject, his three distinctions are demonstrably incomplete, but charmingly refreshing in their own right.
Dr. Ian Harper’s (University of Melbourne) definition of market capitalism, in his 2003 Lecture Christian Morality and Market Capitalism: Friends or Foes?, is as follows:
"Market capitalism is a system for organizing economic activity based on three core principles:
--private ownership of the means of production;
--generally free markets; and
--limited, but not absent, government."
Once again, how does the question of ownership affect the definition of capitalism? Once we have accepted, for purely technical reasons, the fact that the State can function as a pseudo-private owner, the concept itself of private versus public ownership has to be fine-tuned to reasonable satisfaction.
And now, here is Wikipedia on capitalism. My last source, not for any claim of exhaustiveness, but only for the purposes of this entry:
"Capitalism generally refers to an economic system, in which the means of production are mostly privately or corporately owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production, and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. Usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as legal persons or corporations to trade capital goods, labor and money. The term also refers to several theories that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and Cold War, meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets."
The interesting catch in this definition is the phrase “mostly privately or corporately owned,” which opens the door to some major interpretations and reinterpretations of ‘capitalist’ ownership. Once the latter term is taken out of the equation, what are we left with? Markets, investments and that most pleasurable euphemism for “usury” -- credit?
One thing, however, is clear, no matter what, and in any of the many definitions of capitalism. It concerns the notion of what I am calling, paraphrasing Alexander Dubcek, “capitalism with a human face”:
Capitalism with a human face is nothing but government-regulated capitalism, a total historical defeat for the ideology of laissez-faire…
Finally, as an added irony, it has become a conventional wisdom that while the word capitalism is widely used in Europe, it is far less so in American usage (except on the Fox News Channel, where it is used most frequently and with great pride), perhaps, due to the awareness of this word’s pejorative connotations. The phrase private enterprise is always more readily available, and free enterprise may fare even better due to its pleasant association with the word freedom. In the last case, free enterprise has also been another term for laissez-faire, in which capacity it hardly qualifies to cover the comprehensive nature of modern functioning capitalism, and even less so, its way of the future. No wonder so much confusion is still, after so many years of continuous tinkering, clouding the capitalist phenomenon and creating so many ambiguities and grotesque misconceptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment