Communist leaders=death [Archive]

Comrade Anarchist

14th February 2010, 00:44

Joseph Stalin- 20 million to 30 million dead

Mao- 65 million dead

Che- 2000 dead (mainly prison executions)

Korea- 2 million dead

Vietnam- 1 million dead

Africa- 1.7 million dead

Cambodia- 2 million dead

These include death at prison, mismanagement of economy, executions, purges, etc. These are only a few but i find it too disgusting to see a person's life extinguished only to be seen as a figure.

Leaders who are under the banner of communism have murdered millions upon millions of people, and yet even on this site people support them. Che was a butcher and yet someone on this site probably is wearing a t-shirt of his at the same time they're saying "peace". There are a shit load of Mao ass kissers on this site, even though under mao roughly the same amount of people died as during World War 2. Stalinists on this site seem to be protected by leninists probably b/c leninists know that stalinism is the ultimate answer to leninism. All of these small communist governments across the world have killed their share of millions, too. Now before you fucking fascists say they had to be killed b/c they were reactionaries, think about this, maybe all these killings were not to protect a revolution but instead were nothing more than a way to shore up ultimate power for the killers. And for the rest of you people who know that these states were only communist in name your right, but for almost 100 years you have been sanctioning one if not all of these states and when you do that you allow the term to mean a totalitarian regime.

So come on, grow up, and think. Reading words on a page may sound romantic but maybe it is time to think about the writer and see that a few poems do not forgive anybody for brutal genocide.

All of these states are the epitome of collectivism and when you seek to sacrifice the individual for a collective you end of with millions dead.

Nolan

14th February 2010, 00:47

I knew it! :laugh:

Axle

14th February 2010, 00:57

Something tells me you're not quite sure what "genocide" means.

Nolan

14th February 2010, 01:01

Something tells me hes a troll. Here we have the age-old ZOMG COMMUNISM KILLED 400 BILLION PEOPLE claim that has been so thoroughly debunked it's not even worth discussing it again.

Haha this is so awesome! I KNEW this guy was a closet cappie, I just KNEW it!

Axle

14th February 2010, 01:09

Haha this is so awesome! I KNEW this guy was a closet cappie, I just KNEW it!

Dude gave THAT secret away weeks ago.

Nolan

14th February 2010, 01:12

Dude gave THAT secret away weeks ago.

I've known it since the first time I heard him rant about some abstract concept he calls the "collective" and how it's opposed to the "individual."

Axle

14th February 2010, 01:15

I've known it since the first time I heard him rant about some abstract concept he calls the "collective" and how it's opposed to the "individual."

Yup, that'd be it.

Red Commissar

14th February 2010, 01:36

Well, it's obvious we probably won't be able to reason with you anyways...

Bud Struggle

14th February 2010, 01:50

Joseph Stalin- 20 million to 30 million dead

Mao- 65 million dead

Che- 2000 dead (mainly prison executions)

Korea- 2 million dead

Vietnam- 1 million dead

Africa- 1.7 million dead

Cambodia- 2 million dead

These Communists just has some issues--we all do. Besides it wasn't real Communism. Real Communism hardly kills anyone. ;)

Seriously though, attempts at Communism have proved painful. And there have been reams more misfires of Communism than actual "Communism."

What guarantees can Communists give that the next "Revolution" won't be as half assed as those that have gone before?

Drace

14th February 2010, 02:07

Yet I love how all the successful examples of socialism that have existed have been subject to imperialist attacks and dismantled by the USA and left unknown about. :rolleyes:
And still, the whole of the USSR and the Russian Revolution is reduced to "Stalin killed 30 million people."

But really, you had to include Che? 2000 members of the Batista dictatorship killed, oh no! Bush is responsible for more deaths, and he didn't even lead a revolution :thumbup1:

Including Vietnam, Korea, and Cambodia is rather humorous because the US's crimes in those countries alone are greater.

EDIT: So why are you an anarchist anyway?

Bud Struggle

14th February 2010, 02:15

Including Vietnam, Korea, and Cambodia is rather humorous because the US's crimes in those countries alone are greater.

That's the problem. So what if US's crimes are greater? It isn't about Capitalism killed 30 million and Communism only killed 20 million so let's have a Revolution!

Communists need to make a better case for itself.

Kingpin

14th February 2010, 02:28

Just curious, using the same criteria, how many people has Laissez-faire capitalism killed?

What were the death rates like in pre-soviet Russia and pre-Mao China?

Bud Struggle

14th February 2010, 03:19

Just curious, using the same criteria, how many people has Laissez-faire capitalism killed?

What were the death rates like in pre-soviet Russia and pre-Mao China?

See the problem? What's next--Communism vs the Black Death? It all seems to be like a WWE Cage Match.

bcbm

14th February 2010, 03:36

i think it makes sense to bring up how many people capitalism has killed when people are trying to suggest that socialist countries are somehow "bloodier" than the capitalist ones.

Ele'ill

14th February 2010, 03:54

These Communists just has some issues--we all do. Besides it wasn't real Communism. Real Communism hardly kills anyone. ;)

Seriously though, attempts at Communism have proved painful. And there have been reams more misfires of Communism than actual "Communism."

What guarantees can Communists give that the next "Revolution" won't be as half assed as those that have gone before?

The common reply (that I partially agree with) is how many lives has it cost and will it cost to keep the capitalist machine rolling?

I guess the issue is lives thrown into the furnace for maintenance?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

14th February 2010, 05:15

To say communism kills people entails that "if the concept of communism had not existed, those people would not have been killed." Given that historical conditions lead to political regime changes, which ultimately have a near unlimited amount of methods of manipulating public favor, it's unlikely that "communism" killed a lot of those people.

When a real communist revolution happens, and millions of people, die, then it will have killed people. The difference will be most of those people either had it coming and/or forced the hand of revolutionaries. Now inevitably some people will die, even innocent people, but who are capitalists to criticize us for letting people die for the benefit of others? At least we're letting people die in an equal opportunity way rather than raising the status of a small minority at the expense of the majority.

This is part of the reason why Marx calls religion an "opiate." While it may have its own problems in and of itself, it's ultimately not the problem. The conditions that drive someone to engage in religion, or engage in murder, are the problem.

And even if communism is legitimately at fault for many deaths, causation is a widespread phenomenon. By that, I mean responsibility is shared. If I kill you by strangling you, I'm a cause. You're body is a cause for not being immune to strangulation. The fact that oxygen works in a particular way is a cause. The biological and environmental circumstances that led up to that, both past and present, are responsible.

The difference is when you can claim someone is legitimately responsible. Although I think Marx should have been clearer in some respects, I don't think communist theory should be held accountable to a large degree (if at all). A society where anyone who has misinterpreted ideas could be held accountable is unrealistic and likely undesirable. If I write a book on how to mix lethal solutions, it's not my fault if someone misinterprets the book through their own stupidity and blows up a house.

Maybe Marx made a typo on page three that says "commit mass genocide." Nope, that doesn't seem to be the case. Even then, it's the publishers fault. They have people who are paid almost entirely to watch for that kind of thing.

And if you want to play a numbers game with deaths, it's not advisable. Communists, like most sane people, pay attention to consequences. Capitalists are one of the especially skilled groups of people at making irrational distinctions between active and passive harm in situations that don't call for it (though I think that is most if not all situations).

So every time someone dies that would've lived if not for unequal distributions of wealth, capitalism is at least partially responsible. Our friendly neighborhood capitalist will claim people are to blame. They didn't act charitably. Capitalism encourages selfishness by its nature. Its also fails to provide proper social programs. Even people with a lot of wealth can feel constantly insecure about their state in the world. If something bad happens, society will provide little to help them. Of course, this changes at a certain level of wealth and prosperity.

As a student, I currently have an income below the poverty level. My parents are great, and I do well financially. I'm satisfied, for the most part, with my situation. The fact that my parents are there for me alleviates some worries, but capitalism spreads the idea that selfishness is good and people are selfish. So I am occasionally fearful of what my own parents might do.

And what if my parents decided to stop helping me financially? Well, I'd get a job, most likely. I hate low income jobs, I stress easily, and I suffer from clinical depression. I've likely not worked to get any significant help. I'd have to seriously consider stopping some of my medications, as my parents drug coverage deals with it. I'd require a phone, apartment, etc, to realistically even get a job. If my depression worsened, I'd end up missing work and, if I'm lucky, I'd get a meager enough salary to live in one of the worst parts in the city. While getting this "generous" help, I will be expected, in all likelihood, to crawl out of severe depression with the help of only government assistance as I'd probably have isolated myself socially. Any free therapy is often run by those who lack the proper experience and qualifications to do so. And per state pressure, they will focus on your job situation, believe working as an exploited wage laborer will solve your problems. Then start over again. All the while, you grow more depressed. And this in Canada. It's good that depression isn't a prevalent health problem in teens. Oh.. it is.

And that's just a personal perspective on the matter. I'd love it if I knew that no matter how bad things got, I'd have not only my parents but "ALL" of society there for me - without judgment. I'd love to know that people wouldn't force me to do things I despise and help me succeed in a way that helps the community AND satisfies me desire for a sense of fulfillment. It's too bad capitalism discourages funding social programs because it "discourages hard work." It doesn't. It encourages me to throw a brick in someone's face, quite frankly.

So everyone is worried about potential poverty, even at relatively secure incomes, and people can be cynical about just about everyone. So it's not exactly surprising that such a system would be partially responsible for the deaths of millions.

Oh and if you want to add not just deaths, but atrocities, capitalism will still have you beat. People living in horrible conditions is seen in every country in the world, to my knowledge. And the Holocaust. Yep, I'll bring in the go-to over-exaggerating example in every argument. The sad part is it isn't an exaggeration. A selfish attitude and economic bullying led a little nation known as Germany to worsening conditions, anger, and other circumstances. That in combination with the right leadership and a scapegoat for racism.

If every country had became communist after WW1, and the mistreatment of Germany after the war had not happened, would the Holocaust have happened? I doubt it, personally. If the treaty was there but no capitalism. I still doubt it. Now I will say I'm not sure the problems would've occurred under capitalism without the harassment of Germany, but I do think capitalism was a necessary component.

Capitalism is so evil to compare the evils of communism to capitalism is like comparing the virtue of a newborn baby to that of a pedophile. Babies still aren't perfect. They do some pretty disgusting stuff sometimes, like communism and just about every political ideology.

Os Cangaceiros

14th February 2010, 05:20

#FF0000

14th February 2010, 05:55

It's pretty fortunate for the OP that nobody ever really sat down and counted every single person who ever died because of capitalism.

Bankotsu

14th February 2010, 06:01

I've known it since the first time I heard him rant about some abstract concept he calls the "collective" and how it's opposed to the "individual."

That's nonsense. An individual can only mature and grow in a community.

Your logic is completely wrong Comrade Anarchist.

The other part of this will require you to put these things together to some extent. Persons, personalities if you wish, can be made only in communities.

A community is made up of intimate relationships among diverse types of individuals -- a kinship group, a local group, a neighborhood, a village, a large family.

Without communities, no infant will be sufficiently socialized.

He may grow up to be forty years old, he may have made an extremely good living, he may have engendered half a dozen children, but he is still an infant unless he has been properly socialized and that occurs in the first four or five years of life.

In our society today, we have attempted to throw the whole burden of socializing our population upon the school system, to which the individual arrives only at the age of four or five.

A few years ago they had big programs to take children to school for a few hours at age two and three and four, but that will not socialize them.

The first two years are very important. The way a child is treated in the first two days is of vital importance. He has to be loved, above all he has to be talked to.

A state of individuals, such as we have now reached in Western Civilization, will not create persons, and the atomized individuals who make it up will be motivated by desires which do not necessarily reflect needs.

Instead of needing other people they need a shot of heroin; instead of some kind of religious conviction, they have to be with the winning team.

Another thing which may serve to point out the instability of the power system of the state: the individual cannot be made the basic unit of a society, as we have tried to do, or of the state, because the internalization of controls must be the preponderant influence in any stable society.

Even in a society in which it appears that all power is in the hands of the government -- Soviet Russia, let's say -- at least eighty percent of all human behavior is regulated by internalized controls socialized in the people by the way they were treated from the moment they were born.

http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm (http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm)Hillary Clinton's Speech On -- "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child"

http://www.happinessonline.org/LoveAndHelpChildren/p12.htm

Bill Clinton Speaks of Professor Quigley in His DNC Nomination Acceptance Address

As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown I heard that call clarified by a professor name Carrol Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest nation in history because our people had always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.

http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Clinton-1992-acceptance-speech.htm
(http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Clinton-1992-acceptance-speech.htm)

Tablo

14th February 2010, 06:07

Don't they ever learn? These stats are blatant lies that have been quite easily refuted many times. Besides, it isn't like all of us even like those leaders. Communism was never achieved in any of those places anyway so it is ridiculous to blame any deaths on Communism.

