What do commies say to this?

[Kingpin]

A cappie said this at another site:

"
The effective economy is based on market economy. The reason why soviet products were poor in quality and price was that the "experts" who decided, what products should the country produce, were often useless at that time. People didnt need those products and so their economy suffered from extreme stress. They made more goods than they managed to utilize effectively. Their planned economy was dependent on those experts, and cause they didnt know what the country really needed, they damaged their economy significantly.
In market economy there is no "experts" and no guardianship practiced by the state. Enterprises are competing with other firms by making more quality products with lower costs. This benefits the society, environment and people by making the economy more efficient. They see from prices etc that what does the people really want and produce those products."

[Stateless]

Free enterprise only benefits for relatively few numbers of the population, while the rest become slaves.

Corporations do not follow the needs of people, their motivational drive instead is profit. While arguably profit is earned through meetings the needs of the people, it is important to make the distinction because a several factors play a negative factor in this relationship.

1) The "needs of the people" is not determined by the amount of people, but rather the amount of money. Thus, if 100 individuals wanted things like health care, food, shelter, etc but each only had a $1 each then their "vote" would be vetoed by a single individual who has $200. Relatively, 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth. In this way, the poorer individuals (Which now constitute the majority of the population) are thrown out of the equation. Their needs go un served by the market and are only be able to be met by welfare programs. Though unfortunately, only the poor in more industrial and richer countries are able to enjoy this welfare.
Corporations, then, become obligated to only serve those who have the wealth to purchase their products. What is profitable is not serving human need, but serving the want of the richer individuals.
You will see the major outbalance of luxury goods to the basic needs.
$11 billion is spent on ice cream every year in Europe, and another $12 billion on perfumes while only $9 billion is being spent on water and sanitation in the developing countries.
More shocking statistics are $780 billion dollar military spending in the world compared to $13 billion in developing countries for basic health and nutrition.

2. Imperialism. There is much differentiation in the global aspect concerning wealth and poverty.
Imperialism is the direct intervention in foreign affairs, whether politically, militarily, or economically, for the self interest and expansion of the committing country.
We find that the economically and industrial developed countries tend to have a long list of imperialist crimes. The United States for example, has been involved(in an antagonistic way) with more than 20 countries in the last century. This includes, many Latin American countries, Indonesia, Spain, Congo, South Africa, Philippines, Haiti, Albania, Greece, etc.
Even now, the United States poses an economic blockade against Cuba and is fighting 2 wars in the Middle East!
The earlier history of the United States also places it at an economic advantage. It a history of the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, imperialism and massive and harsh industrialization.
Britain similarly, owned at one point in time 1/4 of the World's land, much in the form of colonies and slavery!
In recent news we also hear about Haiti, and what a miserable poverty its in. Though its never mentioned that it was a slave to the French and later subjected to much American sabotage.
It is no wonder than why these countries are prosperous. Capitalism plays no role in this development. Feudalism too had created a few prosperous and strong countries while it left others weak and poor. This is the same situation we have today. If you look at a map, you notice how different parts of the world are rich, while others poor.
The only way right wingers can explain this geological mystery of poverty only through the addition of racism. Blacks, then are not poor because of the slavery and imperialism but rather because they are un-civilized.
The increase in living standards in the last century can be credited more to the anti-capitalist movement! It is thanks to the labor unions and their fight against the brutal tyranny of capitalism as a whole that the minimum wage, environmental protection, worker safety, woman's rights, civil rights, and child labor laws were introduced.

3) Capitalism and imperialism naturally, for the sake profit, try to maximize resources and labor through the use of third world exploitation and globalization but to keep their markets. In other words, new businesses aren't built in places where there are relatively few markets (the "developing" countries). Instead, they use the resources of the third world and their labor but ship their products to their homeland where profit can be made by selling to the consumerist masses.

[Bud Struggle]

So if you look at this page and scroll to the bottom you will see the major outbalance of luxury goods to the basic needs.

Really? Scroll where?

What the heck is this? This some sort of a game.

[Stateless]

Really? Scroll where?

