Skip to main content

Anti-Capitalists Have No Choice Because Capitalists Hold the Means of Production?


I don't know if I should be laughing or cringing at what I deem to be stupidity. Some will say that methods of production aren't linked to either capitalism or socialism. The video above is from Jacobin's contributor Rob Larson. It's no surprise that Jacobin is also the source material for pages that support protectionist policies for the Philippines. I watched it and I find it hilarious to a certain extent. According to anti-capitalists, they have no choice but to use capitalist products because the evil capitalists own the methods of production. Larson even goes as far as to say capitalism didn't invent the iPhone. It's true that the Internet was originally a military invention but guess who caused technologies created by the government to go further? It's all about private enterprises regulated by the government. We got all sorts of new technology today because of the collaboration of private enterprises and the government. 

What is capitalism?

First, let's define capitalism and how it works. Capitalism is simply defined by Investopedia as:
...an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy.

Basically, capitalism can be bad if one engages in anarcho-capitalism or capitalism without government regulation. It would be insane to have businesses competing with each other without rules to govern them. Democracy isn't an absence of rules either--that would be anarchy. Rules are applied such as businesses will have to pay taxes, treat workers properly, provide worker benefits (which are paid through government offices), the fair competition act, laws governing both lessors and tenants, and the like are mandated to control the business atmosphere. I could kick out a bad tenant because the government has given me that power. Meanwhile, I can't kick a tenant out of spite because the government doesn't allow it. These rules balance the business atmosphere. This is basically the government's regulated capitalism. Some may call it a mixed economy where government and private enterprises are at work.  

The argument of the anti-capitalist is to abolish private property or the right to own property. This is pretty much part of Karl Marx's 10 Planks of Communism--the abolition of private property. This was the very system that was done by infamous dead tyrants such as Pol Pot (whose reign was rather cut short), Mao Zedong, and Kim Il Sung (founder of the Kim Dynasty). Mao tried to prove Communism's superiority during the Great Leap Forward--something history has recorded to be rather unfavorable one way or another. Mao's insane scheme confiscated private property (which began with the landlords) and transferred them as his private property. Mao set up unrealistic quotas and gave poor materials, to begin with--that's why the Great Leap Forward was a failure.  Today, North Korea stands as a testament to why anti-capitalism doesn't work--except for the Kim Dynasty.

If anti-capitalists want to be consistent--they should really reject anything produced out of exploitation. Some people defected from North Korea to South Korea so they can use resources freely without using the government's provisions for long. They should start manufacturing everything themselves first. It's because if they can manufacture better products themselves then they can truly have the right to overthrow capitalism. If not, they really are just all talk and no walk. 

How capitalist production with reasonable restrictions work

In contrast, capitalism has created better methods of production through competition. Of course, this requires the government to regulate it such as setting registrations, patents, trademarks, fair competition act, consumer protection, and other reasonable restrictions. A business gets registered and it becomes a legal entity. What happens is that every private enterprise registered becomes a taxpayer. The protection isn't free either since taxes are required. There are various government agencies that handle private problems such as corrupt revenue officers, bad employees, abusive employers, corrupt inspectors, and the like. The government also sets rules that will protect customers and employees from being exploited by dirty businesses. Businesses that don't follow these rules can face appropriate penalties such as huge fines, business closure, and/or even jail time. Meanwhile, those who follow government rules can still continue to play in the business competition.

How did competition between private enterprises improve production? The government made a set of rules. Such rules would prevent private enterprises from stealing intellectual property from each other. Such rules would require businesses to pay taxes and treat their workers right. If you want to be on top--you need to follow the rules meant to protect the business environment. Since there are rules for the protection of intellectual property rights--businesses will have to be as creative as possible. It's pretty much like how food industries will have to make sure their dishes taste good without stealing someone's secret formula. The result of competition while having an intellectual property rights law will make unique products. It's like how one milk tea store differs from another. It's like how one smartphone differs from another. Many products are different from one another because the government sets an intellectual property law while allowing private enterprises to fill the supply/demand gap. That means foreign direct investors (FDIs) can't steal intellectual property rights from Filipino investors or mistreat Filipino workers. It's because once registered as a business competitor--you need to follow the rules. 

Besides, the government ends up benefiting from the private enterprises too. A good example is how some private enterprises' venues were used during the COVID-19 vaccination. Some malls today even become extensions for government offices. I remembered going to Robinsons' Galleria to get my Social Security ID. I remembered going to the University of Cebu-Downtown to get my first two COVID-19 shots. Government offices end up getting filled with capitalist devices. Governments end up hiring the services of private construction firms to build public works and highways. Government offices may end up catering from a restaurant for their Christmas parties. If the national government seized all production then government offices will eventually be forced to use substandard products. Government websites would probably hang up a lot more if there were no private servers. It's a balance between government and private enterprise that makes good governance. 