Weezer

14th February 2010, 07:56

oh hai~~

Philippines (Marcos)...............220,000
Guatemala..................... ...........300,000
Nanking Massacre..................300, 000
Iraq (Selling poison gas).......400,000
Iraq (desert Storm)..................500,00 0
Philippine Invasion..................650, 000
Feudal Russia,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1, 066,000
Afghanistan................... ........1,200,000
Iraq (WMD)......................... ...1,300,000
Khmer Rouge (US),,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,035,000
S. African Apartheid.............3,500,00 0
Nazi Holocaust..................... 6,000,000
US on Latin America...........6,000,000
Japanese Imperialism.......6,000,000
Pol Pot (CIA puppet)............7,100,000
Vietnam War.......................10,0 00,000
Korean War.........................10 ,000,000
British Occupied India.......10,000,000
Great Depression..............12,000 ,000
WW1........................... ..........16,500,000
WW2........................... ..........47,000,000
Native Americans...............95,000 ,000
African Slave Trade..........150,000,000

Capitalism: 386,571,000 Murders

Children killed by preventable diseases since 9/11
108,000,000

:)

Demogorgon

14th February 2010, 11:58

I always feel a little dirty pointing this out because God knows I am no fan of Stalin or Mao and dislike doing things that seem like defending them, but in one case the figures are impossible and in the other they are deeply misleading. In the case of Stalin, the Soviet Census would have shown a corresponding drop in population figures if that many had met early deaths (and if the census was falsified they would have been caught out later). The population figures just don't match this however. Moreover once you take into account the sheer number in the USSR who died in the Second World War, for that many to also have been killed by the domestic Government you would need to see a near collapse in the population, possibly one that couldn't be recovered from. Yet it simply did not happen. You sometimes see those who insist on the high figures claim that the Soviets lied about the Germans killing civilians in order to provide cover for the drop in population caused by their own action. I think that shows the agenda of those particular people.

In the case of Mao it is different because a large number of people did die during the famine. But prior to 1949 mass famines (and huge death tolls from floods) were a fact of life in China. Mao and his successors managed to stop both. To be sure there was one last famine, but fewer people than usual died in that, still tragic, but one final famine with a lower death toll than previously followed by managing to eradicate that blight has to be put in the "achievement" column when evaluating Mao. Tellingly those accusing him of all those deaths never seem to blame those who came before him for the much greater famines.

Comrade Anarchist

14th February 2010, 12:38

None of you have read the post. I said that, "And for the rest of you people who know that these states were only communist in name your right, but for almost 100 years you have been sanctioning one if not all of these states and when you do that you allow the term to mean a totalitarian regime." I know communism has never happened. And most you have sanctioned one of these states with the stupid solidarity groups like solidarity with cuba or keep you hands of groups with countries like china and venezuela

The rest of you who say it is all blatant lies, most of the figure counting happened after the soviet union fell when their archives were able to be used to estimate the lives killed. And these facts have never been refuted from anybody but communists. And to answer one of you genocide is the systematic killing of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. That sounds exactly like what stalin did and mao, and every other communist dictator.

And now to the rest of you saying good thing no one ever counted up capitalist death toll. Well, pure laissez faire capitalism has rarely if ever existed dumb asses. There has only been capitalism spurred on with government help and intervention. No industry in the united states is a pure capitalist industry, it is a state capitalist industry b/c it is protected by tariffs, receives subsides, and can be propped up by the government if need be. So capitalism does have a death toll but come on to say that pure capitalism with no government is the deadliest thing on earth is just stupid.

ComradeMan

14th February 2010, 13:17

These figures or stats are very misleading and whilst I am not going to say that it's all rosy etc we need to take into account what, how and why. Of course human deaths are terrible, but to make out that "communism", which is an "idea" or "ideology" killed people is ridiculous, to start with- people committed these crimes, just like Nazis were "people" who committed crimes- the difference being perhaps that Nazi ideology enshrined the doctrines that lead to the killing, anyway.

I have found a site that deals with the figures and the problems with the figures here...
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao

It cites sources and highlights the problems with the various estimates too. I cannot vouch for their accuracy beyond that.

Joseph Stalin- 20 million to 30 million dead

Well no one here pretends he was such a nice guy anyway. Stalinism is not communism in its true sense anyway. Lenin disliked Stalin and perhaps foresaw what a problem he would be.

Any political system, state or regime if it falls into the hands of a maniac dictator will turn savage!!! Including religion, right, left or otherwise!!!

Mao- 65 million dead

I presume we are talking mostly about the Great Leap Forward. For a start, the recognised stats seem to vary between 30 and 45 million people. According to Yang Jisheng the figure is 36 million. The various other stats don't seem to be reliable and vary, but I found this.

People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000 [make link (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao)]

Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism: :D
Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
Labor Camps: 20M
Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M :confused:
Of course the Black Book of Communism is a reliable sources isn't it....?

I also presume that the figures don't take into account the fact that 30% of these deaths were put down to a series of natural disasters that accompanied the Great Leap Forward. In 1960, at least some degree of drought and other bad weather affected 55% of cultivated land , while an estimated 60% of agricultural land received no rain at all.
Bad policies and also corruption and lack of organisational skills exacerbated the situation howver another factor must also be taken into account too- international isolation of China. Between 1961 and 1965, China imported a total of 30 million tons of grain at a cost of US$2 billion more would no doubt have been imported had it not been for US pressure on Canada and Australia to limit sales to China and also US interference with shipping prevented China from importing more. So how many people died due to capitalism's hatred of China too? Either agree with us or we'll let you starve- not much consolation for the poor people on the ground is it?

Che- 2000 dead (mainly prison executions)

Most of whom were colloborators with the Batista and/or guilty of crimes against the Cuban people and/or counter-revolutionary. Seeing as Che is being discussed elsewhere in a similar vain I'll leave this one here.

Korea- 2 million dead

Again, I don't think old Kim Sung is exactly the epitome of leftist thought, but I did find the following stats that give a bigger picture.

Total civilians killed/wounded: 2.5 Million (est.)

South Korea: 990,968
373,599 killed
229,625 wounded
387,744 abducted/missing

North Korea: 1,550,000 (est.)
http://www.withcountry.mil.kr/info/koreanwar/war3/20070214/1_-3722.jsp?menu=menu2

Vietnam- 1 million dead

These figures are way out-
I found 1,581,000 dead on the South Vietnamese civilian side plus abotu 220,000 military as opposed to 2,000,000 dead on the North Vietnamese civilian side and 1, 176,000 military.... I don't know where this one million figure comes from...:confused:

Africa- 1.7 million dead.

Africa is an interesting one. How many victims of slavery and colonial wars?
It would make an interesting thread. The brutality of African history seems to know no end, but how do the figures compare? I am certainly no supporter of the Derg but would like to see how many people die as a result of capitalism every day in Africa....

Cambodia- 2 million dead

Pol Pot was a maniac who used communism as some kind of banner. Bear in mind that Robert Mugabe claimed to be some kind of socialist too. It is also telling that it was Vietnam that went in and sorted out Cambodia and also that the Khmer Rouge renouncied communism in 1981- as if they had ever been communists in the first place!

The Black Book of Communism.

There seem to be a lot of problems with this book, a few main ones I have found.

This book was accused of using incorrect data and manipulating the figures by a French writer in Le Monde, Gilles Perrault, see- Communisme, les falsifications d’un « livre noir »", Le Monde Diplomatique, December 1997. http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1997/12/PERRAULT/9660
Amir Weiner of Stanford University characterizes the "Black Book" as seriously flawed, inconsistent, and prone to mere provocation. In particular, the authors are said to savage Marxist ideology.Amir Weiner, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452
The book's attribution of 1 million deaths in Vietnam to Communism while ignoring the U.S. role has been criticised as a methodological flaw. See above- and also:- Marx, Lenin, and the Revolutionary Experience By Paul Le Blanc, Dennis Brutus :http://books.google.com/books?id=Tlx9JlFq20C&pg=PA12&dq=Black+Book+of+Communism+partisan&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=falseNoam
Chomsky stated that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated "the excess of mortality" in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of healthcare resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky argues that, "supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India alone, the "democratic capitalist experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of Communism everywhere. See- Counting the Bodies - Noam Chomsky, Spectrezine magazine. http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm
There are loads of other criticisms too.

Anyway, I hate it when people start playing a numbers game. However a couple of points?

How many victims of the Agrarian and subsequent Industrial Revolution were there?
How many victims were there of colonialism?
How many daily victims of capitalism are there in the here and now?

Dimentio

14th February 2010, 13:28

ComradeMan

14th February 2010, 13:44

While it is right to question the extent on which bourgeois historians are slandering leaders which they see as a threat to their very socio-economic system, that doesn't make the systems promulgated and executed by marxist-leninists in various countries immune to rightful criticism.

I think the major problems with marxism-leninism and its brand of socialism is that they have created centralised states under the control of a political party with no system whatsoever of a basic division of power.

These states tend to be run under some form of permanent martial law, a sort of "war against reactionaries", where the reactionaries are defined as whatever opposition there is against the current leadership. Such a spirit would obviously be abused by the leadership in order to silence criticism, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

I agree with you, and it's not like I am a fan of Stalin or Mao either. On the other hand what irritates me is when a bunch of self-righteous capitalists start on with inaccurate, manipulated and misrepresentative "facts" in order to dry and demonstrate some kind of moral highground which they do not really have.

The other thing is that any sources which present themselves as being historical ought to be meticulously accurate with their facts and stats and/or admit where they are flawed.

The facts in the OP are typical of the things that get thrown in my face every day by the same tossers who support things like Forza Nuova and the Lega Nord.... perhaps it's a raw nerve.:D

Kingpin

14th February 2010, 17:16

Children killed by preventable diseases since 9/11
108,000,000

:)

Source?

Incendiarism

14th February 2010, 18:21

Souls crushed by capitalism: infinity

Drace

14th February 2010, 18:32

Don't forget people dead each day due to hunger.

100 million in the last decade.

bailey_187

14th February 2010, 18:57

The crude death rate in China in 1958 was 11.98 deaths per 1000. The famine then caused this rate to rise to 14.59 in 1959 then peaking at 25.43 in 1960, then declining to 14.24 in 1961.

However, it should be noted that in 1936 the crude death rate per 1000 was 28 – a number that not even the worst year of the Great Leap Forward famine reached.Although in 1936 the Nationalist government was in a civil war with the Communist guerillas, as Minqi Li notes in his The Rise of China, the Nationalist Government, “Probably only surveyed and reported data from areas under its own control, which were comparatively peaceful and better-off”. Even so, in 1960 a normal year in India, a country that won its independence at a similar time as the PRC, yet had not been ravaged by as much war and civil war as China, the crude death rate was 24.6 per 1000, only 0.8 lower.

So we can conclude that Mao saved people.

Weezer

14th February 2010, 19:13

And now to the rest of you saying good thing no one ever counted up capitalist death toll. Well, pure laissez faire capitalism has rarely if ever existed dumb asses. There has only been capitalism spurred on with government help and intervention. No industry in the united states is a pure capitalist industry, it is a state capitalist industry b/c it is protected by tariffs, receives subsides, and can be propped up by the government if need be. So capitalism does have a death toll but come on to say that pure capitalism with no government is the deadliest thing on earth is just stupid.

Capitalism without restrictions would make the death toll even higher.

Comrade Anarchist

14th February 2010, 21:33

People dying of hunger around the world sucks. Millions starved from mismanagement of the economy from mao and stalin. Communism doesn't equal food apparently and yet you like to think that every child who is starving is capitalism's fault yet when you look at communist regimes starvation was because of the state's polices not b/c of lack of work. In china people were trading their kids with their neighbor and eating their neighbor's kid b/c they couldn't eat their own.

You all keep saying anarcho capitalism or laissez faire capitalism will lead to death for everyone in existence yet you have no evidence to back this up. As i said before pure laissez faire capitalism has never existed except for in a commune or two. On the other hand i can look at a history book or watch the history channel and see the under stalin 20 to 30 million died, under mao up to 65 million died.

Some of you have or are going to say that look at all the wars caused b/c of laissez faire capitalism. Well there aren't any. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam were governments v.s. governments. Now you will all say what about iraqi freedom and i will answer that it was caused by a few greedy state capitalists trying to strike at rich. The state capitalists infiltrated the government and went to iraq for oil (bush) and b/c we went to war we hired contractors (cheney).

Let me say this again laissez faire capitalism has never existed. Modern companies are state capitalist b/c they rely on the government. And that every communist experiment has failed miserably taking along millions with it.

Dimentio

14th February 2010, 21:35

#FF0000

14th February 2010, 21:36

You all keep saying anarcho capitalism or laissez faire capitalism will lead to death for everyone in existence yet you have no evidence to back this up.

lol

Comrade Anarchist

14th February 2010, 21:49

The purpose of the modern national-state, from the 18th century and onwards, has been to ensure the interests of the capitalists at the expense of the people. It is true that the national-state is a century older than capitalism as a phenomenon, but it grew together with capitalism.