I just noticed I can't post links...

[Havet]

Free enterprise only benefits for relatively few numbers of the population, while the rest become slaves.

Corporations do not follow the needs of people, their motivational drive instead is profit. While arguably profit is earned through meetings the needs of the people, it is important to make the distinction because a several factors play a negative factor in this relationship.

I don't think you have any argumentative credibility when you conflate the words "free enterprise" and "corporation".

How exactly is there freedom of enterprise if some businesses are artificially privileged due to statist action?

[Stateless]

How exactly is there freedom of enterprise if some businesses are artificially privileged due to statist action?

You tell me.

[Bud Struggle]

I just noticed I can't post links...

There some rules for the first couple of posts--PM me the link and I'll post if if you are for real.

[Nolan]

I don't think you have any argumentative credibility when you conflate the words "free enterprise" and "corporation".

How exactly is there freedom of enterprise if some businesses are artificially privileged due to statist action?

All government is buyable in Capitalism. You can't separate the state and the bourgeoisie. "Free enterprise" is a pipe-dream.

[Bud Struggle]

All government is buyable in Capitalism. You can't separate the state and the bourgeoisie. "Free enterprise" is a pipe-dream.

No, there are people that live that life. I have my own business and I do as I choose--I'm free. (Now I'll grant there's not so much freedom for those that work for me.)

But it can be done.

[Chambered Word]

A cappie said this at another site:

"
The effective economy is based on market economy. The reason why soviet products were poor in quality and price was that the "experts" who decided, what products should the country produce, were often useless at that time. People didnt need those products and so their economy suffered from extreme stress. They made more goods than they managed to utilize effectively. Their planned economy was dependent on those experts, and cause they didnt know what the country really needed, they damaged their economy significantly.
In market economy there is no "experts" and no guardianship practiced by the state. Enterprises are competing with other firms by making more quality products with lower costs. This benefits the society, environment and people by making the economy more efficient. They see from prices etc that what does the people really want and produce those products."

I'm pretty sure in a planned economy businesses are asked what they require by the planners.

[Das war einmal]

A cappie said this at another site:

"
The effective economy is based on market economy. The reason why soviet products were poor in quality and price was that the "experts" who decided, what products should the country produce, were often useless at that time. People didnt need those products and so their economy suffered from extreme stress. They made more goods than they managed to utilize effectively. Their planned economy was dependent on those experts, and cause they didnt know what the country really needed, they damaged their economy significantly.
In market economy there is no "experts" and no guardianship practiced by the state. Enterprises are competing with other firms by making more quality products with lower costs. This benefits the society, environment and people by making the economy more efficient. They see from prices etc that what does the people really want and produce those products."

Capitalism leads to monopolized sections which produce inferior products. In reply to the 'competing' fable: companies will generally try to make products as cheap as possible, often causing a flawed quality. Even if they produce seriously better products its all in favor of making profit, not because its 'better for the people'. The planned economies of socialist states where focused on producing heavy industries as priority, luxurious items second. Besides that, socialist states did not exploit (ex)colonies and had a far worse starting position then western capitalist societies

[IcarusAngel]

Keep in mind that free-enterprise and capitalism refer to essentially the same thing. There is no social theory that states that capitalism requires no government outside of a few fringe theories on the net, in that the government protects property. Otherwise, property lords themselves get together and make laws.

Ignore hayenmill's trolling as he's a well known troll who claims to be a "scientist."

[mikelepore]

They see from prices etc that what does the people really want and produce those products."

Illogical. How can the capitalist decide what to produce by looking at the price of that product? There is no price yet, because the product doesn't yet exist when the capitalist is deciding whether to produce a given product.

[Havet]

You tell me.

I can't, because it's a contradiction. You cannot name free-enterprise a system that DOES NOT have free-enterprise. It's dishonest and intellectual masturbation.


All government is buyable in Capitalism. You can't separate the state and the bourgeoisie. "Free enterprise" is a pipe-dream.

