How Do You Think Unregulated Capitalism Would Turn Out?

Since it hasn't ever really been tried, I must wonder how things would turn out.

Would the most powerful corporations conspire together to strategically buy out everyone else, giving themselves complete monopoly over everyone and allowing exploitation of workers? Or would there be so much competition monopolies would be impossible and businesses would constantly be one-upping each other on employee benefits to attract more workers? Perhaps somewhere in the middle? Perhaps it may flow organically between these two opposites?

I do fundamentally believe there is no better economic system, however I have had some people tell me capitalism will only truly shine when no restrictions are placed upon it. I am not sure, though, whether that would or would not be a good thing - since everything would be driven by personal ambition, and because people are usually inherently selfish, it is an unknown quantity. It is effectively economic anarchy.

 

It has, thats why we have regulated capitalism

 

Unregulated Capitalism would be fine if there was a separation of market from state (but not state from market).

As the capitalists grow megalithic, their overwhelming coercion of government drives the society into corporate slavery.

The state and its politicians need to be decoupled from the greed of market pigs as a necessity to ensure whole system prosperity.

This as it is here is the key principle violated in the US that has caused so much US suffering and has ultimately led to the decline and complete destruction of the US.

 

Good to see a Russian who isn't wallowing in Soviet-nostalgia. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I've met many Russians over the internet and of those who ever discussed politics a majority seemed to think the USSR was somehow a good thing and it was a shame it collapsed.

 

In response to the OP, I do not know how unregulated capitalism would turn out.

The worst-case scenario, I think, would be extensive consolidation of capital in the hands of a small upper-class of elites. Competitive, free markets would be replaced by innovation-stifling, inefficient monopolies that are compelled to use a variety of coercive means to advance their respective interests. The culminating result of this would be a corporatist, authoritarian society in which one firm replaces the state in all of its former functions and all workers are regarded in terms of their usefulness as small pieces of larger organizations - organizations which in turn have assigned niches in which to serve the overarching interests of the firm as a whole. Neither freedom of the individual nor their treatment as equals would be as important as the survival and well-being of the firm, making it strikingly similar in its tendencies to either fascism or feudalism depending on how property becomes arranged and controlled. Workers who threaten the system might be blacklisted - which could entail imprisonment, deportation, execution, or barring from company stores that would exile one into an underclass of folk relying upon charity or the informal economy / black market for survival.

Sovereignty would in practice belong to the Company rather than the People, but elites would not have total control since their influence over people depends on relationships with others of strategic importance within the social hierarchy. Think of this in terms of the patrimonial and clientelistic relationships we see today in corrupt governments. For an elite patron to reap the rewards of others' loyalty and support they must be able to deliver to these subordinate allies a number of special benefits and privileges. Cultivating, then taking advantage of these relationships would be important for ones success and ascent within the social hierarchy, which would be rife with bureaucracy, nepotism, bribery, the never ending drama of workplace politics, etc. People who fail to satisfy both their inferiors and superiors (when applicable) would be vulnerable to being sacked and replaced by rivals from below, within their own strata in the hierarchy, and/or from above. The extent to which living conditions would be pleasant might largely depend on how much competition there is among patrons for the support of underlings, and also on to what extents they believe their inferiors would be motivated to be more productive and dutiful - or made confident, ambitious, and treacherous - by being recipients of generosity.

In contrast, under the best-case scenario I suspect that a highly individualistic, egalitarian, and anti-authoritarian society would emerge in which each person functions like an entrepreneur and would feel compelled to be their own boss. Short-duration contracts would become the foundation of how business is done as opposed workers preferring to seek out long-term commitments to working at a particular firm. All functions of state would eventually be privatized and lead to an anarcho-capitalist order where abuses of power amongst a multitude of competing folk and factions is kept in check by fierce competition and privately-hired security forces. Interactions between people would be voluntary, meaning no one has any socially-tolerated prerogative to initiate physical violence against or interfere in the peaceful projects of any other without first procuring their consent. A just anarchy would continue only for so long as that principle is adhered to and actively upheld by the People, who do not have any masters or representatives to rely upon to do so in their stead.

Under these conditions, I honestly do not have a confident opinion concerning how people and organizations would rise or fall in hierarchies, what patterns of property ownership would eventually arise, how capital would become distributed, or how long (if at all) it would take for reestablishment of the state to occur. It seems that humanity has so much more experience with authoritarian orders than their libertarian counterparts when it comes to modern history, leaving me a bit perplexed about what to expect from statelessness and to what extent society may continue to exhibit many of the same characteristics it does today. There's a lot of "what ifs" to consider when contemplating what such a future could be like.

