The state has always defined the free market.

Private ownership of land arose in the 1700s because of government-led expropriation efforts of communal property.

Every country in history industrialized & built a liberal market economy with at least some degree of protectionism.
Markets necessitated more centralized government involvement in finance through central banks and/or gold standards.

Laissez-faire doctrine was always a bit heavy-handed.

The mythology of capitalism is incredible--how people think they hate the state but also love capitalism.
This doesn't mean that capitalists, classical liberals or the capitalist economy can be equated with central planning or whatever, but capitalism still has a big state with ''coercive'' powers.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tristam Pratorius the classical Social Democrat🌹

Tristam Pratorius the classical Social Democrat🌹 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TristamPratori1

20 Nov
Olof Palme at the Swedish Social Democratic Labour Party's 1975 congress.

The argument from social democracy's conservative foes that the welfare state invalidated socialism or that improving living conditions made people conservative was to be rejected.…
Instead, the universal welfare state and full employment did not make people conservative. It broadened the political horizons of what was possible by forcing through and increasing the demands of the labor movement.

It built class consciousness and solidarity.
Read 4 tweets
19 Nov
1/3 On market concentration / worker power.

Sectoral bargaining doesn't overcome the contradiction between competition and worker power.

SB makes workers more powerful only in the sense that it makes employers and unions *equal.* It also makes employers into a monopsony.
2/3 In a bargaining system where unions and employers are formally equal, increased worker bargaining power may still depend upon more market concentration.

That's because smaller firms with less financial strength will yield fewer concessions and wage increases to unions.
3/3 It does not matter that they are formally represented by one group or association. The negotiators for the employers will still need to take into account the circumstances of individual firms.
Read 4 tweets
19 Nov
The Lockean Proviso seems to require socialism.

The idea that labor entitles individuals to ownership makes no sense in modern industry. Property (capital) is derived not from the effort of single individuals, but from massive workforces and even government resources.
The ''contribution'' of one capital owner to the whole is rather insignificant on its own.
Amazon probably hundreds of major shareholders whereas that is not the case with farms.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!