But i'm not talking about capitalism. I was talking of the concept of free-enterprise. And since nobody here seems to understand it, let me throw in some definitions:

"the practice of starting new organizations, particularly new businesses"

A commune is an enterprise
A cooperative is an enterprise
Any voluntary institution, whether profit or non-profit, is an enterprise.

Now when people say FREE-ENTERPRISE they mean that people are free to start whatever kind of organization they want, whether its businesses, communes, cooperatives, unions, hell, even getting together people for a joint science project is enterprise.


Ignore hayenmill's trolling as he's a well known troll who claims to be a "scientist."

phail

[What Would Durruti Do?]

No, there are people that live that life. I have my own business and I do as I choose--I'm free. (Now I'll grant there's not so much freedom for those that work for me.)

But it can be done.

No, you do what you can afford to do. You can only buy freedom. Want more freedom? You have to take it from the people that work for you.

[IcarusAngel]

"the practice of starting new organizations, particularly new businesses"

A commune is an enterprise
A cooperative is an enterprise
Any voluntary institution, whether profit or non-profit, is an enterprise.

What a fascist little idiot. So just because I put "free" in the name that automatically means it's a theory that advocates freedom?

Free-enterprise also refers to the ability of those large businesses (corporations) to: permit the universal application of money for trading goods and services, buy and sell property, own and control resources.

Not everybody agrees that this constitutes "freedom," not even a majority of capitalists think it would be a completely free society, but this ***** does.


IdiotAngel...

This coming from the guy who thinks the kernel - the "traffic cop" of any OS - constitutes an entire operating system (what good is a traffic cop if he's got no traffic to manage), and wants people to slave for large institutions with no reward other than personal satisfaction.

At least dejavu stopped trolling when he embarrassed himself on statistics.

what happened to the no fascist policy on Revleft?

[Green Dragon]

Corporations do not follow the needs of people, their motivational drive instead is profit. While arguably profit is earned through meetings the needs of the people,

Its the ONLY way to make a profit.




1) The "needs of the people" is not determined by the amount of people, but rather the amount of money. Thus, if 100 individuals wanted things like health care, food, shelter, etc but each only had a $1 each then their "vote" would be vetoed by a single individual who has $200. Relatively, 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth. In this way, the poorer individuals (Which now constitute the majority of the population) are thrown out of the equation. Their needs go un served by the market and are only be able to be met by welfare programs. Though unfortunately, only the poor in more industrial and richer countries are able to enjoy this welfare.


Which is untrue. Companies make profit all the time selling to poorer people. It depends upon what they are producing.



Corporations, then, become obligated to only serve those who have the wealth to purchase their products. What is profitable is not serving human need, but serving the want of the richer individuals.

It is true that yacht builders are going to be concerned about producing yachts for people who wish to purchase yachts.



You will see the major outbalance of luxury goods to the basic needs.
$11 billion is spent on ice cream every year in Europe, and another $12 billion on perfumes while only $9 billion is being spent on water and sanitation in the developing countries.


What is that $11 billion worth to Europe? Probably chump change. How about that $9 billion in the developing world? Probably a sizeable investment.

[Havet]

What a fascist little idiot. So just because I put "free" in the name that automatically means it's a theory that advocates freedom?

Stop conflating fascism with corporatism you idiotic dumbweed fucktard


Free-enterprise also refers to the ability of those large businesses (corporations) to: permit the universal application of money for trading goods and services, buy and sell property, own and control resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurship


This coming from the guy who thinks the kernel - the "traffic cop" of any OS - constitutes an entire operating system (what good is a traffic cop if he's got no traffic to manage), and wants people to slave for large institutions with no reward other than personal satisfaction.

Absolutely irrelevant ad hominem drivel


At least dejavu stopped trolling when he embarrassed himself on statistics.

He stopped because he was sick of idiots like you who just evade arguments to pretend to themselves and others that they are right.


what happened to the no fascist policy on Revleft?

What happened to the no trolling policy on revleft?

[IcarusAngel]

Hayenmill's last post really shows the low intelligence of people who advocate agorism, to the point where they don't even know what words like 'free-enterprise" or "corporatism" have come to mean, and the fact that he has to use words like "dickweed" shows what level he's operating on.