What we need is a balance between private ownership and government. A government that supports capitalism is a good government. Though, one can argue that China and Vietnam have a free market (in which economic exchange is free from coercive government influence) while they remain as Communist countries. However, both Communist countries still have a certain degree of private enterprises even when ownership of land is hardly allowed. What we need is a government that has reasonable regulations for capitalism. Government should be regulating capitalism instead of overly restricting it. The lesson can be learned from the rise of power in countries like Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. 

References

"Capital" by Marshall Hargrave, reviewed by Bryan Barnier, fact-checked by Yarilet Perez (Updated: April 3, 2022)

"Capitalism" by The Investopedia Team, reviewed by Marguerita Cheng, fact-checked by Pete Rathburn

"The "10 Planks" of the Communist Manifesto"

"What Was the Great Leap Forward?" Written by The Investopedia Team, Reviewed by Michael J. Byle (Updated: September 22, 2021)

Popular posts from this blog

The Idiocy of Typing Anti-FDI Rants Using IMPORTED Devices, IMPORTED Platforms, and IMPORTED Social Media

Bulatlat It's very easy to open Facebook (or any related platform) and find lots of stupidity , right? There have been idiotic comments I find on Facebook such as FDI is this and that. We can find "thought leader groups" such as Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Anakpawis, Anakbayan, Bayan Muna, IBON Foundation, Kabataan Partylist, League of Filipino Students, and Philippine Anti-Fascist League (PH Antifa) who keep ranting about FDI as this and that. I even remember somebody dared to say that FDI caused Egypt to dry up. Ironically, North Korea and Venezuela, two protectionist countries, have very bad pollution problems. I'd blame it that they don't have the money to do a clean-up drive. How can you clean up a polluted river without the right equipment? How can you expect better power efficiency with outdated equipment that keep coughing up, cough, cough, lots of black smoke?  All the talks on social media can be very funny. The big irony is that all calls for "...

Get Stuck with EDSA, End Up Like Nokia

  Yes, we should never forget what history teaches us. A classmate of mine, back in high school, wrote a simple and blunt essay called "History: A Teacher". I doubt he still has a soft copy, given it was already more than 20 years ago. I'd like to quote Duterte critic Andrew James Masigan wrote this in  Philippine Star --something that should remain relevant: I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful. The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples.  But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted . So despite the Constitut...

It's Incredibly Frustrating to Discuss Economics with an Overspender

Overspending is just bad economics, isn't it? Economics is defined as the following for the sake of a review of high school basics: Economics is a social science concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It studies how individuals, businesses, governments, and nations make choices about how to allocate resources. Economics focuses on the actions of human beings, based on assumptions that humans act with rational behavior, seeking the most optimal level of benefit or utility. The building blocks of economics are the studies of labor and trade. Since there are many possible applications of human labor and many different ways to acquire resources, it is the task of economics to determine which methods yield the best results. Economics can generally be broken down into macroeconomics, which concentrates on the behavior of the economy as a whole, and microeconomics, which focuses on individual people and businesses. It had me thinking of 2016 wh...

Talking Economics with an Overeating Glutton

Two years ago, I wrote an entry about why discussing economics with an overspender is frustrating . Now, I was looking at certain fat people who say really dumb things about economics. Just recently, I was looking at a certain fat idiot (fortunately, he only has 1K+ followers) who posted on Facebook that not only will the parliamentary system cause the Philippines to become a dictatorship, but he also says that changing economic provisions will cause the Philippines to collapse and the country to fall into the hands of foreigners. I won't name the person out to avoid getting personal. However, the person is apparently very fat and he blames capitalism day in and day out. The person even says that businessmen do nothing and it's the employers that do everything. Has that fat slob ever heard that businesses are run by bosses and that if the bosses do screw up, they're the ones who are the most answerable? The employees are the cogs and the boss runs the cogs. I was looking at...

Social Media Gossipers' Ad Hominems Against Actor Robin Padilla Regarding His Proposal to Remove 60-40

Make no mistake that I didn't vote for Robin Padilla. I feel like I've had enough of voting for celebrities, athletes, and those who I felt are know-nothings in the legislative. However, Padilla recently had his proposal to remove the 60-40 restrictions regarding foreign direct investments (FDIs) . Former Philippine Vice President Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo was even in favor of that amendment. I guess that's why Philippine economist Andrew James Masigan endorsed Robredo. I may have not endorsed Robredo while Masigan remains to be one of my favorite local sources. The news from GMA News Online reveals these plans by Padilla himself: Senator Robin Padilla said he wanted to revise the Constitution to scrap the 60-40 rule on foreign ownership of businesses to accelerate job creation and competition among industries . In a Monday interview, Padilla said the move would attract more foreign investments to support the country’s economic recovery. “Para sa akin mas...