Perhaps neither of these extremes is likely to unfold? There are some examples of unregulated capitalism in history but I am not very familiar with them. It would be very interesting to read more insightful posts from some people here who are!

 

It is just their version of the good old days

 

Walmarts everywhere....corporations running wild...CEO's swimming in piles of other people's cash.....then...oh wait......you mean FURTHER deregulation than what we have now??

 

Actually it was tried back in the second half of the 19th century here in the U.S. It resulted in a major depression or recession occurring about every 2 years, The vast bulk of t he population living in poverty while the small number of owners owned over 95% of the wealth of the nation. Pure capitalism cannot work when you have corporations, Adam Smith's theory of Capitalism depends on easy entry and exit from the market, with everyone having an equal ability to compete in any marketplace if they have the skills, even in mature industries. It works when you have millions of small farmers, and millions of small tradesmen and craftsmen making everything, and no-one has large amounts of capital. The rise of the corporations inevitably leads to consolidation of industries into a few hands and creates a plutocratic oligarchy which gains control over the whole economy. By the 1890's and early 20th century these large corporations were routinely abusing their employees, selling tainted food to the public and committing all kinds of fraud on Wall Street. They manipulated markets with impunity, sold goods and services which took no account to the safety of the buying public. It was this that led to the people in this nation (and others) to demand regulations be promulgated by Government to require good behavior by the large corporations since it was the only entity powerful enough to do so. It also led to the rise of the Unions, so that by the early 1960's one third of all workers were Union members.

 

Why do you say its never been tried?

It was par for the course at the turn of the 20th century and long before, the results were awful.

 

Capitalism is unregulated. Capitalists/Corporations control the state and the government.

 

Walmart provides affordable goods everywhere as well as infrastructure, help for the less fortunate and jobs. CEO's get their $$$$ from corporate revenue which is earned by producing and selling goods and services paid for by 'other people' buying those goods and services. Other than enforcing existing law, government should have no role in private corporate decisions.

 

Ruins small businesses. Their employees don't think well of it either.

 

Why? Are corporations going to club together to make everything go along in everyones interest or just theirs?

 

Depends on what you mean by regulation and deregulation. For instance, government regulation to ensure existing law is being adhered to is necessary however, government interference in the free market by mandating draconian taxes, environmental regulations, etc. are all detrimental to the economy.

 

So is Wall-Mart.

 

No...And why should they? You don't have to spend your money at Wal-Mart (for example). If people don't want their goods and services they will not spend their $$$$ there and they will shrivel up and blow away. Why are some of you folks for government control of where you can spend your $$$? Monopolies are already illegal.

 

You have Wal-Mart, thus you do not have the smaller business or alternatives that it replaced.

 

Nonsense, Wal-Mart is supported by the people that spend their money there. If anything Wal-Mart helps the economy by providing goods at low prices allowing for more discretionary spending.

 

The best way to have a larger mddle-class is if they have their own businesses instead of people shopping at Wal-Mart. The best way to saaave is not to give the money to Wal-Mart CEO's.

 

So what? There is also Burger King, McDonalds and a myriad of other fast food places usually found among just as many or more local restaurant establishments.

- - - Updated - - -

Go ahead and tell that to the millions of folks who DEPEND on Wal-Mart to offer them affordable goods and services. BTW, I am not a proponent of growing a 'middle class'...In fact, I am against supporting a 'class' society.

 

Garbage food.

Give them community gardens and subsidies.

 

You certainly seem to support the Wal-Mart CEO.

 

That is your opinion which you are fully entitled to however, you are NOT entitled to force your opinion on others.

That would be something YOU could do with YOUR money and YOUR time. You could SELL your ideas and if people found it preferable to fast food establishments you could become a rich CEO yourself!!

 

But they are entitled to out-compete decent food. I never said people should not be able to purchase bad food.

If it was possible for the world of CEO's to be selling healthy food, we would be eating healthy food.

 

Walmart rapes the community, kills businesses and enslaves workers into garbage jobs. CEO's get their cash from chopping and hacking other people's assets and productive efforts. Government is now wholly and completely owned by the corporations (like Walmart), so their "role" in "private" corporations is now also "private" (just publicly funded).


In America, we produce little. We move around money, we BS other people out of their money, we cut, we hack, we manipulate, we commit fraud, we steal, we maneuver. Other countries PRODUCE things. We're just BS artists and that's coming to an end too.