Since there no social theories that back up that free-enterprise - the universal trade of goods for money, the corporate ownership of prperty,e tc. -- is actually somehow "leftism," he replaces arguments with ad-hominem attacks.

Again, hayenmill shows a severe handicap in his ability to learn so there is no point in arguing with him or his troll friends like dejavu.

[Havet]

Hayenmill's last post really shows the low intelligence of people who advocate agorism, to the point where they don't even know what words like 'free-enterprise" or "corporatism" have come to mean, and the fact that he has to use words like "dickweed" shows what level he's operating on.

Since there no social theories that back up that free-enterprise - the universal trade of goods for money, the corporate ownership of prperty,e tc. -- is actually somehow "leftism," he replaces arguments with ad-hominem attacks.

Again, hayenmill shows a severe handicap in his ability to learn so there is no point in arguing with him or his troll friends like dejavu.

There is no point arguing with you, because you just shape what people say to what you want to listen. My ad hominems were a reply to your ad hominems. But of course, saint IdiotAngel NEVER uses ad homs...:rolleyes:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

A cappie said this at another site:

"
The effective economy is based on market economy. The reason why soviet products were poor in quality and price was that the "experts" who decided, what products should the country produce, were often useless at that time. People didnt need those products and so their economy suffered from extreme stress. They made more goods than they managed to utilize effectively. Their planned economy was dependent on those experts, and cause they didnt know what the country really needed, they damaged their economy significantly.
In market economy there is no "experts" and no guardianship practiced by the state. Enterprises are competing with other firms by making more quality products with lower costs. This benefits the society, environment and people by making the economy more efficient. They see from prices etc that what does the people really want and produce those products."

The whole argument is based on the faulty assumption that the planned economies of the past(and apparently with all the technological progress of the past decades those of the future will still do the same) simply made random amounts of random goods according to "experts" without any relation to demand. In fact, when shortages and overproduction occured, they did so after competition between enterprises for profit had already been established through market reforms.



"Our experience points to the existence of a dangerous trend towards arbitrary price rises". (L. Maizenberg: op. cit.).



And, as in orthodox capitalist countries, Soviet monopolies do not hesitate to use their control of the production of a particular commodity to create artificial shortages for the purpose of increasing their prices and profits:



"Certain forms of the existing system of distribution... frequently lead to an artificial shortage". (N. Fedorenko: 'Current Tasks of Economic Science', in: Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 2, 1974).




The 'economic reform' required each enterprise to maximise its profits and minimise its production costs. But this aim conflicts with the social need to minimise the environmental pollution arising out of production:



"The implementation of pollution control programmes leads to the worsening of the cost-accounting performance of enterprises". (N. Fedorenko & K. Gofman: 'Problems of Optimisation of the Planning and Control of the Environment', in: Problemy Ekonomiki, No. 12, 1972).



As a result, since the 'economic reform' environmental pollution in the Soviet Union has reached dangerous levels, as in orthodox capitalist countries:



"In the Soviet Union... unpurified gases are discharged into the atmosphere, unpurified waters are discharged into rivers and water basins, there is soil erosion, etc.". (G. Khromushin: 'Problems of Ecology', in Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 8, 1973).



"For all the variety of causes behind the deterioration of the environment in the United States and the Soviet Union, both these countries are now faced with the practical need to check this process.


"The harm caused to bodies of water by effluents from pulp-and-water, chemical fibre, and other factories is well-known. Every day they discard thousands of tons of polluted water into rivers, lakes and oceans. The damage caused by these effluents is incalculable".

[IcarusAngel]

fap.. fap... fap... fap...

Ad-hominem attacks are the only thing you give people to work with.

basically dejavu represented (or tried to reprsent) the "economics" side of agorism. He got owned by demo and others who actually know some economics. "Fap boy" here tries to represent the political side, but his interpretation of political history is just ridiculous as are his claims the "free-market" produces everything useful in a society.

