Which of these are natural elements of a Capitalist society, and which are not?

[Jacobtm]

If there were a pure Capitalist society, which of the options listed above would be natural elements of it?

Here's an explanation of why I called each of these elements into question.

1) Corporations seem to be the most natural thing of all in a Capitalist society.  However, the existance of any Corporation of any size puts up boundaries to entry into whatever industry that Corporation exists in. If Corporations did not exist, but instead we had many individual sellers for any product, entry into any industry would be perfectly simple, and all bad sellers would be almost instantly rooted out due to intense competition. Of course, large Corporations can do things like mass production and research into ways to make production more efficient, which many individual sellers could not.

2) Capitalism is all about competition. Isn't it natural then, that in some cases, one firm might simply out-compete every other firm in the industry, and become the only firm left, due to it's superior business methods? But then, the end result of Capitalism in this case will have totally eliminated competition, allowing the Monopoly to raise it's prices incredibly high. But, then again, with a Monopoly charging ridiculous prices, smaller businesses might begin to pop up, undercutting the Monopoly, and re-spawning competition.

3) Labor Unions are often cited by proponents of Capitalism to hinder the process, by forcing Corporations to pay higher wages than normal market forces would dictate. But if a Corporation can exist in a Capitalist world, then why not Unions? Why shouldn't workers band together to be able to bargain with the owners of a Corporation? Why should the Corporation get all the leverage?

4) I've heard it argued by Libertarians/Capitalists that Nation/States simply impede free trade, and are thus an impedement to Capitalism. But doesn't it make sense that people of a certain geographical region would demand certain protections and special conditions that those of another geographical region might not?

5) Government regulations are another thing, like labor unions, often cited as impedements to Capitalism, since they in effect restrict the liberty of Capitalists to operate how they see best fit. However, one could take the stance that Government is just a Corporation hired and funded by the public at large to protect their interests. So in a way, one could say that (in a Democracy), whatever the government does just represents what people demand it do, and what people pay it to do. Government is just providing a service to people who pay for it through taxes.

6) Public Services follow the same line of thought as the Gov't Regulations bit. Since people vote for their gov't, the gov't is just acting on the will of the people, and since people pay for it, they're essentially just responding to demand. Especially since there is no regular Corporation that would have the ability to build something like an interstate highway system, the concept of public demand plays in pretty strongly here. It's also noteworthy that Adam Smith saw it fiting for Government to play a role in society, to provide for the services that would be unprofitable for Corporations to provide.

7) You can't have Public Services without paying for them, just like any type of service.

[Jacobtm]

By the way, I don't believe everything I said there, I was just trying to take the unpopular side in each case, providing grounds for it to be discussed.

I think in the long run, when Global Capitalism is achieved, and everyone is plugged into the same Global market, only Corporations, Governments, Public Services, and Taxes to pay for them will exist. I don't think labor unions will be able to stay competitive on a global scale, and monopolies will not be able to withstand global price competition. Wages and profits will both be driven down to a minimum point.

With wages and profits relatively low, and gov't that tries to tax too much will find itself dramatically devoid of businesses and personal incomes to tax. Militaries will still be necessary, and there will still have to be taxes, or something else, to pay for them, but I believe most government programs and regulations will die away in the long run.

[Gabu]

If there were a pure Capitalist society, which of the options listed above would be natural elements of it?

If it were a pure capitalist society like one that appears in any economics textbook, the only things that would appear would be corporations and monopolies.

However, in the real world (i.e., not happy fuzzy libertarian land with butterflies and roses because everyone is well-off from there being no government), I think that all of them are inevitable.

[opebo]

Capitalism is created and maintained by the State.  Without the State to protect them by force, the owners would have no power and would be eaten by the poors.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

All of them of course. A pure capitalsit world have enclaves and communtieis where one or more or all of those things would exist. Kinda like cyberpunk..

[Citizen James]

All of them of course. A pure capitalsit world have enclaves and communtieis where one or more or all of those things would exist. Kinda like cyberpunk..

Ever read snow crash?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

All of them of course. A pure capitalsit world have enclaves and communtieis where one or more or all of those things would exist. Kinda like cyberpunk..

Ever read snow crash?

I love that book.

[Jacobtm]

Capitalism is created and maintained by the State.  Without the State to protect them by force, the owners would have no power and would be eaten by the poors.

Why does everyone seem to assume this?

If there were no state to protect private property rights, Capitalists would just hire private militias to protect their private property.

[Frodo]

All of the above -assuming you are talking about one like ours as opposed to purely along laisses-faire lines. 