And when capitalists use the modern national-state they cease being laissez faire capitalists and become state capitalists as i have said for the like fifth time. I am against the government and everything it represents and i believe that the nothing should protect the capitalist from the free market. When government policies are enacted for the benefit of capitalism then they are inherently harmful to capitalism b/c they infringe upon the free market without a free market you end up like today with government bailouts, governments fighting to open up markets and etc. Adam smith said become a market is voluntary, if you do not wish to be a part of the market then you dont have to be. Modern day state capitalists and governments reject that idea and forcefully open them for example iraq 2004. Whenever the a company uses its pull in the government it hurts the free market, hurts innocents, and undoes the principles of the free market, which is why i am against modern day state capitalists and governments.

Drace

14th February 2010, 21:51

People dying of hunger around the world sucks. Millions starved from mismanagement of the economy from mao and stalin. Communism doesn't equal food apparently and yet you like to think that every child who is starving is capitalism's fault yet when you look at communist regimes starvation was because of the state's polices not b/c of lack of work. In china people were trading their kids with their neighbor and eating their neighbor's kid b/c they couldn't eat their own.

You all keep saying anarcho capitalism or laissez faire capitalism will lead to death for everyone in existence yet you have no evidence to back this up. As i said before pure laissez faire capitalism has never existed except for in a commune or two. On the other hand i can look at a history book or watch the history channel and see the under stalin 20 to 30 million died, under mao up to 65 million died.

On the other hand i can look at a history book or watch the history channel and see the under stalin 20 to 30 million died, under mao up to 65 million died.Which mostly comes from the anti-communist STATE-ORCHESTRATED propagate. :lol:

Some of you have or are going to say that look at all the wars caused b/c of laissez faire capitalism. Well there aren't any. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam were governments v.s. governments. Now you will all say what about iraqi freedom and i will answer that it was caused by a few greedy state capitalists trying to strike at rich. The state capitalists infiltrated the government and went to iraq for oil (bush) and b/c we went to war we hired contractors (cheney).

Let me say this again laissez faire capitalism has never existed. Modern companies are state capitalist b/c they rely on the government. And that every communist experiment has failed miserably taking along millions with it.Wow the guy saying an ideology which promotes a classless and stateless society killed a 100 million people and yet defends capitalism by saying that his proposed form of it never existed.

On the other hand i can look at a history book or watch the history channel and see the under stalin 20 to 30 million died, under mao up to 65 million died.Which mostly comes from STATE-orchestrated propaganda. :lol:

Dimentio

14th February 2010, 21:53

And when capitalists use the modern national-state they cease being laissez faire capitalists and become state capitalists as i have said for the like fifth time. I am against the government and everything it represents and i believe that the nothing should protect the capitalist from the free market. When government policies are enacted for the benefit of capitalism then they are inherently harmful to capitalism b/c they infringe upon the free market without a free market you end up like today with government bailouts, governments fighting to open up markets and etc. Adam smith said become a market is voluntary, if you do not wish to be a part of the market then you dont have to be. Modern day state capitalists and governments reject that idea and forcefully open them for example iraq 2004. Whenever the a company uses its pull in the government it hurts the free market, hurts innocents, and undoes the principles of the free market, which is why i am against modern day state capitalists and governments.

In that case, laissez faire capitalism has never existed and is thus per your definition a utopian society. 19th century Britain was a paradise of forced labour, where the state and the capitalists together put unemployed or mentally challenged people into work houses where they literally where worked to death.

Drace

14th February 2010, 21:57

Now you will all say what about iraqi freedom and i will answer that it was caused by a few greedy state capitalists trying to strike at rich. The state capitalists infiltrated the government and went to iraq for oil (bush) and b/c we went to war we hired contractors (cheney).Lets get one of your favorite philosophers on this:

The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade.
- Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

gorillafuck

14th February 2010, 22:09

In china people were trading their kids with their neighbor and eating their neighbor's kid b/c they couldn't eat their own.
They couldn't eat their own kid, so they traded their kid with their neighbors kid and ate their neighbors kid?

Source?

Weezer

14th February 2010, 23:07

Source?

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/rail/impkills.html

bailey_187

14th February 2010, 23:07

On the other hand i can look at a history book or watch the history channel and see the under stalin 20 to 30 million died, under mao up to 65 million died..

Were it not for Communism, as i showed in my last post using death rates before Communism and in a similar country, more would have died in China.

Communist China actualy ended the constant hunger that plagued China before 1949.
In speaking of agricultural performance in the Third World, agronomist and Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug observed: "China is the one country which has solved its food problems." Cited in Han Suyin, Wind in the Tower (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976), p. 24.

Agriculture grew by some 3 percent a year under Communism in China, slightly exceeding population growth. By 1970, the problem of adequately feeding China's population had been solved. This was accomplished through integrated economic planning, a system of collective agriculture that promoted grass-roots mobilization, flood control, steady investment in rural infrastructure, and the equitable distribution of food to peasants and rationing of essential foods so that all people were guaranteed their minimal requirements
See Harry Harding, China's Second Revolution: Reform After Mao (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1987), p. 30; Robert F. Dernberger, ed., China's Development Experience in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), chapters 3 and 9; Jan Prybyla, The Chinese Economy (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1978), chapter 3; and Mobo C.F. Gao, Gao Village: Rural Life in Modern China (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999).

Of course, you decide to stick to your script of "Mao killed X Million people and everyone was hungry in China". You have said yourself, your knowledge of Maoist China comes from the History Channel.

Why does you guess of Stalin's deaths fluctuate by 10million? We have the numbers of those executed, we have death rates in GULAG etc

Let me say this again laissez faire capitalism has never existed..

You are basicaly in the same boat as the people on here who say "Socialism/Communism has never existed!!!" when you say that. By being able to distance yourself from the crimes of capitalism on the basis that it is not "real capitalism", you are also allowing the "Real Communism" types to distance themselves from the perceived crimes of Communists. You both might as well just give up.

And that every communist experiment has failed miserably taking along millions with it.

It depends what you mean by failed. If you mean they are no longer with us and were overthrown by counter-revolution, sure, we failed in making our system permanent. However, what we did not fail to do was to place power in the hands of the workers, create an economy that is planned, use the surplus that workers create for their benefit and generaly raise the standard of living and material well being of workers and peasents - this we succeded in.

Bud Struggle

15th February 2010, 00:00

You are basicaly in the same boat as the people on here who say "Socialism/Communism has never existed!!!" when you say that. By being able to distance yourself from the crimes of capitalism on the basis that it is not "real capitalism", you are also allowing the "Real Communism" types to distance themselves from the perceived crimes of Communists. You both might as well just give up. This is a particularly good point. Classical Capitalism and Classical Communism as written in the text books by the theorists probably (I say probably because nobody know for sure) could never exist in the real world--Capitalism exists as it does in the world today and Communism really could only exist as it did in the Communist countries of the past. We have to judge these economic theories on what they ACTUALLY have done not on some theoretical models that we don't even know could exist in the real world.

It depends what you mean by failed. If you mean they are no longer with us and were overthrown by counter-revolution, sure, we failed in making our system permanent. However, what we did not fail to do was to place power in the hands of the workers, create an economy that is planned, use the surplus that workers create for their benefit and generaly raise the standard of living and material well being of workers and peasents - this we succeded in. There is no doubt that in China at least that the Communist system with all its faults was better than the Feudal system of the Emporers. It edged China into the modern world, but it's pretty obvious that the Communist system was inferior to the system now in place in China--at least in the matter of economic development and to an extent human rights.

What happened in China was the natural development of economic society--the same thing that happened from the Soviet Union to Nepal: Communism overthrows Feudalism and once an egalitarian society has begun to develop it is replaced by a humane Capitalism maybe leading to Social Democracy

The path of history is clear on this point.

Il Medico

15th February 2010, 00:09

i think it makes sense to bring up how many people capitalism has killed when people are trying to suggest that socialist countries are somehow "bloodier" than the capitalist ones.
Indeed, Especially considering these supposed "socialist countries" are just a different manifestation of capitalism than the run of the mill American or Western European variety.

Drace

15th February 2010, 00:32

Kingpin,

Source? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/31344.php

Some 10.6 million children under five die every year. Around two-thirds of these deaths are preventable, including an estimated 1.4 million deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases.http://www.medindia.net/news/More-Than-300000-Sudan-Children-Die-of-Preventable-Diseases-UN-60036-1.htm
[QUOTE]More Than 300,000 Sudan Children Die of Preventable Diseases: UN

http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/en/

In 2002, WHO estimated that 1.4 million of deaths among children under 5 years were due to diseases that could have been prevented by routine vaccination.So the number is more like 1.4 million a year which equals about 14 million a decade. A lot more victims falls to hunger.

Agnapostate

15th February 2010, 00:58

Just curious, using the same criteria, how many people has Laissez-faire capitalism killed?

None, because it hasn't existed. Actual capitalism, however, is responsible for the death and suffering of countless multitudes in many parts of Africa, Asia, and America that vastly exceed the numbers claimed to be the casualties of "communism." The obvious answer to these contentions has been posted here numerous times before, but as different socialist tendencies will offer somewhat different responses and as our friend seems particularly misinformed, I'll reiterate it.

First and foremost, we can only laugh at the irony of the OP accusing socialists of committing No True Scotsman fallacies by denying the legitimacy of authoritarian "socialism" while insisting that the deaths caused by capitalism are not caused by true capitalism, but by "corporatism" and "state capitalism," in other words, actually existing capitalism. This is an amusing trend that I encounter all too often. Some might perceive that we're at a stalemate at this point, as bailey 187 said, with "both sides" insisting that any deviations from the purity of theory mean that the actually implemented policies are not "real" capitalism or socialism, but the term "capitalism" originated as an epithet, as opposed to the term "socialism," which originated as a self-description. It was foolish to ever attempt to play semantics games and misappropriate words only to deny the legitimacy of actually existing capitalism later on.

And there is a sound case for denying the legitimacy of the majority of "socialist" countries that lies not in their slight deviation from socialist political theory and economy, but from their sharp opposition to them, as those who would point to the destruction of workers' democratic management and centralization of state power would claim. Just as a republican might term China a dictatorship and scoff at its rulers' claims that it is a "people's republic" or that North Korea is a "democratic people's republic" due to the flat contradiction of republican ideology that can be seen from their internal conditions, so might socialists scoff and point out the conflicts of those countries' ruling administrations with socialist ideology. Republicans would point to the successful implementation of actual republicanism elsewhere and socialists would point to the successful implementation of actual socialism elsewhere (with the libertarian-minded pointing to the anarchist social revolutions, obviously), But the same defense cannot be made for laissez-faire capitalism, as it has never existed.

Of the "death toll" listed (which is probably excessively high and inflated for political purposes), we should note that not all of the deaths that occurred under the governance of the "socialist" regimes can be attributed to their actions. Natural disasters and problems and difficulties in resource extraction in the underdeveloped countries of Russia and China must also be accounted for. We must add to that the fact that it is disingenuous to conflate the casualties of political executions and purges with the casualties of economic mismanagement. While the casualties of both are quite sound reasons for opposition to the regimes in question, the former involves a degree of conscious malevolence that the latter likely does not.

In the case of Che Guevara, he oversaw military executions that are quite commonplace in any post-revolution era, and did also order the executions of deserters, traitors, and the like. While I'm personally opposed to this, there was nothing particularly unique or uncommon about such practices in the context of a violent war and its immediate aftermath, and I have yet to see evidence that he ordered the execution of innocent civilians who had committed no offenses.

Lastly, state-orchestrated executions were not always the acts of rogue elitist governments acting against popular will; while I personally condemn them, they were often manifestations of "mob fury" of sorts against those recognized as criminals, such as persons known to have been officials in the prior regime. There are certainly demands for the violent torture and execution of a certain class of criminals in the U.S., namely those perceived as child sexual abusers, for example. Such criminals have been executed in Saudi Arabia with support from many sympathizers in the U.S., pimps who facilitate underage prostitution have been executed in China, as have financial scam artists who rip off members of the public, also with rather broad and widespread support in China. The execution of individuals perceived as "reactionaries" may have been unjust in many, many cases, but certainly was not as anti-democratic as depicted in the U.S. mass media.

Kayser_Soso

15th February 2010, 11:24

The rest of you who say it is all blatant lies, most of the figure counting happened after the soviet union fell when their archives were able to be used to estimate the lives killed. And these facts have never been refuted from anybody but communists. And to answer one of you genocide is the systematic killing of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. That sounds exactly like what stalin did and mao, and every other communist dictator.

Actually the archival evidence disproves those claims, dumbass. Simply because someone makes a claim after the fall of the USSR does not mean it was based on archival evidence. These numbers don't jive with the demographic data, especially since the death toll in the USSR during the war has been revised upwards significantly. Try actually READING some of that archival evidence some day.

And now to the rest of you saying good thing no one ever counted up capitalist death toll. Well, pure laissez faire capitalism has rarely if ever existed dumb asses. There has only been capitalism spurred on with government help and intervention. No industry in the united states is a pure capitalist industry, it is a state capitalist industry b/c it is protected by tariffs, receives subsides, and can be propped up by the government if need be. So capitalism does have a death toll but come on to say that pure capitalism with no government is the deadliest thing on earth is just stupid.