Obviously both of you do a better job of discrediting free-market tyranny than arguing in favor of it.

Message to leftists: don't be an agorist, read a book.

[Chambered Word]

There is no point arguing with you, because you just shape what people say to what you want to listen. My ad hominems were a reply to your ad hominems. But of course, saint IdiotAngel NEVER uses ad homs...:rolleyes:

If it's just name-calling it's technically not an ad hominem because it's not an argument at all.

Mind=blown.

[Drace]

Its the ONLY way to make a profit.How bout the many companies who are currently manufacturing weapons for the government and profiting off the war? That doesn't meet the needs of the people.


Which is untrue. Companies make profit all the time selling to poorer people. It depends upon what they are producing.Like? Poor people don't have much to spend, so their wants are left out.


It is true that yacht builders are going to be concerned about producing yachts for people who wish to purchase yachts.

"richer individuals" in this level of inequality constitutes a very small percentage of society. Even the average American citizen is very rich compared to the majority of the population.
Capitalism limits the markets to a small percentage of the population and uses the rest either as a cheap source of labor or has them live off in utter destruction.


What is that $11 billion worth to Europe? Probably chump change. How about that $9 billion in the developing world? Probably a sizeable investment.

Lame. $11 billion that is wastefully spent on ice cream could instead be used on meetings the needs of the people. The point is capitalism does not allocate the resources properly and certainly not according to human need.

If you think $9 billion is enough go look at the conditions in the third world and you tell me if this supposedly magnificent "investment" is doing much good.

[Kingpin]

1. What is to be done about the people that agree that the global capital system is unjust and inefficient, but feel powerless to challenge the power structure and feel that they can't do anything?

Included are the people who think the risks outweigh the benefits because they feel relatively comfortable in the post-industrialized world.


2. Is it bad for the interests of the global capital structure if a bunch of countries started nationalizing property and made plans to industrialize as fast as possible?

[Skooma Addict]

Is it bad for the interests of the global capital structure if a bunch of countries started nationalizing property and made plans to industrialize as fast as possible?

Yes.

[Havet]

Ad-hominem attacks are the only thing you give people to work with.

Wrong


...but his interpretation of political history is just ridiculous as are his claims the "free-market" produces everything useful in a society.

I never claimed the market produces everything useful in society. Once again, you show your genuine capacity for producing strawmans.

[Havet]

If it's just name-calling it's technically not an ad hominem because it's not an argument at all.

Mind=blown.

It was not name-calling. It was specifically referring to absolutely irrelevant characteristics of mine (like my poor programming skills) as if that somehow discredits my political arguments.

[Kayser_Soso]

"Free enterprise" is just a nonsense populist term to create the idea that there is some kinder, gentler capitalism. Where do you think the robber-barons and corporations came from? They grew up over the years as small businesses. Should small merchants be successful, it is only natural that over time they or their offspring will begin to expand their businesses until large corporations control the market yet again.

BTW- The problem with the planned economy in the USSR post-Stalin was that Khruschev temporarily gutted the planning bureau, decentralizing production but leaving no legal, effective means of communication to coordinate between enterprises. Later the planning bureau was restored on paper but actually had no control over what was produced, whatsoever.

[Havet]

"Free enterprise" is just a nonsense populist term to create the idea that there is some kinder, gentler capitalism.

Read above for the dictionary definition of enterprise.


Where do you think the robber-barons and corporations came from?

From artificial statist privilege (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1486069&postcount=38).

[RGacky3]

The question is not Market vrs State controled. The question is ologarchic, vrs state, vrs democratic.

The more democratic the economy, the better for the citizens.



Quote:
Corporations do not follow the needs of people, their motivational drive instead is profit. While arguably profit is earned through meetings the needs of the people,
Its the ONLY way to make a profit.


What you mean, is meet the wants of PEOPLE WITH MONEY!!!! the way to make money is to make it by meeting the needs of people WITH money, not ... people.


Which is untrue. Companies make profit all the time selling to poorer people. It depends upon what they are producing.


Of coarse, but the poor people don't have a say over the market, only the rich do.