Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: What is "capitalism"? (reply to Fagin)
Message-ID: <441@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 14:55:21 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.441
Posted: Fri Apr 26 14:55:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 05:37:20 EST
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 40

>I also note that I like to use "Free Economy" and "capitalist economy"
>interchangeably. Over the past couple of months I've noticed that Richard
>Carnes et. al. talk about something very different when they speak of
>capitalism.  For instance, they probably consider government intervention
>on behalf of major corporations as quite compatible with capitalism,
>while I see it as an anathema to it.  To avoid this and other problems,
>I'll try to use "Free Economy" in the future to make things a little
>clearer.

Yes, we should use such terms carefully.  Here are two alternative
definitions for "capitalism" that are implicit in what I write.  This
is what Marxists have in mind when they condemn capitalism as
inhuman, inefficient, and exploitative.  (The following is
plagiarized from G. A. Cohen.)

"[The first definition] defines capitalism by reference to its
dominant production relation:  it is the society whose immediate
producers own their labor power and no other productive force.  It is
the economy of free labor, free from serf- or slave-like burdens,
free (bereft) of means of production.  This is the STRUCTURAL
definition.

"The alternative, or MODAL definition, refers to the purpose of
capitalist production, not the structure in which it occurs.  It
defines capitalism as the society whose production serves the
accumulation of capital.  The point of production under capitalism is
to use exchange-value [i.e., purchasing power] to produce more
exchange-value, and then to use the additional exchange-value to
produce still more, and so on."

Are these definitions equivalent?  Cohen thinks so, but you decide.

Now the interesting question arises:  How does the Free Economy, as
defined by Fagin or McKiernan, relate to capitalism as defined above?
Is the Free Economy possibly/necessarily capitalistic?  I would be
interested in libertarian answers to this question.  (Thanks to DKMcK
for posting his definition; his earlier posting apparently did not
make it to our site.)

Richard Carnes