Free Market Capitalism

[Die Rote Fahne]

The bourgeois want more free reign to wreak havoc on the proletariat and the environment.

There are two people who support this idea:

Gullible proletarians who view communism as this awful Stalinist idea, thanks McCarthy, and because they are in their present capitalist state as working class going nowhere.

The other are the bourgeois who want to belittle the labour laws, end environmental protections, and make a profit at the expense of the proletariat.

[Jack]

I'm perplexed as to what this thread accomplishes, especially considering there's about 50 other threads that make the exact same point.

Also, everyone knows that free market is an oxymoron.

[Havet]

I'm perplexed as to what this thread accomplishes, especially considering there's about 50 other threads that make the exact same point.

Also, everyone knows that free market is an oxymoron.

free market capitalism is an oxymoron. There is at least another type of free market though.

[Slapstiq]

I thought this was supposed to be for opposing ideologies, strange that it's used to intermittently post bare assertions about the things you don't like whenever the thought occurs to do so.

[Bankotsu]

One of the crucial pillars of support for today's Dollar System is Washington's control of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF.

The way this actually works is carefully disguised, behind a facade of technocrats and economic theory of free market ideology.

In reality, the IMF is a modern era collection agency for the Dollar Empire.

It collects its tribute, through major international banks, who use the dollars to further extend the power of American financial and corporate hegemony, in effect the driving motor of what is globalization...

The next step for IMF conditions, is the demand a country turn to "market-based" domestic prices. This is code for eliminating government subsidies or price controls. Often developing countries have state-subsidized fuel or food or other necessities for their people.

In 1998 the IMF demanded, for example, that Indonesia remove state food subsidies for the poor. The idea of "market-based price" is itself a fiction. A market is man-made. The market in Switzerland or Denmark or Japan is different from the market in Cuba or Cameroon.

What the IMF is after is a slashing of state budgets to minimize the state role in the economy and make a target country defenseless against foreign takeover of its key assets...

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm perplexed as to what this thread accomplishes, especially considering there's about 50 other threads that make the exact same point.

Also, everyone knows that free market is an oxymoron.


I just wanted it discussed is all. It's in opposing ideologies because I wanted to see if anyone would respond that is a Free Market Capitalist.

[Misanthrope]

The bourgeois want more free reign to wreak havoc on the proletariat and the environment.

I disagree. I would say the real bourgeois, the social class which benefits from discriminatory state treatment, wants more state control of the market. The state diminishes competition, there is still competition amongst the bourgeois.



There are two people who support this idea:

Gullible proletarians who view communism as this awful Stalinist idea, thanks McCarthy, and because they are in their present capitalist state as working class going nowhere.

The other are the bourgeois who want to belittle the labour laws, end environmental protections, and make a profit at the expense of the proletariat.They could care less about environmental protections and labor laws. They just outsource jobs to countries where these laws aren't present, they expropriate more wealth from the proletariat.

To think that the state and capitalists are enemies.. lol.

[Skooma Addict]

I just wanted it discussed is all. It's in opposing ideologies because I wanted to see if anyone would respond that is a Free Market Capitalist.

Ill respond.


The bourgeois want more free reign to wreak havoc on the proletariat and the environment.

I disagree. I don't think the bourgeois wreak havoc on the proletariat. As for the environment, I think many of our environmental problems are caused by government.


Gullible proletarians who view communism as this awful Stalinist idea, thanks McCarthy, and because they are in their present capitalist state as working class going nowhere.

Well, they may have other reasons for disliking communism. Valid criticisms of communism do exist.


The other are the bourgeois who want to belittle the labour laws, end environmental protections, and make a profit at the expense of the proletariat.

There are many problems with the labor laws. Many poor people would benefit if the labor laws were eliminated. I don't think the bourgeois make a profit at the expense of the poor as long as their relationship is voluntary.

[Sarah Palin]

I take issue with the term "free-market." It should be known as the "slave/owner market." Wherein the richest get richer, and the poor stay poor.

[Ohnoatard]

Free Market my ass. China adopted free market, do they have Freedom in China?

"Freedom in Capitalist society are the same in Ancient Greek society. Freedom for Slave Owners"

--Lenin

[Bankotsu]

Free market means the strongest actor within that market wins and makes the rules.

Which in most cases means that the financial, corporate oligarchy gets to exploit the society and its weakest members.

That is why we need a strong state to regulate the activities of these oligarchic forces.



The area of political action in our society is a circle on which at least four actors may intervene: the government, individuals, communities, and voluntary associations, especially corporations. Yet, for the last century, discussion of political actions, and especially the controversies arising out of such actions, have been carried on in terms of only two actors, the government and the individual.

