What is the Difference between Communist Central Banking and the Federal Reserve

[Octobox]

Of course as I ask this question I already know the answer, but my own thoughts bring me no comfort so I'm looking for a fresh line of reasoning.

Too answer this question is not to just give "opinion" the requisite is an understanding of just "who" the Central Bankers of Europe, England, Russia, and America are. Are they ideologically different or are they "kissing cousins?"

In Communism-Democracy-Socialism -- once the door to central banking is open can it ever become something other than an evil empire built off of our abdication to authority? Is the very act of abdication (to Union Leaders, to Corporatist Leaders, to Gov't Leaders, and the banking clan who rules them all) the beginning of our doom?

Where is the individual in a society with Central Banking?

[revolution inaction]

Can you write that in a way that makes sense?

[Demogorgon]

You are not making a great deal of sense. The central bank is an institution of modern capitalism, not Communism.

[Jack]

The Fed is privately owned, nice try.

Don't try the whole "individualism" bit, where is my room for self expression if I'm cramped in a factory for 14 hours a day?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Of course as I ask this question I already know the answer, but my own thoughts bring me no comfort so I'm looking for a fresh line of reasoning.

Too answer this question is not to just give "opinion" the requisite is an understanding of just "who" the Central Bankers of Europe, England, Russia, and America are. Are they ideologically different or are they "kissing cousins?"

In Communism-Democracy-Socialism -- once the door to central banking is open can it ever become something other than an evil empire built off of our abdication to authority? Is the very act of abdication (to Union Leaders, to Corporatist Leaders, to Gov't Leaders, and the banking clan who rules them all) the beginning of our doom?

Where is the individual in a society with Central Banking?

Methinks you're one of the many Right-wing enthusiasts who misread the Communist Manifesto by approaching the the ten planks as a statement of what socialism entails instead of what Marx thought would occur under capitalism as some form of concessions. Marx predicted the coming age of the welfare state almost a hundred years before they rose to power.

[Octobox]

LOL "nice try"

I'm not trying to trick you.

Was it not Marx who said, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

The Fed is "Privately" owned but they are non-competitive -- they do not operate in a "free-market" they have monopoly control -- they do not function in a Market Anarchy, there is no competing currency. They can print and doll out Fiat Currency and Fiat Credit as they see fit. That is a "monopoly" and a monopoly cannot exist in a "truly" free-society or in Market-Anarchy.

Octobox

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That is a "monopoly" and a monopoly cannot exist in a "truly" free-society or in Market-Anarchy.Self-ownership isn't a monopoly? Uh oh. There goes your mantra about "individual liberty."


The Fed is "Privately" owned but they are non-competitive -- they do not operate in a "free-market" they have monopoly control States are still susceptible to the market. You can decide between here or almost any state in the world.

In fact, states are just large landlords. Free market capitalism is contradictory because all it does is defend micro-states.


Was it not Marx who said, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."If you read the paragraph before that bulletin without prejudice you would realize Marx was making a prediction of what would occur in the future as the contradiction of capitalism continues to reveal itself to the world, not what would be communist.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

If you're going to criticize Marx, at least understand what he's saying. These planks are transitional.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx went on to say in 1872 that the "transitional" planks were obsolete:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated.



In regards to Big-C Communist central banking vs. the Feds and even every other central banking system, the "central bank" would also have a monopoly over commercial banking and consumer banking (Gosbank and Sberkassa).

[Jack]

LOL "nice try"

I'm not trying to trick you.

Was it not Marx who said, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

The Fed is "Privately" owned but they are non-competitive -- they do not operate in a "free-market" they have monopoly control -- they do not function in a Market Anarchy, there is no competing currency. They can print and doll out Fiat Currency and Fiat Credit as they see fit. That is a "monopoly" and a monopoly cannot exist in a "truly" free-society or in Market-Anarchy.

Octobox

For starters you're not an anarchist.