No shit dumbass- you can't have capitalism without state intervention. There is no pure capitalism that the libertarians dream of, because the state and private sector can never be independent of each other.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 16:13

No shit dumbass- you can't have capitalism without state intervention. There is no pure capitalism that the libertarians dream of, because the state and private sector can never be independent of each other.

Exactly. If there is no state to protect the capitalist's property, they they will have to enforce it themselves through their own means. There's no reason large firms wouldn't pool their resources together and create their own joint police. That is a state.

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 16:20

No shit dumbass- you can't have capitalism without state intervention. There is no pure capitalism that the libertarians dream of, because the state and private sector can never be independent of each other.Yes they can. There is no reason why the market cannot provide all goods and services.

Exactly. If there is no state to protect the capitalist's property, they they will have to enforce it themselves through their own means. There's no reason large firms wouldn't pool their resources together and create their own joint police. That is a state.

Well if your going to define a state as any provider of police protection, then yea, I don't think capitalism can exist without a state.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 16:22

Yes they can. There is no reason why the market cannot provide all goods and services.

You don't get it. Private property in capitalism requires a state. Whether or not the market provides everything is irrelevant. As long as there is a state, the capitalists will use it to their advantage. Profit trumps ideology and social contracts.

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 16:24

You don't get it. Private property in capitalism requires a state. Whether or not the market provides everything is irrelevant.

The enforcement of private property does not require a state. The market can provide the means to enforce property law without a state.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 16:28

The enforcement of private property does not require a state. The market can provide the means to enforce property law without a state.

And that is what we call a state. You are enforcing your exclusive rights on others to profit from the means of production by means of a private police force.

Dimentio

15th February 2010, 16:31

And that is what we call a state. You are enforcing your exclusive rights on others to profit from the means of production by means of a private police force.

Or the Mafia.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 16:33

Or the Mafia.

Yes. Ancap would have a tremendous problem with organized crime.

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 16:51

And that is what we call a state. You are enforcing your exclusive rights on others to profit from the means of production by means of a private police force.

Private police forces aren't states. Protection is a service just like medical care. What is your definition of a state?

Che a chara

15th February 2010, 16:56

if you're going to enforce a private police service then you're opening up room for oppression, corruption, harassment, assaults and domination etc..

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 16:57

if you're going to enforce a private police service then you're opening up room for oppression, corruption, harassment, assaults and domination etc..

What makes you think this?

Che a chara

15th February 2010, 17:02

What makes you think this?

because it's fact and has been proven time and time again. a good example i thought by 'Dimentio' was the mafia.

a private firm protects the interests of those they are supposedly signed to protect, causing clashes with opposing factions or those just opposed to how the 'business' is run or your competitors.

but of course history and common sense tells us that power within a private 'security' firm can lead to corruption and battle for supremacy within with no accountability.

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 17:10

because it's fact and has been proven time and time again. a good example i thought by 'Dimentio' was the mafia.

a private firm protects the interests of those they are supposedly signed to protect, causing clashes with opposing factions or those just opposed to how the 'business' is run or your competitors.

but of course history and common sense tells us that power within a private 'security' firm can lead to corruption and battle for supremacy within with no accountability.

I don't think the mafia is a private police force. If anything, the mafia would be severely harmed with the removal of the state. Now, lets compare the worst of private police forces with the worst public police forces. I think it is obvious which is worse. There are actually quite a few examples in history where private police and arbitration was a smashing success.

Why would a private police force clash with opposing "factions?" War would require the company to raise premiums on customers, which could cause them to lose business to those companies which do not fight. Since these companies cannot rely on taxation, they cannot externalize costs. War is very expensive, and customers want a police force that will protect them. The more likely scenario is that police forces will contract with each other in advance to settle possible disputes.

Die Rote Fahne

15th February 2010, 17:12

What about the millions upon millions who die each year as a result of capitalism?

Capitalistic wars also noted here.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 17:26

Nolan

15th February 2010, 17:28

Private police forces aren't states. Protection is a service just like medical care. What is your definition of a state?

Something that enforces the rule of a class.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 17:34

I don't think the mafia is a private police force. If anything, the mafia would be severely harmed with the removal of the state.

How, pray tell, would the mob (which is state-like in itself) be harmed by the removal of its enemy? If anything, it wouldn't have to hide anymore. Even if the mafia isn't a private police force, PPFs may work for it. Some capitalists themselves will undoubtedly be mobsters and the mafia will make business deals with other capitalists and PPFs, spreading its web of corruption.

The fact that public police are corrupt is due to the influence of capital on the state. It goes both ways. You don't solve the problem by making the state and capital one.

Comrade Anarchist

15th February 2010, 17:46

Capitalism is responsible for war because states seek to dominate other markets to bolster their own economy, which translates into more power and influence aboad for said state.

Now, based on that one could say "the problem isn't capitalism, it's states!" But if there were no capitalism, there would be no need to dominate foreign markets.

All of you act like capitalism has been around since the big bang. Before capitalism you had states that went to war to control land and have more subjects and to get natural resources. So states have been doing going to war to boast their economy's since the creation of the state which happened many years before capitalism. The fact of the matter is that today the state still does this but it does it for state capitalists instead of itself. Once again i am against the state, state capitalists, and i believe in voluntary markets. Stop bashing capitalism for what the state and state capitalists do, morons.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 17:55

All of you act like capitalism has been around since the big bang. Before capitalism you had states that went to war to control land and have more subjects and to get natural resources. So states have been doing going to war to boast their economy's since the creation of the state which happened many years before capitalism. The fact of the matter is that today the state still does this but it does it for state capitalists instead of itself. Once again i am against the state, state capitalists, and i believe in voluntary markets. Stop bashing capitalism for what the state and state capitalists do, morons.

Lol you mad!

Listen, fucktard. Of course the problem isn't particular to capitalism itself, the problem is with class society when you're not fighting other egalitarian groups for a pile of bones in the Stone Age. War as we know it is caused by capitalism as we know it. Stop trying to deny it or whitewash it as "the states fault." Private property requires the state to enforce the hegemony of the owning class. The state and capital are like a boy and his dog. They are inseperable. It doesn't matter if the state is "private police" or "PDAs" or whatever.

You are not an anarchist. I'm more of an anarchist than you.

Dimentio

15th February 2010, 17:56

I don't think the mafia is a private police force. If anything, the mafia would be severely harmed with the removal of the state. Now, lets compare the worst of private police forces with the worst public police forces. I think it is obvious which is worse. There are actually quite a few examples in history where private police and arbitration was a smashing success.

Why would a private police force clash with opposing "factions?" War would require the company to raise premiums on customers, which could cause them to lose business to those companies which do not fight. Since these companies cannot rely on taxation, they cannot externalize costs. War is very expensive, and customers want a police force that will protect them. The more likely scenario is that police forces will contract with each other in advance to settle possible disputes.

The Mafia in Sicily was originally a cluster of armed groups which worked to protect the large citrus farmers. They were basically a private police force, which was formed in the absence of a functioning state (the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was a weak state where all the armed forces were basically military forces which protected the Bourbon regime).

Private police forces are lethal out of three reasons.

1. Their protection will be slanted towards people who could pay for their protection. A private police force is paid by private insurances from either communities or wealthy individuals, while a public police force is paid for by taxation or trade income levied by a state or another level of public authority. A private police force has no rationale to protect people who lack property, leaving them in a state of lawlessness and vulnerable to more far-reaching discrimination than we could imagine today.

2. They will basically prosper from the existence of crime. Much crime will lead to much income for the police force as well as more policemen employed. Thus, it would lie in their interests to either cooperate with criminals and take a share out of the income from organised crime in return for safety, or to start to act as organised crime themselves in specific situations.

3. They could sabotage for other private agencies, rather than cooperating with them, due to the competition.

Your hypothesis is built on the idea that people would be altruistic in the absence of a state. The question is, if people is so reasonable that these three scenarios won't occur, why would we need to organise the police force in the form of several private enterprises?

Agnapostate

15th February 2010, 18:19

Yes they can. There is no reason why the market cannot provide all goods and services.

Actually, there is. In the context of the capitalist economy, it's based on the prevention of the inefficiencies generated by such elements as negative externalities, asymmetric information (and the agency problems of adverse selection and moral hazard, etc.), and market power.

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 18:39

How, pray tell, would the mob (which is state-like in itself) be harmed by the removal of its enemy? If anything, it wouldn't have to hide anymore. Even if the mafia isn't a private police force, PPFs may work for it. Some capitalists themselves will undoubtedly be mobsters and the mafia will make business deals with other capitalists and PPFs, spreading its web of corruption.

The fact that public police are corrupt is due to the influence of capital on the state. It goes both ways. You don't solve the problem by making the state and capital one.

It becomes a lot harder to make certain substances illegal. Criminal drug dealers and Moonshiners love drug and alcohol prohibitions. If these substances are made legal (like alcohol now is), then the drug lords must now compete with efficient firms. Criminals will lose out in favor of efficient businesses who can serve the consumer best.

But yes, I don't think privatizing the police force would wholly eliminate organized crime.

Private police forces are lethal out of three reasons.

1. Their protection will be slanted towards people who could pay for their protection. A private police force is paid by private insurances from either communities or wealthy individuals, while a public police force is paid for by taxation or trade income levied by a state or another level of public authority. A private police force has no rationale to protect people who lack property, leaving them in a state of lawlessness and vulnerable to more far-reaching discrimination than we could imagine today.

2. They will basically prosper from the existence of crime. Much crime will lead to much income for the police force as well as more policemen employed. Thus, it would lie in their interests to either cooperate with criminals and take a share out of the income from organised crime in return for safety, or to start to act as organised crime themselves in specific situations.

3. They could sabotage for other private agencies, rather than cooperating with them, due to the competition.

Your hypothesis is built on the idea that people would be altruistic in the absence of a state. The question is, if people is so reasonable that these three scenarios won't occur, why would we need to organise the police force in the form of several private enterprises? 1. For starters, there are other options besides private for-profit police forces you can turn to. There are already volunteer firefighters, and there have in the past been volunteer community guards. There is no reason why a community should be unable to form its own patrol. Then there is the fact that competition lowers price, and people could choose from a wide array of different protection services, ranging from inexpensive to very expensive. Also, when you go to a mall, you will see that it has its own guards. Owners of property want it to be safe for customers. So in fact, when you go to places like malls, banks, or other stores, it is not like you will need to pay for police protection. Finally, just having a weapon in your house can in many occasions ensure your safety far more than the police can.

2. I am confused here. Is it the organized criminals who are hiring police officers? What are these criminals doing in the first place? I need more specifics.

3. Why would they do this and risk confrontation? You think their customers want them doing this?

I do not think people would be altruistic in the absence of a state.

Actually, there is. In the context of the capitalist economy, it's based on the prevention of the inefficiencies generated by such elements as negative externalities, asymmetric information (and the agency problems of adverse selection and moral hazard, etc.), and market power.Examples?

RGacky3

15th February 2010, 18:51

It becomes a lot harder to make certain substances illegal. Criminal drug dealers and Moonshiners love drug and alcohol prohibitions. If these substances are made legal (like alcohol now is), then the drug lords must now compete with efficient firms. Criminals will lose out in favor of efficient businesses who can serve the consumer best.

But yes, I don't think privatizing the police force would wholly eliminate organized crime.

Its more efficient because its legal, more people will buy something thats legal, but the violence and dangerousness of it goes away because of government regulation. Now its in the legal market and the people who dea with it are not criminals. People would rather NOT brake the law.

Then there is the fact that competition lowers price, and people could choose from a wide array of different protection services, ranging from inexpensive to very expensive. Also, when you go to a mall, you will see that it has its own guards. Owners of property want it to be safe for customers. So in fact, when you go to places like malls, banks, or other stores, it is not like you will need to pay for police protection. Finally, just having a weapon in your house can in many occasions ensure your safety far more than the police can.

Competition is just one issue, the other issue if that MONEY controls when there is no public control (rather private control), which means that those with the money control the police, and thus the law.

3. Why would they do this and risk confrontation? You think their customers want them doing this?

I do not think people would be altruistic in the absence of a state.

Their costomers are only those who can afford to be their costomers, those who cannot, they could care less what they do to them.

WHat does altruism have to do with it?

Demogorgon

15th February 2010, 18:59

2. They will basically prosper from the existence of crime. Much crime will lead to much income for the police force as well as more policemen employed. Thus, it would lie in their interests to either cooperate with criminals and take a share out of the income from organised crime in return for safety, or to start to act as organised crime themselves in specific situations.

That's a good point, a low crime rate would cause many private police forces to go out of business and what sensible business is going to create a situation that will cause them to go bust?

Dimentio

15th February 2010, 19:05

1. For starters, there are other options besides private for-profit police forces you can turn to. There are already volunteer firefighters, and there have in the past been volunteer community guards. There is no reason why a community should be unable to form its own patrol. Then there is the fact that competition lowers price, and people could choose from a wide array of different protection services, ranging from inexpensive to very expensive. Also, when you go to a mall, you will see that it has its own guards. Owners of property want it to be safe for customers. So in fact, when you go to places like malls, banks, or other stores, it is not like you will need to pay for police protection. Finally, just having a weapon in your house can in many occasions ensure your safety far more than the police can.

