> One could make the argument that free marketism inevitably brings about capitalism which inevitably turns into growthism.
I wouldn't make the first part of that argument, because I'm not convinced that "free marketism" is even a real thing, much less a precursor of capitalism. It seems to be position presented as a rhetorical defense of capitalism, but doesn't seem to exist independently.
But what this article calls "growthism" is one of the core features of capitalism called out by the people who named it. Capitalism doesn't inevitably turn into growthism, it is (or, at least, includes as an essential feature) growthism.
> Much like Benjamin Tucker's argument that Marxism inevitably ends in Stalinism (he made this argument as a contemporary of Marx, so this wasn't hindsight).
Stalinism -- or, more to the point, Leninism -- requires both Marxism and an environment that is unlike the ones described by the descriptive elements of Marxism in a particular way into which one attempts to translate the prescriptive elements. Given those ingredients, I'd agree that its pretty much inevitable that something like Leninism will at least be attempted.
Marxism itself doesn't inevitably become Leninism/Stalinism, but its existence makes the existence of such a system quite likely.
> I happen to actually believe Schumpeter's model better (that capitalism turns to gas and water socialism turns to growthism).
I would argue more that the empirical evidence is that capitalism plus the existence of socialist ideas leads fairly usually (even if not inevitably) to a variety of mixed systems that feature a basically capitalist structure with socialist elements (including growthism), of which "gas and water socialism" is an example.
Again, Tucker made his argument from first principles, in a non-hindsight fashion (he was writing when Lenin was a teen). So it would be hard to argue that it's not inevitable, because it was empirically shown and in a prior fashion mechanistically predicted (this is the minimum bar for creating a law in the physical sciences), unless you can point out exactly what needs to happen differently from how Tucker envisioned it.
> Again, Tucker made his argument from first principles, in a non-hindsight fashion (he was writing when Lenin was a teen). So it would be hard to argue that it's not inevitable
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. That an argument was made "from first principles" doesn't make it hard to argue against.
> because it was empirically shown
I would disagree with the claim that what Tucker actually predicted was empirically shown, but this whole discussion is widely afield from the point.
>It seems to be position presented as a rhetorical defense of capitalism, but doesn't seem to exist independently.
It definitely does. This may be a relatively modern development, but a simple google search of "capitalism is not free markets" will demonstrate swaths of people who make a clear (if subtle) distinction between the two. It's even in the wikipedia page for free markets.
> This may be a relatively modern development, but a simple google search of "capitalism is not free markets" will demonstrate swaths of people who make a clear (if subtle) distinction between the two.
There's a clear distinction between capitalism and free markets -- largely, IME, drawn by people, often socialists, who are pointing out the inaccuracy of the "free market" rhetorical defense of capitalism -- but I don't see as much evidence that free marketism is a significant ideological viewpoint outside of its use as a rhetorical defense of capitalism, and certainly not a precursor to capitalism.
"center for a stateless society"
"foundation for economic education"
"ReasonTV"
Hardly socialistic enterprises. The clear distinction between the two is mostly a self-identification that tends to emanate from libertarian and anarcho-capitalist groups.
I wouldn't make the first part of that argument, because I'm not convinced that "free marketism" is even a real thing, much less a precursor of capitalism. It seems to be position presented as a rhetorical defense of capitalism, but doesn't seem to exist independently.
But what this article calls "growthism" is one of the core features of capitalism called out by the people who named it. Capitalism doesn't inevitably turn into growthism, it is (or, at least, includes as an essential feature) growthism.
> Much like Benjamin Tucker's argument that Marxism inevitably ends in Stalinism (he made this argument as a contemporary of Marx, so this wasn't hindsight).
Stalinism -- or, more to the point, Leninism -- requires both Marxism and an environment that is unlike the ones described by the descriptive elements of Marxism in a particular way into which one attempts to translate the prescriptive elements. Given those ingredients, I'd agree that its pretty much inevitable that something like Leninism will at least be attempted.
Marxism itself doesn't inevitably become Leninism/Stalinism, but its existence makes the existence of such a system quite likely.
> I happen to actually believe Schumpeter's model better (that capitalism turns to gas and water socialism turns to growthism).
I would argue more that the empirical evidence is that capitalism plus the existence of socialist ideas leads fairly usually (even if not inevitably) to a variety of mixed systems that feature a basically capitalist structure with socialist elements (including growthism), of which "gas and water socialism" is an example.