Second, what about the Liberty Dollar? The Fed doesn't have a monoply, it just offers the best money and most available and accepted, so it has formed a free market monopoly. The US dollar has just outcompeted other dollars such at the Liberty Dollar. Pluss, geographic domination of an area by a currency is bound to happen, no store will take Liberty Dollars, Octo Dollars, McFlurry Dollars, and Cheese Dollars (I obviously made those up, but you get the idea). What's the likelyhood that your boss will pay you in yen, mine in Francs, and some other guy in Pounds, then we all go to the same bar?

Basically they are competitive with other nation's currency, just out of convenience they have formed a near monopoly over the geographic area we call the United States. Money monopolies will always form according to location, it's a matter of convienience. Are you going to curse that there is a Time Monopoly too because everyone on the East Coast is at Eastern Time? It's more convenient so it will always dominate.

[JimmyJazz]

Second, what about the Liberty Dollar? The Fed doesn't have a monoply, it just offers the best money and most available and accepted, so it has formed a free market monopoly. The US dollar has just outcompeted other dollars such at the Liberty Dollar.


The Liberty Dollar warehouses were raided and the contents confiscated by the FBI and Secret Service on November 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_15), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007). The FBI states that this confiscation is intended to prevent people mistaking Liberty Dollars for legal tender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender); the Liberty Dollar organization is accused of illegally presenting the currency as a legal alternative to the United States dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar). To date, no one has been accused of any crime. The gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold), silver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver), and copper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper) seized has been accused of being proceeds of crime, but no criminal charge is pending.

http://www.gata.org/node/5748


U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes,
or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other
metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money,
whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of
foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this
title (!1) or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/25/sections/section_486.html

[Jack]

You got me, but in all honesty how likely is it that the Liberty Dollar would have outcompeted the US dollar?

All my other points (especially about the geographic domination by a currency) still stand.

[Jack]

Also, remember when states were issueing their own money? Total disaster.

[bruce]

You got me, but in all honesty how likely is it that the Liberty Dollar would have outcompeted the US dollar?

All my other points (especially about the geographic domination by a currency) still stand.


Also, remember when states were issueing their own money? Total disaster.

If that's the case, then why have all these laws preventing competing currencies in the first place?

[Blackscare]

If that's the case, then why have all these laws preventing competing currencies in the first place?

They didn't always outlaw different currencies, and as a result everything went to shit. So of course, the lesson about the usefulness of competing currencies having been learned, it was made illegal.

[bruce]

They didn't always outlaw different currencies, and as a result everything went to shit. So of course, the lesson about the usefulness of competing currencies having been learned, it was made illegal.

That wasn't his argument though

And I don't understand this 'everything went to shit' observation. You can exchange CDN dollars for US dollars without much hassle

[Octobox]

Jack

I'm a Minarchist with strong Anarchist leanings.

Anarchist (from An-arche -- means no-sovereignty or "self-rule"): No Unionist, No Corporatist, No Lobbyist, No Career Politician, and No Monetarist to whom the individual would abdicate authority over too -- that's Anarchism. Now, that does not mean the individual might not find a "group" that he or she might join temporarily to fight a cause; but that group does not have property, monetary, taxation, or regulatory power over the inidividual.

Of course in a America there are no practicing Individualists, hahaha. Well not in the medium and long run. Just as there are no practicing leftist -- we all are paying into corporatism -- one way or another.

The discussion I want to have is one based on action. We are abdicating to our Corporatist Gov't now and what I'm saying is abdicating to another form of gov't might not be the answer.

Genecosta:
Wikipedia: "A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolised product." Additionally "monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

My point is that your point of "self-ownership" being monopolistic, yes that would be the case if I were not only a model, prostitute, or actor who provided a service wherein I could either bar all other forms of competition from entering or that I controlled the medium the service was bartered in -- in that case yes "self-ownership" might be construed a monopoly -- "uh oh" you couldn't point out one example wherein self-ownership results in a monopoly *home alone cheek slap*.

It was a silly statement -- it wasn't the "big I got you" or the deal closer.

[Octobox]

Yeah I agree with Bruce -- the "went to shit" argument is not an articulate premise t draw your conclusion from.

Yes, there were competing currencies and yes during that time the monetary system went to shit. I guess your argument then is, ergo "capitalism doesn't work?"

Well you forget during that period that the gov't had fixed the price of gold -- so there was no "real" competition in pure free-market or market-anarchy terms, is there?