[A18]

Corporations -- No
Monopolies -- Yes, but less than in a mixed system
Labor unions -- Well, some, but not many
Governments and nation/states -- No
Government regulations -- No
Public services -- No
Taxes -- No

[MaC]

If there were a pure Capitalist society, which of the options listed above would be natural elements of it?

If it were a pure capitalist society like one that appears in any economics textbook, the only things that would appear would be corporations and monopolies.

However, in the real world (i.e., not happy fuzzy libertarian land with butterflies and roses because everyone is well-off from there being no government), I think that all of them are inevitable.

Hey, now! Our land is better than fuzzy liberal land where government will perform any service you want it to perfectly without any harm to others and all you have to do is pay a little bit of money in taxes.

But realistically, in a pure free market-corporations will always exist, though they won't be as burdensome as they are now.  Monopolies-maybe.  But they wouldn't be indestructable like some weirdos like to think    ^^

[Jacobtm]

Corporations -- No
Monopolies -- Yes, but less than in a mixed system
Labor unions -- Well, some, but not many
Governments and nation/states -- No
Government regulations -- No
Public services -- No
Taxes -- No

If you don't think there would be Corporations, and only a few Monopolies, than how would good be produced? The small individual sellers thing? And isn't a Monopoly a Corporation anyway?

[A18]

Corporations -- No
Monopolies -- Yes, but less than in a mixed system
Labor unions -- Well, some, but not many
Governments and nation/states -- No
Government regulations -- No
Public services -- No
Taxes -- No

If you don't think there would be Corporations, and only a few Monopolies, than how would good be produced? The small individual sellers thing? And isn't a Monopoly a Corporation anyway?

A "corporation" is an entity granted certain immunities by the state. There would of course be large businesses, but not corporations.

You don't have to be a corporation to have a monopoly.

There would still be de facto monopolies (which are fine), but not de jure monopolies.

[JohnFKennedy]

If it were a pure capitalist society like one that appears in any economics textbook, the only things that would appear would be corporations and monopolies.

If we are talking about a pure free market then monopolies won't exist as one of the conditions is the lack of any sunk costs which is how monopolies tend to be protected.

[angus]

I think the first two are the most natural, and go without saying, but I think the last five are natural as well.  Corporations are ways smart guys can talk their friends into financing stuff, and thereby get richer than they could on their own.  Monopolies are natural when one company can provide a service more efficiently than many competing companies can, and if they become rusty, someone else takes over and provides the monopoly.  Labor Unions, though not my favorite beast, are the result of workers freely associating in order for greater bargaining power.  Unless capitalists create laws against them, they will form naturally.  Governments, and the regulations they enact, are natural result of capitalists freely associating in order for greater defense power.  Their armies are somewhat analogous to the goons of labor unions, just better armed and better trained, owing to the fact that they are better financed.  Services are only possible with taxes, and those services include the health, education, and welfare of the workers.  Without a healthy, well-educated workforce, corporations suffer.  The wisest, most sensitive corporations already understand this and provide day care and insurance to their workforce.  Capitalism works well, in part because it is allowed to evolve naturally.  All these things have evolved naturally to meet some demand in the capitalist society.

[Bono]

I think the first two are the most natural, and go without saying, but I think the last five are natural as well.  Corporations are ways smart guys can talk their friends into financing stuff, and thereby get richer than they could on their own.  Monopolies are natural when one company can provide a service more efficiently than many competing companies can, and if they become rusty, someone else takes over and provides the monopoly.  Labor Unions, though not my favorite beast, are the result of workers freely associating in order for greater bargaining power.  Unless capitalists create laws against them, they will form naturally.  Governments, and the regulations they enact, are natural result of capitalists freely associating in order for greater defense power.  Their armies are somewhat analogous to the goons of labor unions, just better armed and better trained, owing to the fact that they are better financed.  Services are only possible with taxes, and those services include the health, education, and welfare of the workers.  Without a healthy, well-educated workforce, corporations suffer.  The wisest, most sensitive corporations already understand this and provide day care and insurance to their workforce.  Capitalism works well, in part because it is allowed to evolve naturally.  All these things have evolved naturally to meet some demand in the capitalist society.

Corporations aren't natural at all. they're an artificial state construction.