That did not answer my first point. What about people with no property and no money. Who should protect them?

Moreover, one man or woman with one weapon is nothing compared to one hundred thugs with baseball bats or machetes.

2. I am confused here. Is it the organized criminals who are hiring police officers? What are these criminals doing in the first place? I need more specifics.You very well know that organised criminals have access to significant resources. They could actually, and have actually, set up their own militia forces to ensure their operations and the interests of their clients. It would be easy to set up a police force which would operate in the interest of organised crime.

3. Why would they do this and risk confrontation? You think their customers want them doing this?Because whom else would the customers turn to. Lets say that I have a police force. I see a competitor being established in my neighbourhood, considerably decreasing my profits. My goons might turn against me if I don't pay them. People whom I have put into jail might have their revenge when I am without armed protection. But, there is an alternative. To send my men against my competitors and beat the crap out of them, draw borders between the neighbourhoods and prevent them from making operations in my areas. Moreover, my policemen could oversee that my clients are not utilising the services from my competitors.

If I engage in such a vicious, predatory behaviour, who would stop me? The state? There is no state.

I do not think people would be altruistic in the absence of a state.

Examples?

You have misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that you believe that people would stop trying to maximise their income and minimise their risks under an anarcho-capitalist utopia, or stop with anti-social behaviour in order to do so. In short, you expect people to not follow their interests in a society which is encouraging them to follow their egotistic interests to the final letter. Somehow, they will respect an agreement which they have the physical ability to violate due to the lack of a supreme lord with the power to literally rip their guts out.

There are several examples of cities which have had competing law enforcement agencies.

One example is Rome during the late Republic, which had several private fire squads and militias which protected the markets. It was usual that the militias fought veritable wars between one another to harvest in larger territories to protect.

Another example is Acre during the crusader era, where seventeen different courts belonging to different knight orders, monasteries and territories created an atmosphere of absolute fear and anarchy.

Lebanon during the 80's and 90's is also an example of a society with several competing law enforcement agencies, often belonging to different ethnic communities and religious groups, or simply wealthy individuals.

It is telling that the fire squads often are the group which enjoy the highest amount of trust of the population, except for the case of Hong Kong where they have been private for decades.

Os Cangaceiros

15th February 2010, 19:17

The police and other public services will never be fully privatized. I think it has something to do with the irritating notion that people wish to have oversight (however minimal) over institutions that effect their lives. There probably would be some oversight in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist world, but it would be a commodity just like everything else: people with money would be able to have the ear of the police, while people without money largely wouldn't.

(Which actually sounds a lot like how things work now.)

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 19:53

That did not answer my first point. What about people with no property and no money. Who should protect them?

Moreover, one man or woman with one weapon is nothing compared to one hundred thugs with baseball bats or machetes.

People who literally have no property and no money whatsoever would have it worse than a wealthy person. There is no denying that. However, I don't see how there could be long term unemployment for 90% of these people. With no minimum wage, getting a job would be far easier. While the poorest of the poor might not be able to afford highly professional police protection, they can still form their own voluntary guard. I am sure there would be companies who pander to the poor as well. Now, there are also the severely handicapped people, but I think that charity, church, and family will provide sufficient help.

You very well know that organised criminals have access to significant resources. They could actually, and have actually, set up their own militia forces to ensure their operations and the interests of their clients. It would be easy to set up a police force which would operate in the interest of organised crime.

I still don't get it. Yes, organized crime will form their own militia. Its not like things will be different with or without a state.

Because whom else would the customers turn to. Lets say that I have a police force. I see a competitor being established in my neighbourhood, considerably decreasing my profits. My goons might turn against me if I don't pay them. People whom I have put into jail might have their revenge when I am without armed protection. But, there is an alternative. To send my men against my competitors and beat the crap out of them, draw borders between the neighbourhoods and prevent them from making operations in my areas. Moreover, my policemen could oversee that my clients are not utilising the services from my competitors.

If I engage in such a vicious, predatory behaviour, who would stop me? The state? There is no state.

Except not all police providers will be small local firms. If a big company opens operation in your town, you would be foolish to attack them. But that is still conceding too much. I do not think a private police force would have the ability, resources, or support to suppress every single potential competitor.

You have misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that you believe that people would stop trying to maximise their income and minimise their risks under an anarcho-capitalist utopia, or stop with anti-social behaviour in order to do so. In short, you expect people to not follow their interests in a society which is encouraging them to follow their egotistic interests to the final letter. Somehow, they will respect an agreement which they have the physical ability to violate due to the lack of a supreme lord with the power to literally rip their guts out.

There are several examples of cities which have had competing law enforcement agencies.

One example is Rome during the late Republic, which had several private fire squads and militias which protected the markets. It was usual that the militias fought veritable wars between one another to harvest in larger territories to protect.

Another example is Acre during the crusader era, where seventeen different courts belonging to different knight orders, monasteries and territories created an atmosphere of absolute fear and anarchy.

Lebanon during the 80's and 90's is also an example of a society with several competing law enforcement agencies, often belonging to different ethnic communities and religious groups, or simply wealthy individuals.

It is telling that the fire squads often are the group which enjoy the highest amount of trust of the population, except for the case of Hong Kong where they have been private for decades.

I don't know where I gave the impression that people would stop following their interests. All of the examples you gave of private law are on very shaky grounds, especially Acre. I don't consider the Knight Orders as private companies. Using crusader conquerors as examples of competing defense agencies is somewhat misleading.

In favor of my opinion, I can point to the private police forces which existed in the misleadingly named "Wild West," or the private merchant law which was run privately for centuries. Then you can look at Somalia before and after the collapse of its government. If you look at the statistics, the situation improved quite noticeably after the dictatorship was overthrown. There are also examples of Ancient Ireland and Medieval Iceland. While not completely private, they do dispel some of the myths about public police.

Now, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your examples are valid. Lets compare that to the worst of the public police. If we include state run armies, then the difference becomes even more apparent. I don't need to spend time bringing up examples as I am sure your already aware of the many times in history where secret police have terrorized populations. So even if we did take the worst of the public police and compare it with the worst of the private police, it is clear that private police still win.

Agnapostate

15th February 2010, 19:55

Examples?

Negative externalities, asymmetric information, and market power. At least refer to Wikipedia if you don't understand basic economics. :rolleyes:

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 20:04

Negative externalities, asymmetric information, and market power. At least refer to Wikipedia if you don't understand basic economics. :rolleyes:

I am pretty sure I understand economics of all schools (except maybe Marxist economics) better than you. I am asking for examples of what you put in bold that proves that the market cannot provide all goods and services.

Kayser_Soso

15th February 2010, 20:09

All of you act like capitalism has been around since the big bang. Before capitalism you had states that went to war to control land and have more subjects and to get natural resources. So states have been doing going to war to boast their economy's since the creation of the state which happened many years before capitalism. The fact of the matter is that today the state still does this but it does it for state capitalists instead of itself. Once again i am against the state, state capitalists, and i believe in voluntary markets. Stop bashing capitalism for what the state and state capitalists do, morons.

Maybe in fantasy land that's what happened, but in the real world anyone with two working brain cells can figure out that those who subscribe to a class-based theory of history certainly WOULDN'T allege that capitalism has "been around since the big bang" since this directly contradicts said theory of history.

And no you didn't have "states" in those cases which you mention, you usually had weak monarchies relying on their landed nobility for military support. Look up feudalism some time, jackass.

Dimentio

15th February 2010, 20:14

People who literally have no property and no money whatsoever would have it worse than a wealthy person. There is no denying that. However, I don't see how there could be long term unemployment for 90% of these people. With no minimum wage, getting a job would be far easier. While the poorest of the poor might not be able to afford highly professional police protection, they can still form their own voluntary guard. I am sure there would be companies who pander to the poor as well. Now, there are also the severely handicapped people, but I think that charity, church, and family will provide sufficient help.

I still don't get it. Yes, organized crime will form their own militia. Its not like things will be different with or without a state.

Except not all police providers will be small local firms. If a big company opens operation in your town, you would be foolish to attack them. But that is still conceding too much. I do not think a private police force would have the ability, resources, or support to suppress every single potential competitor.

I don't know where I gave the impression that people would stop following their interests. All of the examples you gave of private law are on very shaky grounds, especially Acre. I don't consider the Knight Orders as private companies. Using crusader conquerors as examples of competing defense agencies is somewhat misleading.

In favor of my opinion, I can point to the private police forces which existed in the misleadingly named "Wild West," or the private merchant law which was run privately for centuries. Then you can look at Somalia before and after the collapse of its government. If you look at the statistics, the situation improved quite noticeably after the dictatorship was overthrown. There are also examples of Ancient Ireland and Medieval Iceland. While not completely private, they do dispel some of the myths about public police.

Now, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your examples are valid. Lets compare that to the worst of the public police. If we include state run armies, then the difference becomes even more apparent. I don't need to spend time bringing up examples as I am sure your already aware of the many times in history where secret police have terrorized populations. So even if we did take the worst of the public police and compare it with the worst of the private police, it is clear that private police still win.

About hypothetical examples: If a large police organisation enters a city dominating by smaller police organisations, it could basically wipe them out and establish a local military dictatorship. If two large police organisations divide the city between them, the city could develop into two de-facto warring fiefdoms.

On those impoverished. In Lebanon, every district police force is a de-facto autonomous unit under control of some influential individual. The Lebanese state is an illusion. In the 90's at least, before they reestablished some form of central control, it was impossible to make the police do anything without extra bribes to the individual policeman.

About Somalia: Siad Barrë was a brutal dictator who ran an authoritarian despotic dictatorship. After his fall, the country fell down into warring factions struggling over the control over the urban regions. While security probably improved somewhat on the countryside - far away from the borders between the differing factions - the country as a whole was turned into a military anarchy with deteriorated life standards and security for all people.

About Ireland and Iceland: Ireland was divided into several small counties, run by a multitude of quite poor noblemen with large families. The Celtic Church was a rather progressive institution during much of Ireland's history. The country did often have small feuds developing into wars between different clans, but the reason that Ireland was comparably peaceful during those years was that Europe was engulfed by migrations.

Iceland is an even more interesting example, because medieval Iceland actually reminds of Somalia after 1990. It was a clan society, with no towns and hardly any villages. Instead, most of its (tiny) population lived in large, extended farms. Most people on the island were servants or paid guards to large farmers. Not unlike Ireland, Iceland was also plagued by feuds between families, evidenced by the Icelandic national epic "The Saga of Njál" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nj%C3%A1ls_saga).

Sicily in the 19th century is also an example. There was hardly any functioning taxation whatsoever. The island was a large exporter of citrus fruits, and heavily divided between poor seasonal workers and large estate owners. The estate owners paid a private militia, known as "mafias", to defend themselves against both workers demanding higher wages and other plantation owners. The absence of a functioning state in Sicily made it possible for the mafias to establish their own counter-state, built on voluntary service to the mafias from an army of clients who in return for services for the mafia, ranging from legal things to murder (cause they have no money to pay the mafias with), earn the protection of the mafia they have sworn their loyalty to.

What is also striking about both Ireland, Iceland and Sicily, is that all three regions have had a culture of strong extended family ties, almost clan-like systems. The same as Somalia. In regions with more individualistic traditions, such "orders" would break down more quickly, and probably create a lot more bloodshed due to a larger number of unprotected individuals who could be preyed upon.

Now I wonder. Do you think it is natural to live in a society where you would need to kill others in order to fend for yourself?

Agnapostate

15th February 2010, 20:20

I am pretty sure I understand economics of all schools (except maybe Marxist economics) better than you.

Then by all means, let's have a one-on-one economics debate in this forum, since you're restricted.

I am asking for examples of what you put in bold that proves that the market cannot provide all goods and services.

In the context of the capitalist economy, the necessary mechanism for the control of externalities and correction of that particular failure is the application of Pigovian taxation, the utilization of state controls to minimize asymmetric information and agency problems and costs, and the incorporation of such policy as antitrust legislation to combat market power and maintain competition rather than concentration. We can also refer to the likes of strategic trade policy incorporating substantial state intervention for the purpose of protecting the development of infant industries, the role of the welfare state as a necessary tool in sustaining the physical efficiency of the working class and therefore efficiency in general, etc.

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 21:49

Dimentio, are you a history major or something?

But anyways, back on topic...

About hypothetical examples: If a large police organisation enters a city dominating by smaller police organisations, it could basically wipe them out and establish a local military dictatorship. If two large police organisations divide the city between them, the city could develop into two de-facto warring fiefdoms.

Before I answer, here is another scenario. A large and powerful state enters a small weak state. It could basically wipe it out and establish a local military dictatorship.

But back on point, attacking a city with an armed population and many small police organizations would be extremely difficult. It would be difficult in the way it was difficult for The U.S. to occupy Mogadishu. I see no reason why a for profit company would attempt to take over an entire city with many police providers and an armed population. Remember, the large company would need to raise premiums on its own customers. This invasion would result in a huge loss of customers, and it has little possibility of generating a profit.

On those impoverished. In Lebanon, every district police force is a de-facto autonomous unit under control of some influential individual. The Lebanese state is an illusion. In the 90's at least, before they reestablished some form of central control, it was impossible to make the police do anything without extra bribes to the individual policeman.

About Somalia: Siad Barrë was a brutal dictator who ran an authoritarian despotic dictatorship. After his fall, the country fell down into warring factions struggling over the control over the urban regions. While security probably improved somewhat on the countryside - far away from the borders between the differing factions - the country as a whole was turned into a military anarchy with deteriorated life standards and security for all people.

About Ireland and Iceland: Ireland was divided into several small counties, run by a multitude of quite poor noblemen with large families. The Celtic Church was a rather progressive institution during much of Ireland's history. The country did often have small feuds developing into wars between different clans, but the reason that Ireland was comparably peaceful during those years was that Europe was engulfed by migrations.

Iceland is an even more interesting example, because medieval Iceland actually reminds of Somalia after 1990. It was a clan society, with no towns and hardly any villages. Instead, most of its (tiny) population lived in large, extended farms. Most people on the island were servants or paid guards to large farmers. Not unlike Ireland, Iceland was also plagued by feuds between families, evidenced by the Icelandic national epic "The Saga of Njál" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nj%C3%A1ls_saga).

Sicily in the 19th century is also an example. There was hardly any functioning taxation whatsoever. The island was a large exporter of citrus fruits, and heavily divided between poor seasonal workers and small estate owners. The estate owners paid a private militia, known as "mafias", to defend themselves against both workers demanding higher wages and other plantation owners. The absence of a functioning state in Sicily made it possible for the mafias to establish their own counter-state, built on voluntary service to the mafias from an army of clients who in return for services for the mafia, ranging from legal things to murder (cause they have no money to pay the mafias with), earn the protection of the mafia they have sworn their loyalty to.

What is also striking about both Ireland, Iceland and Sicily, is that all three regions have had a culture of strong extended family ties, almost clan-like systems. The same as Somalia. In regions with more individualistic traditions, such "orders" would break down more quickly, and probably create a lot more bloodshed due to a larger number of unprotected individuals who could be preyed upon.

Now I wonder. Do you think it is natural to live in a society where you would need to kill others in order to fend for yourself?

I really don't think Lebanon in the 90's serves as a counterexample to private police. As for Somalia, the statistics show (I can dig them up if you want) that in virtually every measure of standard of living, results have gone up. This is a very clear instance where no State is far better than the alternative.

There were feuds in Ireland and Iceland, and neither of these countries really had free markets in protection However, they do serve as counterexamples to widely held myths about public police. On another note, part of the reason why Ireland was so difficult for England to conquer and control was precisely because you needed to physically occupy it. Another advantage of a decentralized legal order is that aggressors cannot just take over a capital city and control the government and then declare victory.

I don't really know too much about Sicily in that time period, but I am pretty sure the Kingdom of the two Sicilies did at least have a functioning State. I'm going to look into it though.

What is also striking about both Ireland, Iceland and Sicily, is that all three regions have had a culture of strong extended family ties, almost clan-like systems. The same as Somalia. In regions with more individualistic traditions, such "orders" would break down more quickly, and probably create a lot more bloodshed due to a larger number of unprotected individuals who could be preyed upon.

I agree that it depends on the society. But given the realistic alternatives, anarchy will almost always produce better results in my opinion. Take Somalia. Your not going to get a well functioning democracy like you have in the European countries or America. Instead, you will have a highly parasitic government. Likewise, anarchy in America won't look like the chaos you see in Somalia.

Now I wonder. Do you think it is natural to live in a society where you would need to kill others in order to fend for yourself?

That is a hard question to answer because it can be interpenetrated in many ways. I don't think it is somehow unnatural for humans to kill others to fend for themselves, but I think society can be structured in ways to prevent or minimize this from happening. I don't think it is somehow against our nature to kill in order to fend for ourselves, although such a situation is undesirable.

Then by all means, let's have a one-on-one economics debate in this forum, since you're restricted.

If you really want to, sure. But I really don't have the time or the energy to do it right now. I have spring break coming up, so maybe then. Just to be clear, what economic school do you subscribe to? I am an Austrian, but I do have differences concerning methodology from many Austrians, and I like to pick little tidbits from other schools to adopt as well.

In the context of the capitalist economy, the necessary mechanism for the control of externalities and correction of that particular failure is the application of Pigovian taxation, the utilization of state controls to minimize asymmetric information and agency problems and costs, and the incorporation of such policy as antitrust legislation to combat market power and maintain competition rather than concentration. We can also refer to the likes of strategic trade policy incorporating substantial state intervention for the purpose of protecting the development of infant industries, the role of the welfare state as a necessary tool in sustaining the physical efficiency of the working class and therefore efficiency in general, etc.

As for the problem of externalities, I think a lot of them go away with proper enforcement of private property (pollution for example). Then again, not all externalities are bad. Finally, I think most people who mention externalities do not properly take into the account of what the cost is to eliminate these externalities. Could we eliminate or drastically reduce pollution? Sure we could. Is it advisable? Given the costs on output, I would say no.

I think antitrust legislation rarely performs its intended function. But anyways, I do not think antitrust legislation is even required. I don't view natural monopoly as something we need to worry about in the first place.

IcarusAngel

15th February 2010, 22:47

I am pretty sure I understand economics of all schools (except maybe Marxist economics) better than you. I am asking for examples of what you put in bold that proves that the market cannot provide all goods and services.

You don't even know calculus and statistics; how do you reason that you know more about economics than people here who are well versed in mathematics. And your obsession with "schools" of thought shows your anti-scientific attitude towards the subject. Either something is true or it isn't true; it doesn't matter what "school" it's coming from. There is no such thing as "Newton school" or "Einstein school" in physics for example, there is physics, end of discussion.

gorillafuck

15th February 2010, 23:13

As for Somalia, the statistics show (I can dig them up if you want) that in virtually every measure of standard of living, results have gone up. This is a very clear instance where no State is far better than the alternative.
Please do.

Skooma Addict

15th February 2010, 23:59

You don't even know calculus and statistics; how do you reason that you know more about economics than people here who are well versed in mathematics. And your obsession with "schools" of thought shows your anti-scientific attitude towards the subject. Either something is true or it isn't true; it doesn't matter what "school" it's coming from. There is no such thing as "Newton school" or "Einstein school" in physics for example, there is physics, end of discussion.This just shows your ignorance. There is a definite difference between the different schools of economics. Literally every economist distinguishes between the different schools. Also, the physics of Einstien and Newton are different. The term "Newtonian Physics" exists for a reason.

Skooma Addict

16th February 2010, 00:03

Please do.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

If you don't want to read the whole thing, go to page 12.

gorillafuck

16th February 2010, 00:50

I'm sorry, pdf's don't work for me.

16th February 2010, 00:59

Oh the irony of the OP's name, there's also great irony in ComradeMan debunking your claims.

Agnapostate

16th February 2010, 01:53

As for the problem of externalities, I think a lot of them go away with proper enforcement of private property (pollution for example). Then again, not all externalities are bad. Finally, I think most people who mention externalities do not properly take into the account of what the cost is to eliminate these externalities. Could we eliminate or drastically reduce pollution? Sure we could. Is it advisable? Given the costs on output, I would say no.

In the context of the capitalist economy, Pigovian taxation is the only across-the-board mechanism designed to combat negative externalities, as it forces the consumer to face the true (social) cost of his or her purchase or practice. You'll need more than some abstract reference to the Coase theorem (or worse, a vague mention of "proper enforcement of private property"); you'll need precise and concrete policy proposals.

I think antitrust legislation rarely performs its intended function. But anyways, I do not think antitrust legislation is even required. I don't view natural monopoly as something we need to worry about in the first place.

Then by all means, elaborate on the proposed means of eliminating and/or minimizing market power. Concentration has been an element of the capitalist economy for the entire history of its existence, after all. It was the basis for Adam Smith's eighteenth century comment that:

To widen the market, and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

This extended into the nineteenth century, as illustrated through John Stuart Mill's protest of the effects of market power on fair competition in which producers rose and fell based on their own merits and abilities:

Sir, I beg to enclose a subscription of [10 pounds] to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it.

But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.

While I realize that the supporter of Austrian economics is inclined to boast of capitalism's merits during the high phases of the business cycle and condemn the evils of "corporatism" during the low phases, I hope you, at least, can do better.

IcarusAngel

16th February 2010, 02:55

This just shows your ignorance. There is a definite difference between the different schools of economics. Literally every economist distinguishes between the different schools. Also, the physics of Einstien and Newton are different. The term "Newtonian Physics" exists for a reason.

A nice attempt to distort reality. A failed attempt, but an effort nonetheless.

Newtonian physics (more commonly known as classical mechanics) is still used because it produces accurate results with much simpiler equations. It's also used in colleges because it serves as an easier introduction to Kinematics and other subjects. Even though it is said to have been "replaced" it thus still has its purpose.

An anology might be atomic theory. Most biologists, chemists, and high school students are taught the theories of Dalton and Mendeleev. Of course, these theories have been superseded by Anton, Rutherford, and Bohr. In any case you often begin with tthe table of elements, then learn about electrons and protons and mixtures of isotopes, then Planck's constant, probably at college level, etc.

And also with Newtonian physics, you could consider it to be operating in a different domain, thus it is not only useful but correct as well.

Skooma Addict

16th February 2010, 03:54

In the context of the capitalist economy, Pigovian taxation is the only across-the-board mechanism designed to combat negative externalities, as it forces the consumer to face the true (social) cost of his or her purchase or practice. You'll need more than some abstract reference to the Coase theorem (or worse, a vague mention of "proper enforcement of private property"); you'll need precise and concrete policy proposals.

Why can't I mention proper enforcement of private property? If someone pollutes your land, you can sue them. Industries in the past have been allowed by government to pollute the land of others. Landowners are driven by the profit incentive to keep their property clean.

Then by all means, elaborate on the proposed means of eliminating and/or minimizing market power. Concentration has been an element of the capitalist economy for the entire history of its existence, after all.

With the complete removal of all barriers to entry, people can easily enter any inefficient industry (where profit opportunities emerge). I think there would be very large firms, but I have no problem with that. I don't think there would be monopolies (except maybe in some small villages) since it would be too difficult to become so big in the first place, and even more difficult to maintain a monopoly status. There will be large firms and small firms.

So what is your proposed economics system?

A nice attempt to distort reality. A failed attempt, but an effort nonetheless.

Newtonian physics (more commonly known as classical mechanics) is still used because it produces accurate results with much simpiler equations. It's also used in colleges because it serves as an easier introduction to Kinematics and other subjects. Even though it is said to have been "replaced" it thus still has its purpose.

An anology might be atomic theory. Most biologists, chemists, and high school students are taught the theories of Dalton and Mendeleev. Of course, these theories have been superseded by Anton, Rutherford, and Bohr. In any case you often begin with tthe table of elements, then learn about electrons and protons and mixtures of isotopes, then Planck's constant, probably at college level, etc.

And also with Newtonian physics, you could consider it to be operating in a different domain, thus it is not only useful but correct as well.

My whole point is that there is a purpose in distinguishing between Newtonian and modern physics. This is even more true when it comes to economics, since there is not as much consensus as their is in physics.

Agnapostate

16th February 2010, 04:48

Why can't I mention proper enforcement of private property? If someone pollutes your land, you can sue them. Industries in the past have been allowed by government to pollute the land of others. Landowners are driven by the profit incentive to keep their property clean.

Fanciful utopianism, nothing more. It's precisely that the profit motive is a negative force in the context of the capitalist economy that forms the basis of objections to negative externalities; lower prices can be gained through the imposition of increased costs on others. I'm sure that when floating air currents are privately owned and properly managed by defense agencies, things will be magical and pristine with unicorns shitting rainbows every which way, but what about actually existing capitalism?

With the complete removal of all barriers to entry, people can easily enter any inefficient industry (where profit opportunities emerge). I think there would be very large firms, but I have no problem with that. I don't think there would be monopolies (except maybe in some small villages) since it would be too difficult to become so big in the first place, and even more difficult to maintain a monopoly status. There will be large firms and small firms.

The "complete removal of all barriers to entry" constitutes a utopian fantasy in the context of discussions of capitalism; such conditions have never existed and will never exist so long as the private ownership of the means of production and a growth imperative exist alongside each other. That the destruction of efficiency associated with horizontal organization is in the interests of current firm owners is the reason for the widespread prevalence of concentration (and not simply monopoly), as you'd know if you consulted the Herfindahl Index. Why are your statements all based on assertions rather than arguments? "Oh, there won't be barriers to entry. Oh, but we have to enforce private property and things turn out all right." Moreover, advocacy of very large firms simply means that you haven't been reading your Hayek and don't understand the distributed and tacit knowledge problems that adversely impact such organizational structures currently.

So what is your proposed economics system?