Nineteenth century books often assume a polarization of the individual versus the state, while many twentieth century books seek to portray the state as the solution to most individuals' problems. Conservatives, from von Hayek to Ayn Rand, now try to curtail government on the excuse that this will give more freedom to individuals, while liberals try to destroy communities with the aim of making all individuals identical, including boys and girls. And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling,
the area of political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual, detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible corporations.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/13458196/Prof-Carroll-Quigley-The-Oscar-Iden-LecturesLecture-1-The-State-of-Communities

[Slapstiq]

Free Market my ass. China adopted free market, do they have Freedom in China?
Actually yeah they're probably freer than ever.

[Havet]

That is why we need a strong state to regulate the activities of these oligarchic forces.

lol...

A strong state will only benefit these oligarchic forces MORE.

I thought such conclusion was pretty obvious.

[Bankotsu]

A strong state will only benefit these oligarchic forces MORE.



How?

[Havet]

How?

When power is so concentrated among the few (the strong state), then it will become easier for oligarchic forces to team up with this entity in order to achieve things they couldn't ordinarily get (industry restrictions, tax reliefs), in order for the oligarchic forces to increase their power as well.

When a business uses government power to increase to artificially increase the barrier to entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_to_entry) in that industry they will decrease competition and gain a larger share of the market.

If you want to get rid of oligarchies get rid of the state as well, or see history repeat itself (USSR anyone?).

[Bankotsu]

When power is so concentrated among the few (the strong state), then it will become easier for oligarchic forces to team up with this entity in order to achieve things they couldn't ordinarily get (industry restrictions, tax reliefs), in order for the oligarchic forces to increase their power as well.

That is why the state must have control over the financial and corporate oligarchy and not be controlled by these powers.

We cannot allow the financial and corporate oligarchy to be the masters of the state and let them exploit society.

This should be the goal of reformist socialists.



To me, the most ominous flaw in our constitutional set-up is the fact that the federal government does not have control over of money and credit and does not have control of corporations.

It is therefore not really sovereign. And it is not really responsible, because it is now controlled by these two groups, corporations, and those who control the flows of money. The new public financing of the Presidential elections is arranged so that they can spend as much as they want: voluntary contributions, not authorized by the candidate, are legal.

The administrative system and elections are dominated today by the private power of money flows and corporation activities.

I want to read you a summary from James Willard Hurst, "The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States from 1780 to 1970". He points out that there was powerful anti-corporation feeling in the United States in the 1820's.

Therefore, it was established by the states that corporations could not exist by prescription: they had to have charters. They had to have a limited term of life and not be immortal. Corporations today are immortal: if they get charters, they can live forever and bury us all...

I defined sovereignty last time, but I want to run through it for the benefit of those who weren't here. Sovereignty has eight aspects: DEFENSE; JUDICIAL, settling disputes; ADMINISTRATIVE, discretionary actions for the public need; TAXATION, mobilizing resources: this is one of the powers the French government didn't have in 1770; LEGISLATION.

The finding of rules and the establishment of rules through promulgation and statue; EXECUTIVE, the enforcement of laws and judicial decisions.

Then there are two which are of absolute paramount importance today: MONETARY, the creation and control of money and credit--if that is not an aspect of the public sovereignty, then the state is far less than fully sovereign; and the eight one, THE INCORPORATING POWER, the right to say that an association of people is a fictitious person with the right to hold property and to sue in the courts. Notice: the federal government of the United States today does not have the seventh and eight but I'll come back to that later...

http://www.wealthbuilder.ie/essay15.htm
I think China is doing better in terms of reigning in the powers of the corporate oligarchy, their influence there is not as strong as compared to the USA:



China Executes More Corrupt Millionaires… While In America, AIG Swipes Another $249 Million In Bonuses

There’s a reason why the Chinese are ascendant while America is in decline. Because the Chinese walk upright and aren’t afraid to apply justice to the pigs who are ruining their country; while at the same time, Americans bow and scrape to the same people who loot them, dreaming like peasants of the day they can become Donald Trump’s “Apprentice.” It’s a grotesque role-reversal, and we ought to be ashamed...

http://exiledonline.com/china-executes-more-corrupt-millionairesmeanwhile-in-the-peasant-states-of-america-aig-takes-another-242-million-in-bonuses/

[Havet]

That is why the state must have control over the financial and corporate oligarchy and not be controlled by these powers.

We cannot allow the financial and corporate oligarchy to be the masters of the state and let them exploit society.

When the state has the control over the financial and corporate oligarchies (which appeared because of the state in the first place), then you will merely condense the different oligarchies into one huge monopoly: the state.

Aren't you opposed to concentrations of power? What makes you think this state will use such power you are willingly ready to give to him in the advantage of the people? They, with the enormous power they already have, are doing a terrible job to the people, and you wish to increase their ability to control people's lives even more?

I think the answer comes in decentralization. When you centralize so much, you are cutting the link between effective planning and the people.


This should be the goal of reformist socialists.



I'm sorry, but i have no reason (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anarchists-dont-t114834/index.html) to believe reformism has worked, works, and will ever work. The best way to achieve a stateless, classless society is certainly NOT by "working within the system". Check out my thread on the subject above.

EDIT: the federal government HAS control over money (it has the legal monopoly)