[angus]

I think you could say the same about any of those items.  And it depends on your definition of "natural" versus "arificial"  So in the end it's a syntax argument.  Here's the definition our eighth grade social studies teacher gave us for capitalism:  an economic system wherein the means of production and distribution of goods (or services) are privately controlled.  Or something like that.  And I doubt that they're teaching it radically differently nowadays.  I suppose that such a system can exist outside of, and independent of, the state.  And I think you can have such a system without having monopoly, regulatory agencies, taxes, etc.  I'm not saying that capitalism needs those things.  I'm just saying that in an economic system in which the means of production are privately controlled, all those things can come into existence by the consent of the capitalists.  Starting with corporation, which is primarily distinguished from sole proprietorship by the fact that many, instead of one, finance the production and distribution of goods.  Maybe I'm smart enough to make millions of dollars, but not rich enough to have the seed money, so I go public, sell shares, and voila!  I've talked a bunch of folks into financing a venture by which we all get a bit richer.  But mostly I get richer.  This can exist naturally in a capitalist system, and so can the rest of those things, if by "natural" we mean coming from the consent of the capitalist.  (now, we can argue separately about how that consent comes about.  democratically?  autocratically?  via edict?  via military coup?  there's no underlying assumption of a government form in the question, only an implied definition of an economic form.  In fact, under certain circumstances, capitalism can exist without government I think.)

[Emsworth]

Corporations: No. A "corporation" is an institution that enjoys the special privilege of limited liability. In a pure capitalist system, however, limited liability would not exist. Businesses would exist; corporations would not.

Monopolies: If you mean a state-enforced monopoly, then no. If you mean a natural monopoly, then yes.

Labor unions: Yes.

Governments: Yes.

Government regulations: No.

Public services: To an extent, yes. There would, for example, be police.

Taxes: Yes.

[Bono]

I think you could say the same about any of those items.  And it depends on your definition of "natural" versus "arificial"  So in the end it's a syntax argument.  Here's the definition our eighth grade social studies teacher gave us for capitalism:  an economic system wherein the means of production and distribution of goods (or services) are privately controlled.  Or something like that.  And I doubt that they're teaching it radically differently nowadays.  I suppose that such a system can exist outside of, and independent of, the state.  And I think you can have such a system without having monopoly, regulatory agencies, taxes, etc.  I'm not saying that capitalism needs those things.  I'm just saying that in an economic system in which the means of production are privately controlled, all those things can come into existence by the consent of the capitalists.  Starting with corporation, which is primarily distinguished from sole proprietorship by the fact that many, instead of one, finance the production and distribution of goods.  Maybe I'm smart enough to make millions of dollars, but not rich enough to have the seed money, so I go public, sell shares, and voila!  I've talked a bunch of folks into financing a venture by which we all get a bit richer.  But mostly I get richer.  This can exist naturally in a capitalist system, and so can the rest of those things, if by "natural" we mean coming from the consent of the capitalist.  (now, we can argue separately about how that consent comes about.  democratically?  autocratically?  via edict?  via military coup?  there's no underlying assumption of a government form in the question, only an implied definition of an economic form.  In fact, under certain circumstances, capitalism can exist without government I think.)

That has nothing to do with a corporation. people can pool their money together and not form a corproation.
But to become a corporation, they need a government to impose limited liability on people.

[angus]

yes you can define the terms such that your answers may be correct.  Clearly you and emsworth can vote NO on number one since you vote NO on number five.  That is, your refusal to allow regulation to exist precludes the existence of corporations by the very narrow definition you give it.  Ever notice that while American corporations end in ", Inc." English corporations end in ", LTD." and german corporations end in ", GmbH"  (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, which is roughly "company with limited liability," I think.)  so if you have to have the "limited" or "beschränkter" in your definition, then obviously it's NO on the first.  But the nature of the question asks whether a corporation can evolve naturally.  I say that in the absence of a government to act as guarantor for limited liability, or even to provide courts in which a corporation can be sued, then you are compelled to come up with a different defintion of corporation, the simplest of which lends itself easily owing to the American custom of leaving off the "limited" when we abbreviate the corporate name.  A reasonable definition may be supplied by simply inserting another "o" in the first syllable, turning it into "cooperation" which is not etymologically related to "corporation" by the way, as corporation comes form the latin "corpus" (body).  That's okay, lets just make our corporation a "body" of people funding stuff.  By such a definition corporation exists. 

I also disagree with your notion that government regulations can't exist.  Any group of capitalists is free to set up a state with the power to regulate.  There's nothing in my eighth-grade teacher's definition of capitalism to prohibit that.  this question is more a syntax argument, obviously, so I'm not surprised at the disagreements.  I'm not going to have a syntax argument with you.  Obviously the first step in any debate is to define terms.  If you define "corporation" to include what the english call "limited" and the germans "bereichte" and, moreover, do not make any allowance for a government to exist to guarantee that limited liability, then obviously you're correct.  I'm only surprised that so few people have selected "monopoly" as that seems the most natural of all of them in a capitalist society.  This seems even to be natural whether or not you allow for the existence of a state with the power to regulate business.