Hookers and whiskey. What of it?

Agnapostate

16th February 2010, 04:49

And where's your comment on asymmetric information? Do you not know what it is? How do "private defense agencies" minimize adverse selection and moral hazard, or principal-agent problems, given the division of ownership, management, and labor that "anarcho"-capitalists seem to endorse? What of the infant industries argument? What of the superior efficiency levels of social democracies, welfare state incorporating capitalist economies that they are?

Demogorgon

16th February 2010, 11:38

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

If you don't want to read the whole thing, go to page 12.
What those statistics like to ignore is that most of the improvements took place in Somaliland (thus pushing up the overall figures) which does have a functioning Government.

Skooma Addict

16th February 2010, 13:59

Fanciful utopianism, nothing more. It's precisely that the profit motive is a negative force in the context of the capitalist economy that forms the basis of objections to negative externalities; lower prices can be gained through the imposition of increased costs on others. I'm sure that when floating air currents are privately owned and properly managed by defense agencies, things will be magical and pristine with unicorns shitting rainbows every which way, but what about actually existing capitalism?

The "complete removal of all barriers to entry" constitutes a utopian fantasy in the context of discussions of capitalism; such conditions have never existed and will never exist so long as the private ownership of the means of production and a growth imperative exist alongside each other. That the destruction of efficiency associated with horizontal organization is in the interests of current firm owners is the reason for the widespread prevalence of concentration (and not simply monopoly), as you'd know if you consulted the Herfindahl Index. Why are your statements all based on assertions rather than arguments? "Oh, there won't be barriers to entry. Oh, but we have to enforce private property and things turn out all right." Moreover, advocacy of very large firms simply means that you haven't been reading your Hayek and don't understand the distributed and tacit knowledge problems that adversely impact such organizational structures currently.

I am not going to have another debate explaining why my arguments aren't utopian. Also, I have read Hayek, and I do think there is a knowledge problem that can arise in firms. Don't make assumptions.

Hookers and whiskey. What of it?

Seriously though. Are you an anarcho-comunist?

And where's your comment on asymmetric information? Do you not know what it is? How do "private defense agencies" minimize adverse selection and moral hazard, or principal-agent problems, given the division of ownership, management, and labor that "anarcho"-capitalists seem to endorse? What of the infant industries argument? What of the superior efficiency levels of social democracies, welfare state incorporating capitalist economies that they are?

Yes I know what asymmetric information is. I know that the infant industries argument exists, but I am not familiar with it. I'm trying not to get into this debate right now. I also have a rule that I debate methodology before I debate economics. This solves a lot of potential problems beforehand.

RGacky3

16th February 2010, 14:18

With the complete removal of all barriers to entry, people can easily enter any inefficient industry (where profit opportunities emerge). I think there would be very large firms, but I have no problem with that. I don't think there would be monopolies (except maybe in some small villages) since it would be too difficult to become so big in the first place, and even more difficult to maintain a monopoly status. There will be large firms and small firms.

So what is your proposed economics system?

None of those claims have any backing, as far as barriers to entry, most barriers to entry are just part of the free market. ALso you have no real evidence to show that it would be difficult to become so big? Its much easier for someone with a relatively large part of the market to get a larger part than it is for someone with a samll part of the markte to get a larger part, this is elementry stuff, its not so hard to understand that its easier to make money with a lot of money.

Thats teh problem with the free market and property laws, you WILL end up with large businesses controlling virtually everything.

Why can't I mention proper enforcement of private property? If someone pollutes your land, you can sue them. Industries in the past have been allowed by government to pollute the land of others. Landowners are driven by the profit incentive to keep their property clean.

So pretty much unless there is a profit motive in the externality its ok. So the solution? Dump everything on the poor, they can't afford enforcement anyway.

Agnapostate

16th February 2010, 19:26

I am not going to have another debate explaining why my arguments aren't utopian.

Then let's not pretend that you know more about economics than members here that you refuse to engage. It's a shallow charade.

Also, I have read Hayek, and I do think there is a knowledge problem that can arise in firms. Don't make assumptions.

You'll understand that the existence of very large firms simply isn't a likely outcome in the existence of free market competition in which barriers to entry are nonexistent. Advocacy of them indicates that you've not understood why, or the reason that small competitive firms are more likely to be more efficient.

Seriously though.

I don't see how that's any less serious than "anarcho"-capitalism.

Yes I know what asymmetric information is.

Then what mechanism exists under "anarcho"-capitalist conditions that prevents the emergence of agency problems such as adverse selection and moral hazard? What prevents principal-agent problems, considering your support of the existence of "very large firms" and a division between ownership, management, and labor?

I know that the infant industries argument exists, but I am not familiar with it.

Here's a refresher. (http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch100/T100-4.php) That state intervention ultimately increases market competition and dynamic comparative advantage in the long run in the context of the capitalist economy is a hard blow to laissez-faire utopianists.

I'm trying not to get into this debate right now. I also have a rule that I debate methodology before I debate economics. This solves a lot of potential problems beforehand.

More eloquently phrased, you reject empirical research that contradicts your ideological positions on account of the impossibility of isolating variables and making sound determinations, which is naturally ever so invalid compared to a priori reasoning and deductions from self-evident logical axioms. :lol:

StalinFanboy

16th February 2010, 19:56

Well, you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelot...

Skooma Addict

16th February 2010, 22:32

My god...

Then let's not pretend that you know more about economics than members here that you refuse to engage. It's a shallow charade.Except I did say I would debate you when I have the time for a long and formal debate. It was also you who insulted me first. Your just being disingenuous.

You'll understand that the existence of very large firms simply isn't a likely outcome in the existence of free market competition in which barriers to entry are nonexistent. Advocacy of them indicates that you've not understood why, or the reason that small competitive firms are more likely to be more efficient.No, you don't know what your talking about. There is no reason to suspect that there won't be any large firms, as large firms are clearly superior for certain industries. Take a business class. Also, since you (incorrectly) don't think there would be large firms in a free market, doesn't this undermine the concentration of power and the natural monopoly arguments?

I don't see how that's any less serious than "anarcho"-capitalism.Not telling me your beliefs so you can remain free from criticism? How honest.

Then what mechanism exists under "anarcho"-capitalist conditions that prevents the emergence of agency problems such as adverse selection and moral hazard? What prevents principal-agent problems, considering your support of the existence of "very large firms" and a division between ownership, management, and labor?I think adverse selection can be a problem, but I think the market does a good enough job with it with things like insurance and reputation. Most moral hazard occurs thanks to government intervention. This is especially true in banking. I don't think I can completely prevent moral hazard though. I don't see what the problem is with a division of ownership, management, and labor. If this is supposed to be our "debate," it is a terrible one which is structured poorly. You won't even tell me what you believe. I am not going to do this now.

None of this by the way is half as bad as the problems which you would encounter under any form of communism.

More eloquently phrased, you reject empirical research that contradicts your ideological positions on account of the impossibility of isolating variables and making sound determinations, which is naturally ever so invalid compared to a priori reasoning and deductions from self-evident logical axioms. :lol:Well, not exactly. I am a methodological pluralist, and I don't reject empirical research. I will need to know what methodology you apply to economics before I even debate you. In fact, methodology often times merits its own debate. I want to know if you use the hypothetico-deductive method, enumerative induction ect.

Comrade B

17th February 2010, 01:12

This is not encouraging a debate, this thread is just a collection of capitalist propaganda and shit.

If he wanted an answer on the validity of the statistics, there are a shit load of threads made in the past. He could have simply looked it up or asked if the numbers were correct.

Also, there are no sources provided for your numbers. You could be A. Pulling them out of your ass or B. Pulling them out of some other moron's ass. Give us a real argument or don't waste anyone's time.

In addition,
Get off your fucking pedestal anarcho capitalist. Your society would only devolve into a slave state, and that is only if you can convince more than 5 people that they would be better off in a society where the wealthy have the right to do anything they want.

PS- In my view, Che is the only communist on your list, and your number for him is fucking stupid.

Che was a soldier. Soldiers kill people. Then he became a revolutionary political figure in a society which was previously run by the scum of the earth and were supported by some sick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista) mother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bosch) fuckers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada)

I am a Trotskyist and in no way a supporter of Stalinism, but your argument is shit. I am not defending Stalinism, I am just telling you that you are full of shit.

Agnapostate

17th February 2010, 22:22

No, you don't know what your talking about. There is no reason to suspect that there won't be any large firms, as large firms are clearly superior for certain industries. Take a business class.

There are certainly sound Hayekian reasons to believe that small-scale worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives would be the primary form of organization in a free market economy, mainly related to the elimination of distributed and tacit knowledge and principal-agent problems that such a form of organization facilitates. That you don't understand labor economics certainly isn't my failing.

Also, since you (incorrectly) don't think there would be large firms in a free market, doesn't this undermine the concentration of power and the natural monopoly arguments?

No, as any legitimate free market must be socialist in nature. It is only the capitalist economy (which will never be able to sustain any free market), that is subject to a prevalence of market power.

Not telling me your beliefs so you can remain free from criticism? How honest.

This is the OI forum; my "beliefs" are not opposing ideology. Besides, looking out for your best interests as I am, I'd naturally hate to see you buried under a pile-on...

I think adverse selection can be a problem, but I think the market does a good enough job with it with things like insurance and reputation. Most moral hazard occurs thanks to government intervention. This is especially true in banking. I don't think I can completely prevent moral hazard though. I don't see what the problem is with a division of ownership, management, and labor.

Agency problems are currently corrected through governmental mitigation of asymmetric information as accomplished through the establishment of mandatory disclosure regulations. In the context of the labor market, asymmetric information is minimized through governmental programs such as unemployment insurance, which permits the unemployed to extend their job search period and ensure appropriate skills set matches with employers, which minimizes underemployment, thereby reducing economic inefficiency.

A division of ownership, management, and labor causes principal-agent problems, also known as agency dilemmas, since the divergent interests of principals and agents (compounded by the abundance of asymmetric information in the capitalist labor market), reduces efficiency. For example, owners may wish to reduce work hours in an efficient firm, but as managers and laborers will oppose the parallel salary reduction that this entails, they have a perverse incentive to perform less efficiently.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Principal_agent.png

This problem is eliminated through the unification of ownership and management in the hands of the workers, since self-interests are aligned and all have a natural interest in firm efficiency.

If this is supposed to be our "debate," it is a terrible one which is structured poorly.

Argued poorly on your end would be a better description.

None of this by the way is half as bad as the problems which you would encounter under any form of communism.

I sincerely doubt that, but why the red herring?

Well, not exactly. I am a methodological pluralist, and I don't reject empirical research. I will need to know what methodology you apply to economics before I even debate you. In fact, methodology often times merits its own debate. I want to know if you use the hypothetico-deductive method, enumerative induction ect.

I prefer the praxeological approach. By rejecting all opposing empirical evidence despite my lack of knowledge of it, I'm able to worship my fellow moron Murray for life! :thumbup1:

Skooma Addict

17th February 2010, 23:48

I don't know why I am even doing this but whatever...

There are certainly sound Hayekian reasons to believe that small-scale worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives would be the primary form of organization in a free market economy, mainly related to the elimination of distributed and tacit knowledge and principal-agent problems that such a form of organization facilitates. That you don't understand labor economics certainly isn't my failing. Your just flat out wrong here. In certain industries, large scale firms are far superior. Large scale firms are better able to run large and efficient distribution networks. They can also often times better combat the bullwhip effect, where small businesses are many times less able to cope. As far as supply chains go, large firms can enjoy clear advantages. The ability to search for an area that can support a group of new stores (not just a single store), and then set up a central DC is now an industry standard (Walmart pioneered it). I can list many more advantages too. Yes there are some disadvantages with large firms, but it is just not true that they won't exist or be near extinction in a free market. It largely depends on the industry.

No, as any legitimate free market must be socialist in nature. It is only the capitalist economy (which will never be able to sustain any free market), that is subject to a prevalence of market power.Well good luck achieving that with a population which by and large supports private property.

This is the OI forum; my "beliefs" are not opposing ideology. Besides, looking out for your best interests as I am, I'd naturally hate to see you buried under a pile-on...Haha. Here is my guess. You are an anarcho-communist, but you won't tell me because the concept is so darn easy to criticize on economic terms.

Agency problems are currently corrected through governmental mitigation of asymmetric information as accomplished through the establishment of mandatory disclosure regulations. In the context of the labor market, asymmetric information is minimized through governmental programs such as unemployment insurance, which permits the unemployed to extend their job search period and ensure appropriate skills set matches with employers, which minimizes underemployment, thereby reducing economic inefficiency.

A division of ownership, management, and labor causes principal-agent problems, also known as agency dilemmas, since the divergent interests of principals and agents (compounded by the abundance of asymmetric information in the capitalist labor market), reduces efficiency. For example, owners may wish to reduce work hours in an efficient firm, but as managers and laborers will oppose the parallel salary reduction that this entails, they have a perverse incentive to perform less efficiently.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Principal_agent.png

This problem is eliminated through the unification of ownership and management in the hands of the workers, since self-interests are aligned and all have a natural interest in firm efficiency.Except for the small problem that providing employment insurance requires taking funds which would have been spent in production, and giving them to people who are literally doing nothing. So now prove to me that these funds will be better spent than they would have been by the market. I don't think there will be long term unemployment in a free market anyways. So the insurance isn't even necessary to begin with.