Price fixing belongs to the Sovereign Society not the Free-Society.

In a free-society it is buyer and owner beware -- where the entrepreneur creates flux (profit) by constantly seeking to make better use of resources through innovation.

At present America is "stimulated" (made profitable) by way of currency manipulation (interest rate fixing) by way of fiat credit (credit out of thin air). Federal Reserve -- Not a Free-Market "Private" Corporation rather, the "Fed" is a Banking Cartel (an Oligopoly).

Monopolies cannot exist in the medium to long run in a free-society because of the entrepreneur who never has barriers of entry in any market -- zero protectionism.

[Dejavu]

Of course as I ask this question I already know the answer, but my own thoughts bring me no comfort so I'm looking for a fresh line of reasoning.

Too answer this question is not to just give "opinion" the requisite is an understanding of just "who" the Central Bankers of Europe, England, Russia, and America are. Are they ideologically different or are they "kissing cousins?"

In Communism-Democracy-Socialism -- once the door to central banking is open can it ever become something other than an evil empire built off of our abdication to authority? Is the very act of abdication (to Union Leaders, to Corporatist Leaders, to Gov't Leaders, and the banking clan who rules them all) the beginning of our doom?

Where is the individual in a society with Central Banking?

Nice to see you back Octobox. :)

I suppose real communism would have no use for a central bank as money would be phased out or arbitrarily abolished.

That said, you are probably thinking about what is the difference between the Fed and a Socialist central bank model. Well, in my humble opinion, not a whole lot except maybe word games. For all intents and purposes, the Fed is basically the US Central Bank no different than any of the other central banks that actually admit that they are an arm of the state.

I suppose an ideal socialist central bank would that which is 'democratically ruled' by the people. I don't know how currency in it would be backed, perhaps labor vouchers? Usury would probably be outlawed as well.
If this is the case then sadly it is highly unlikely to fan out like this in reality as it basically assumes that altruistic socialist men would be able to remain unaffected by, possibly, the greatest institution of power ever contrived in human history. In this way I think this is why socialism is Utopian but anarchism is not.

[Dejavu]

The Fed is privately owned, nice try.

If you say it enough times, you'll really believe it. Privately owned eh? Just like someone can own their own store?


Don't try the whole "individualism" bit, where is my room for self expression if I'm cramped in a factory for 14 hours a day?

I feel bad for you, honestly. It must be miserable to work 14 hours a day in a factory. Hopefully they have air conditioning for you. You might want to consider another line of work unless that one pays very well.

www.careerbuilder.com has some job listings and chances are you won't have to work that long as modern technology has made a large share of jobs less labor intensive.

[Dejavu]

Methinks you're one of the many Right-wing enthusiasts who misread the Communist Manifesto by approaching the the ten planks as a statement of what socialism entails instead of what Marx thought would occur under capitalism as some form of concessions. Marx predicted the coming age of the welfare state almost a hundred years before they rose to power.


Meh, give him a break. You guys get so agitated when someone uses the popular accepted meaning of communism ( mega-death state) but many of you also carelessly ( or perhaps intentionally) conflate free market capitalism and modern capitalism.

Marx sort of asserts the same contradictory nonsense that Noam Chomsky does regarding anarchism. Marx's end-game was communism , which is basically anarcho-communism, yet he believed that an extremely powerful and larger than liberal state is required to get there.

Marx was not a very good fortune teller either. His predictability credibility disintegrated along with his methodology of historical materialism as events actually panned out in the real world. ( I am a materialist btw and can say historical materialism mixed with hegelianism belongs in the world of fantasy)Russia and not some industrialized Western nation went to all out-socialism and even tried some communism ( Lenin till 1924). Socialism did not go in the direction that Marx predicted either as it collapsed to (modern) capitalism and did not transform into its final synthesis. The fact that a state would increase its power ( into welfare/warfare) isn't some brilliant discovery by Marx but already evident before his contributions. Simple economic theory ( even as posed by Keynesians) demonstrate that the state exponentially grows as society becomes ever more wealthier until it begins to implode ( that's another topic).