So how do divergent interests reduce efficiency?

Argued poorly on your end would be a better description.Says the guy who refuses to...

1.) Tell me what his economic and political beliefs are.
2.) Tell me what methodology he subscribes to.

I sincerely doubt that, but why the red herring?Oh no its not a red herring. The fact that you completely refuse to subject your own belies from critical examination is very telling.

I prefer the praxeological approach. By rejecting all opposing empirical evidence despite my lack of knowledge of it, I'm able to worship my fellow moron Murray for life! :thumbup1:
As far as worshiping goes, that is done most by the communists. Have you even given any concern to methodology?

gorillafuck

18th February 2010, 02:00

Well good luck achieving that with a population which by and large supports private property.
Says a person who wants to abolish any form of non-private government. What matters is the idea that's being argued, not whether it's currently a widely popular idea.

Agnapostate

18th February 2010, 02:50

I don't know why I am even doing this

And you shouldn't be; you're performing exceptionally poorly.

Your just flat out wrong here. In certain industries, large scale firms are far superior. Large scale firms are better able to run large and efficient distribution networks. They can also often times better combat the bullwhip effect, where small businesses are many times less able to cope. As far as supply chains go, large firms can enjoy clear advantages. The ability to search for an area that can support a group of new stores (not just a single store), and then set up a central DC is now an industry standard (Walmart pioneered it). I can list many more advantages too. Yes there are some disadvantages with large firms, but it is just not true that they won't exist or be near extinction in a free market. It largely depends on the industry.

The existence of very large firms indicates concentration, and market power cannot exist in a free market economy. Organization into the orthodox capitalist firm, with its hierarchical and top-down nature, is simply not an optimal form of firm arrangement, considering the knowledge problems that you repeatedly ignore without commenting on (assuring us that you know what they are, of course!) and the fact that horizontal organization via workers' ownership and democratic management yields a more efficient outcome. That the prevalence of Wal-Mart outlets results in reduced wages and employment in local economies should be an indication of the consequences of market power.

Well good luck achieving that with a population which by and large supports private property.

No, I'm afraid most people aren't content with the monopolization of productive resources and assets by a small minority of the population or the utopian and naive little ill-conceived defenses babbled about by our Internet Misesians and their textbook theory.

Haha. Here is my guess. You are an anarcho-communist, but you won't tell me because the concept is so darn easy to criticize on economic terms.

No. My approach integrates neoclassical, institutionalist, Austrian, and Marxist economics. Socialists, particularly market socialists, continue to be masters of political economy.

Except for the small problem that providing employment insurance requires taking funds which would have been spent in production, and giving them to people who are literally doing nothing. So now prove to me that these funds will be better spent than they would have been by the market.

And poverty is undoubtedly caused by a lack of hard work and an inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps too. Try to provide some actual criticism of the role of unemployment insurance as a necessary mechanism in the presence of job search frictions instead of repeating inane cliches.

I don't think there will be long term unemployment in a free market anyways. So the insurance isn't even necessary to begin with.

And perhaps you'll be mining uranium from the surface of Ganymede too. Stop wasting our time with this idiotic utopianism; we're not interested in worthless textbook fantasies that have no greater relevance than neoclassical perfect competition.

So how do divergent interests reduce efficiency?

The problem is that you literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I elaborated on the standard labor economics perspective, which you quoted in its entirety, but you only offered a shallow and platitudinous little taking point in response to the issue of unemployment insurance.

Says the guy who refuses to...

1.) Tell me what his economic and political beliefs are.
2.) Tell me what methodology he subscribes to.

What's the matter with you? I'm a praxeologist. I don't know why that should trouble you; it means we'll save time since I'll ignore any empirical research that you post. :)

Oh no its not a red herring. The fact that you completely refuse to subject your own belies from critical examination is very telling.

My "belies," as you term them, are not opposing ideology. Therefore, they have no relation to the opposing ideology forum. Right now, we're examining your advocacy of capitalism despite your lack of ability to ever be a capitalist yourself. It's amusing, as plenty of socialists are successful capitalists, organizing in worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives.

As far as worshiping goes, that is done most by the communists. Have you even given any concern to methodology?

"The communists"? Oaf, you're simply another drone in the cultish mass of Internet acolytes of the Austrian school. Even the major Austrian economists that your ilk have a tendency to venerate lack the ability to develop a coherent theory of the firm or understand labor economics; what makes you believe that you can?

Skooma Addict

18th February 2010, 03:23

The existence of very large firms indicates concentration, and market power cannot exist in a free market economy. Organization into the orthodox capitalist firm, with its hierarchical and top-down nature, is simply not an optimal form of firm arrangement, considering the knowledge problems that you repeatedly ignore without commenting on (assuring us that you know what they are, of course!) and the fact that horizontal organization via workers' ownership and democratic management yields a more efficient outcome. That the prevalence of Wal-Mart outlets results in reduced wages and employment in local economies should be an indication of the consequences of market power.Well, you refuted absolutely nothing I said. So my points stand.

No, I'm afraid most people aren't content with the monopolization of productive resources and assets by a small minority of the population or the utopian and naive little ill-conceived defenses babbled about by our Internet Misesians and their textbook theory.In a society where the vast majority supports private property, there is no reason to assume that private property will not remain the dominant form of property in the absence on the state. If there is a society of devout socialists, then statelessness will look different.

No. My approach integrates neoclassical, institutionalist, Austrian, and Marxist economics. Socialists, particularly market socialists, continue to be masters of political economy. Wow that isn't vague at all. You have yet to tell me what you even believe. Why are you so reluctant?

And poverty is undoubtedly caused by a lack of hard work and an inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps too. Try to provide some actual criticism of the role of unemployment insurance as a necessary mechanism in the presence of job search frictions instead of repeating inane cliches.The important thing is that you didn't refute what I said.

And perhaps you'll be mining uranium from the surface of Ganymede too. Stop wasting our time with this idiotic utopianism; we're not interested in worthless textbook fantasies that have no greater relevance than neoclassical perfect competition.
Lol, what am I supposed to do? I make an argument, and every time this is what you resort to.

The problem is that you literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I elaborated on the standard labor economics perspective, which you quoted in its entirety, but you only offered a shallow and platitudinous little taking point in response to the issue of unemployment insurance.Didn't answer the question I see. Nothing you said so far explains why a division of ownership, labor, and management decreases efficiency.

What's the matter with you? I'm a praxeologist. I don't know why that should trouble you; it means we'll save time since I'll ignore any empirical research that you post. :)
I am beginning to think that you haven't given methodology any thought.

My "belies," as you term them, are not opposing ideology. Therefore, they have no relation to the opposing ideology forum. Right now, we're examining your advocacy of capitalism despite your lack of ability to ever be a capitalist yourself. It's amusing, as plenty of socialists are successful capitalists, organizing in worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives. Lol, this is just great. So you proposed that we have a debate, yet you won't even tell me what you believe.

"The communists"? Oaf, you're simply another drone in the cultish mass of Internet acolytes of the Austrian school. Even the major Austrian economists that your ilk have a tendency to venerate lack the ability to develop a coherent theory of the firm or understand labor economics; what makes you believe that you can?Are you angry when you type this?

Agnapostate

18th February 2010, 06:22

Well, you refuted absolutely nothing I said. So my points stand.

You didn't erect points to begin with, so they never got off the ground, and hardly "stand." What you actually did was repeat assertions over and over again without argumentative justification.

Me: "Large firms are likely to be more inefficient because of the knowledge problems that excessively centralized organizational structures encounter, as well as the greater productivity of horizontal democracy."

Oaf: "I know about knowledge problems! But they don't exist in the free market!"

Me: "Why continue to make baseless assertions? Have you considered the advancement of actual arguments?"

Oaf: "Free market!"

In a society where the vast majority supports private property, there is no reason to assume that private property will not remain the dominant form of property in the absence on the state. If there is a society of devout socialists, then statelessness will look different.

Actually, there exists intuitive opposition to minority ownership and control of productive resources and a natural instinct for self-management. No amount of elitist dictatorship can crush the thirst for liberty, dear chap.

Wow that isn't vague at all. You have yet to tell me what you even believe. Why are you so reluctant?

Reluctant? I am an advocate of socialism; I promote the public ownership and management of the means of production. I am able to incorporate neoclassical, Austrian, institutional, and Marxist economic approaches to promote that, whereas you simply have a set of rather battered and overused talking points. That said, socialism is not an opposing ideology, and its complex discussion is thus not a frequent occurrence in the opposing ideologies forum.

The important thing is that you didn't refute what I said.

You didn't say anything. You flatly ignored the point about unemployment insurance being a necessary mechanism in the context of the capitalist labor market, characterized by job search frictions as it is, in order to regurgitate a platitudinous talking point. "I's a hater of dat stalinism; dey's stealing from pet-aah to pay pole." That underemployment, a form of static inefficiency, is reduced, is apparently irrelevant to you.

Lol, what am I supposed to do? I make an argument, and every time this is what you resort to.

You haven't made a single argument. You've simply engaged in feeble chanting about the "free market" over and over again, uttering assertions without argument or supporting evidence. You could incorporate this into a Teletubbie song, perhaps, but not much more than that.

Didn't answer the question I see. Nothing you said so far explains why a division of ownership, labor, and management decreases efficiency.

Principal-agent problems have been mentioned over and over again; the fact that workers' ownership and management is a more efficient organizational form than hierarchical governance has not stopped being repeated. That you know nothing about labor economics and therefore understand none of this isn't my problem.

I am beginning to think that you haven't given methodology any thought.

Heaven forbid that you'd suggest that praxeology is methodologically illegitimate.

Lol, this is just great. So you proposed that we have a debate, yet you won't even tell me what you believe.

We're not having a debate. An Ewok, you, is having a duel with Darth Vader. What we're doing is analyzing your advocacy of capitalism, which is opposing ideology, not my advocacy of socialism, which is not.

Are you angry when you type this?

More bored than anything else. You're not anything I haven't slapped down dozens of times before, which I should have realized when I first encountered you repeating stereotypical misconceptions about ethical theory.

Skooma Addict

18th February 2010, 13:59

You didn't erect points to begin with, so they never got off the ground, and hardly "stand." What you actually did was repeat assertions over and over again without argumentative justification.

Me: "Large firms are likely to be more inefficient because of the knowledge problems that excessively centralized organizational structures encounter, as well as the greater productivity of horizontal democracy."

Oaf: "I know about knowledge problems! But they don't exist in the free market!"

Me: "Why continue to make baseless assertions? Have you considered the advancement of actual arguments?"

Oaf: "Free market!"

Funny because I specifically said that I do think knowledge problems can arise in firms. Also, I did mention points where large firms have advantages over smaller ones, which you ignored.

Actually, there exists intuitive opposition to minority ownership and control of productive resources and a natural instinct for self-management. No amount of elitist dictatorship can crush the thirst for liberty, dear chap.

Look, if there is a society that overwhelmingly supports private property, then there is good reason to believe that will be the dominant form of property in the absence of a state. I don't think there is much denying this.

Reluctant? I am an advocate of socialism; I promote the public ownership and management of the means of production. I am able to incorporate neoclassical, Austrian, institutional, and Marxist economic approaches to promote that, whereas you simply have a set of rather battered and overused talking points. That said, socialism is not an opposing ideology, and its complex discussion is thus not a frequent occurrence in the opposing ideologies forum.

So I will start off with a very standard argument. What is the incentive to work hard?

You didn't say anything. You flatly ignored the point about unemployment insurance being a necessary mechanism in the context of the capitalist labor market, characterized by job search frictions as it is, in order to regurgitate a platitudinous talking point. "I's a hater of dat stalinism; dey's stealing from pet-aah to pay pole." That underemployment, a form of static inefficiency, is reduced, is apparently irrelevant to you.

But I did respond to that point. I mentioned how you need to show that these funds are being better spent than they would have been. I also said that I don't believe there would be long term unemployment anyways.

You haven't made a single argument. You've simply engaged in feeble chanting about the "free market" over and over again, uttering assertions without argument or supporting evidence. You could incorporate this into a Teletubbie song, perhaps, but not much more than that.

But I did make arguments. For example, I provided arguments for why there will be large firms in a free market.

Principal-agent problems have been mentioned over and over again; the fact that workers' ownership and management is a more efficient organizational form than hierarchical governance has not stopped being repeated. That you know nothing about labor economics and therefore understand none of this isn't my problem.

I know that you keep repeating "The fact is that workers ownership is more efficient." But you haven't explained why this is the case.

More bored than anything else. You're not anything I haven't slapped down dozens of times before, which I should have realized when I first encountered you repeating stereotypical misconceptions about ethical theory.

You mean when you completely and utterly failed to defend utilitarianism from the most basic criticisms?