And not even the socialist economists could predict the Great Depression when it happened. Only one school got it right years before it actually happened. Take a stab at which one?

[Dejavu]

LOL "nice try"

I'm not trying to trick you.

Was it not Marx who said, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

The Fed is "Privately" owned but they are non-competitive -- they do not operate in a "free-market" they have monopoly control -- they do not function in a Market Anarchy, there is no competing currency. They can print and doll out Fiat Currency and Fiat Credit as they see fit. That is a "monopoly" and a monopoly cannot exist in a "truly" free-society or in Market-Anarchy.

Octobox

He meant this as a condition for socialism, not actually communism.

The 'privately' owned Fed has all its costs externalized by brute force from the government imposed on the people. Its like the bare naked logical conclusion of something like Anti-Trust legislation.

A truly privately owned enterprise would have all of its costs internalized to it and it alone. The free market provides that, obviously. Even in this system we can see what would become of these corporate monsters like GM and Citigroup if they were left to the mercy of the market and not bailed out ( rewarded) for their ( in my opinion , even immoral) corrupt behavior.

[Dejavu]

Self-ownership isn't a monopoly? Uh oh. There goes your mantra about "individual liberty."

He was not talking about a basis of ethics ( i.e. theory of self-ownership) so nice bait and most would bite. ;)

Not all Mkt.Anarchists endorse the theory of Self-Ownership, myself included. I used to but not anymore. The conclusions are sound but the premise is flawed. Its one of those oddball cases.



States are still susceptible to the market. You can decide between here or almost any state in the world.

In fact, states are just large landlords. Free market capitalism is contradictory because all it does is defend micro-states.

Are you trying to say now that a state is the product of a (free market)?

I thought we went over your ( not very sound, no offense, not as bad as I thought but still not very sound) argument about landlords=states.

Internalized vs Externalized costs? Ring a bell? Conditional voluntary contracts vs Unilateral, non negotiable ones? Doing anything for you yet? Gene, when are you gonna make the serious video on YouTube addressing this?


For starters you're not an anarchist.

Says you, the grand and objective arbitrator of what anarchism is. :)


I'm a Minarchist with strong Anarchist leanings.

How strong? Maybe not that strong?
The largest gap in political thinking is not between small government and big government or minarchy vs socialism , but it is actually between minarchism and anarchism.

Minarchism merely disagrees with other forms of government in terms of degree and semantics.

Minarchism disagrees with Anarchism on core fundamentals,principles, and axioms.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And not even the socialist economists could predict the Great Depression when it happened. Only one school got it right years before it actually happened. Take a stab at which one? Realmente, the communist Nikolai Kondratieff, Lenin's top economic adviser, predicted the Great Depression as late as 1924 (http://www.thelongwaveanalyst.ca/inthemedia/april6_05_theory.htm). He was executed during the Stalin administration for putting forward te idea capitalism can still regenerate itself after some time. Perhaps you need to learn more about communism before proceeding to make false assertions?

Roger Babson, C.H. Douglas, Thorstein Veblen, and quite a few others also predicted the Great Depression around the time Hayek and Mises did

Is it too much to ask for some intellectual honesty out of the Austrian School? Next I'm going to hear Hayek wasn't defeated by Sraffa - oh wait.

[Dejavu]

What happened to all my replies? Who went on the deleting spree?
I know nothing I said was insulting or out of hand, so whats the reason?

[#FF0000]

What happened to all my replies? Who went on the deleting spree?
I know nothing I said was insulting or out of hand, so whats the reason?

Entire forum had to be reset. We ain't trying to repress you, don't worry. :lol:

[Jack]

Just going to throw this out there. In 1879 Standard Oil controlled 90% of the US's oil. That's when we were as clase as possible to "lassie faire".

[Octobox]

Dejavu -- my posts were deleted as well.

I made two posts after yours Dejavu and they were so good that communists were instantly converting to Market Anarchy by just reading the opening lines.

*No facists were harmed in the creation of this post*

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

*No facists were harmed in the creation of this post*

Facists - people who judge you according to your face? :D :laugh:

[Octobox]

Hahahaha -- Yes!!!

*puts head down*

Actually no -- it was a mispelling :crying: