Free Market Socialism

[Left-Reasoning]

Thoughts?

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod

[Cal Engime]

What is free market socialism?

[Left-Reasoning]

What is free market socialism?

"There are two Socialisms...
One says:
The land to the State
The mine to the State
The tool to the State
The product to the State
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other." - Ernest Lesigne

[Cal Engime]

Ernest Lesigne wrote that.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Free Market Socialism....hahaaaha

[Left-Reasoning]

Ernest Lesigne wrote that.

After doing some research, it appears that you are correct. I apologize for the misquote, it was published in Benjamin Tucker's Liberty after one of his articles and that is where the confusion comes from. I have fixed the error. Thank you.

[Left-Reasoning]

Free Market Socialism....hahaaaha

You don't think socialism could out-compete capitalism in a free market? Without the state to protect the capitalists' perverted notion of property rights, I don't see how they stand a chance.

[Drace]

What do you mean by socialism?

Co-operatives?

[FSL]

You don't think socialism could out-compete capitalism in a free market? Without the state to protect the capitalists' perverted notion of property rights, I don't see how they stand a chance.


Probably, because their gigantic companies can outperform your little anarchist soap-making collective. You know, it's what science and reason would let us think. Not that these things are useful in any way of course, just saying.

[¿Que?]

Is this related to bourgeois socialism, or does this also fall under the no longer relevant part of the manifesto. Blah!

[Argument]

Probably, because their gigantic companies can outperform your little anarchist soap-making collective.The gigantic companies would fall without the aid of state given privileges, unless they decide to use extensive coercion. If they do, then I hope that people would boycott them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The gigantic companies would fall without the aid of state given privileges, unless they decide to use extensive coercion. If they do, then I hope that people would boycott them.True in the abstract for large and small companies. Any market would fail without a state since private property and legal contracts and so on have to be backed by some kind of authority. However, If the state was smashed while leaving the powerful private owners, then these huge companies could conduct a bosses strike and hold society hostage. They would have they money and power to hire their own thugs to enforce their economic needs or prevent strikes at their plants and factories and fields.

Basic marxism 101 is that the capitalist state and capitalism are not two different institutions that can be separated like a clam from its shell. Separating capitalism and the state is more like trying to separate a skyscraper from it's frame. The capitalist state developed to meet the needs of capitalism and has changed in "size" in regulatory powers, in military interventions based on the needs of the system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"There are two Socialisms...
One says:
The land to the State
The mine to the State
The tool to the State
The product to the State
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other." - Ernest Lesigne

This is a straw man, since it ignores the state as an organizational tool for different classes and contrary to what state-capitalists and right-wingers say, socialism is not mearly the nationalization of production.

[Havet]

I don't think that free-market socialism can compete with capitalism because capitalism is not efficient. Most businesses completely rely on outside privilege and state action in order to keep their humongous size and, consequently, market share.

So if one were to try and compete, you'd get punched back by the iron fist.

[Jazzratt]

I think we should torch the markets to the ground, they offer nothing remotely socialist.

[IcarusAngel]

It depends on how you actually get to socialism. I believe socialism would be more efficient. I also believe in democratic decision making. For example, if someone steals someone else's work that should be worked out democratically.

A "Libertarian" (leftsidedown) here said that because intellectual property doesn't exist, anybody can claim ownership of an idea or a work, and use that for power. So if someone wrote a book, anybody could produce it without regard to the actual author. In a socialist, free society, you could determine who wrote the book, and at least ensure they had the credit for the work. That way he gets credit for his labor.

"Libertarians" have no problem with people gaining power, resources, and so on from other people's work, so long as they own the factories and the working man "agrees" to enter into a contract to work on the land. This prevents the people from ever truly "owning the resources cooperatively" since Libertarians define land in a way that favors the proprietor. There is no democracy in this, and it sounds like it would be worse than current society.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Sounds very Hobbesian, in that its full of contradictions, holes and has no bearing upon any reality that we can speak of.

[IcarusAngel]

I think we should torch the markets to the ground, they offer nothing remotely socialist.

Ask any Libertarian "agorist" who isn't posting on a left forum how we get to the "free-market paradise" without mentioning you're a socialist.

It will inevitably be "start privatizing resources." If you ask how we'll prevent big corporate monopolies, the answer is "don't shop from them." These are the same flawed arguments capitalists have been giving for centuries and it's clear that they don't work.

Never will it include handing over resources to the workers. And it certainly wouldn't include the option to allow the state to protect cooperatives, guilds, unions and so on in the same way that they protect corporations, where the state could be the ultimate arbiter of disputes. In fact, unions are generally shunned, and should only exist as "voluntary associations" that attempt to "bargain" with the corporations.

They have no concept of justice for the workers - they only want to seek extremely unlikely logical evidence that capitalists' domination over man is just the way things ought to be.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You don't think socialism could out-compete capitalism in a free market? Without the state to protect the capitalists' perverted notion of property rights, I don't see how they stand a chance.

I don't believe capitalism should exist at all.

[Left-Reasoning]

I don't believe capitalism should exist at all.

Nor do I. But since socialism is more efficient than capitalism, the state is unnecessary to bring it about.

[graffic]

it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism.

Not going to be a very fair competition because the state will match a hippy commune with an army, multi-national corporations and ideological hegemony. I suppose the Israeli kibbutz would be an example of socialist communes existing in a free market.

[Skooma Addict]

Nor do I. But since socialism is more efficient than capitalism, the state is unnecessary to bring it about.

Think what you want. As long as you don't stop others from living in a capitalist community, there is no problem.

[IcarusAngel]

Nor do I. But since socialism is more efficient than capitalism, the state is unnecessary to bring it about.

What is "socialism"? Who are the "socialists"?

[Skooma Addict]

I don't believe capitalism should exist at all.

Well then to be clear, you do favor using aggressive force to stop people from voluntarily forming communes with social systems they desire. Thus, you are not anti-authoritarian meaning you are not an anarchist. Correct?

[Left-Reasoning]

What is "socialism"?

Socialism is the claim that "labor should be put in possession of its own".


Who are the "socialists"?

Thomas Hodgskin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, etc.

[mollymae]

left-reasoning,
In the US, self-employed Amish are exempt from the social security tax. They do not collect state welfare or unemployment. They are also exempt from the new health insurance mandate. This is all because they believe it is the role of their church to provide for the poor and the sick, and, from what I can tell, they work it out just fine. Is the lifestyle of the Amish compatible with free market socialism? Or rather is it a good example of how an alternative order could come about despite capitalism elsewhere?

[RGacky3]

Ask any Libertarian "agorist" who isn't posting on a left forum how we get to the "free-market paradise" without mentioning you're a socialist.

It will inevitably be "start privatizing resources." If you ask how we'll prevent big corporate monopolies, the answer is "don't shop from them." These are the same flawed arguments capitalists have been giving for centuries and it's clear that they don't work.

Never will it include handing over resources to the workers. And it certainly wouldn't include the option to allow the state to protect cooperatives, guilds, unions and so on in the same way that they protect corporations, where the state could be the ultimate arbiter of disputes. In fact, unions are generally shunned, and should only exist as "voluntary associations" that attempt to "bargain" with the corporations.

They have no concept of justice for the workers - they only want to seek extremely unlikely logical evidence that capitalists' domination over man is just the way things ought to be.

THIS is the exact problem I have with the socalled free market leftists, or agorists or whatever, they have no concept of what socialism actually is, their WHOLE problem is hte state interfering with buisiness, its from an entirely capitalist viewpoint, their "solution" is privitization and deregulation, its never class warfare or redistribution or taking of the resources by the people, their answer is always "well in the end it will work out for the workers too, I guess."

THe fact is ALL property rights that make a market possible come from the state, you can't have a market with out real property rights, thats what Capitalism is.


Well then to be clear, you do favor using aggressive force to stop people from voluntarily forming communes with social systems they desire. Thus, you are not anti-authoritarian meaning you are not an anarchist. Correct?

Not at all, if people want to VOLUTARILY, have their economies ruled by capitalists without having a say, they are free to do so, but I seriously doubt thats ever going to happen (the same way very few people VOLUNTARILY give in to a total dictatorship), now if capitalist power is enforced thats a different story.


Socialism is the claim that "labor should be put in possession of its own".


Thats assuming property rights, I thought socialism, or maybe better communism, was doing away with property as a factor.

[Skooma Addict]

Not at all, if people want to VOLUTARILY, have their economies ruled by capitalists without having a say, they are free to do so, but I seriously doubt thats ever going to happen (the same way very few people VOLUNTARILY give in to a total dictatorship), now if capitalist power is enforced thats a different story.


Right, I agree. But you do know that there will be people in capitalist communities that don't want to live there, just like there will be people who live in communists communiteis who don't want to live there, right?

I disagree about what form of community would be more prevelent, but that is a moot point.

[Endomorphian]

THIS is the exact problem I have with the socalled free market leftists, or agorists or whatever, they have no concept of what socialism actually is, their WHOLE problem is hte state interfering with buisiness, its from an entirely capitalist viewpoint, their "solution" is privitization and deregulation, its never class warfare or redistribution or taking of the resources by the people

This is a rather empty charge on face value considering agorism is a class-based theory. Granted as a mutualist I'm more inclined to see things from a Marxian perspective, but I think you're thoroughly confusing left agorists with anarcho-capitalist apologists.


Thats assuming property rights, I thought socialism, or maybe better communism, was doing away with property as a factor.

Property is never done away with. It changes possession. Now we can clutter this thread with disagreements over sentimental attachments to property vs possession terminology, but you get my point.

[Left-Reasoning]

THIS is the exact problem I have with the socalled free market leftists, or agorists or whatever, they have no concept of what socialism actually is, their WHOLE problem is hte state interfering with buisiness, its from an entirely capitalist viewpoint, their "solution" is privitization and deregulation, its never class warfare or redistribution or taking of the resources by the people, their answer is always "well in the end it will work out for the workers too, I guess."

Even the misguided propertarian Agorists are not this foolish. And certainly not the mutualists. That's vulgar "an"-cap territory.

"Once again, this sort of thing is why I don't welcome "privatization" and "deregulation" as a "step in the right direction," just because it increases the amount of activity that's carried out in the nominally "private" sector. When it takes place within an overall statist framework, it just makes state capitalism more efficient and stable; although the nominal public sector may control a smaller percentage of GDP, the system as a whole becomes even more statist and exploitative. As Brad Spangler noted in my previous post's blockquote, increasing the ratio of quasi-private bagmen to the state gunman just makes robbery more efficient. The nominally private corporations that profit from the ASI's "privatized" version of political capitalism, like the big industrialists who conspired with Papen and Hindenburg to put Hitler in power, are part of the state." - Kevin Carson, Mutualist


THe fact is ALL property rights that make a market possible come from the state, you can't have a market with out real property rights, thats what Capitalism is.All exploitative property rights come from the state, correct. "Property is Theft!"

Rights of possessive ownership however are not only acceptable, but are vital for true freedom. "Property is Liberty!"


Not at all, if people want to VOLUTARILY, have their economies ruled by capitalists without having a say, they are free to do so,Why do I think that this isn't going to happen?


but I seriously doubt thats ever going to happen (the same way very few people VOLUNTARILY give in to a total dictatorship), now if capitalist power is enforced thats a different story.
Agreed.


Thats assuming property rights, I thought socialism, or maybe better communism, was doing away with property as a factor.Possession and exploitative property are two different things entirely.

[Skooma Addict]

Why do I think that this isn't going to happen?

Good question.



Possession and exploitative property are two different things entirely.


To you they are, but to me they aren't. I view ownership based on possession as exploitative. It is all just an opinion.

[Left-Reasoning]

left-reasoning,
In the US, self-employed Amish are exempt from the social security tax. They do not collect state welfare or unemployment. They are also exempt from the new health insurance mandate. This is all because they believe it is the role of their church to provide for the poor and the sick, and, from what I can tell, they work it out just fine. Is the lifestyle of the Amish compatible with free market socialism? Or rather is it a good example of how an alternative order could come about despite capitalism elsewhere?

I don't know too much about the Amish. From what I know they are a religious primitivist cult, though they seem to be doing rather well on the mutual aid front which is a major part of socialism.

The lifestyle of the Amish appears to be compatible with free market socialism at first glance, though I don't know the religion's position on equality, tolerance and patriarchy and I fear that those might be stumbling blocks for them.

""If God exists," said Proudhon, "he is man's enemy." And in contrast to Voltaire's famous epigram, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him," the great Russian Nihilist, Mikhail Bakunin, placed this antithetical proposition: "If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." But although, viewing the divine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose." - Benjamin Tucker

[Left-Reasoning]

Good question.

Well, would you rather work for a capitalist pig that bosses you around, makes you work long hours for low pay, can fire you at any time and generally treats you like shit or would you rather work in a worker's co-op where you have a say in the production process and are treated with respect rather than as a mindless replaceable automaton?



To you they are, but to me they aren't. I view ownership based on possession as exploitative. It is all just an opinion.

Because receiving the product of your labor is exploitation, right?

Bourgeois "logic" astounds me.

[Skooma Addict]

Well, would you rather work for a capitalist pig that bosses you around, makes you work long hours for low pay, can fire you at any time and generally treats you like shit or would you rather work in a worker's co-op where you have a say in the production process and are treated with respect rather than as a mindless replaceable automaton?

I would rather work for a capitalist. Especially if the Co-op operates under the idea of ownership based on use.


Because receiving the product of your labor is exploitation, right?

Bourgeois "logic" astounds me.

There is no such thing as "Bourgeios logic." If I build a mine with some co-workers and we only can claim ownership of it while we are in possession of it, I view that as exploitative.

[mollymae]

I don't know too much about the Amish. From what I know they are a religious primitivist cult, though they seem to be doing rather well on the mutual aid front which is a major part of socialism.

The lifestyle of the Amish appears to be compatible with free market socialism at first glance, though I don't know the religion's position on equality, tolerance and patriarchy and I fear that those might be stumbling blocks for them.

""If God exists," said Proudhon, "he is man's enemy." And in contrast to Voltaire's famous epigram, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him," the great Russian Nihilist, Mikhail Bakunin, placed this antithetical proposition: "If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." But although, viewing the divine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose." - Benjamin Tucker

I agree. But I'm disregarding their culture and religion and looking at their lifestyle from an economic perspective. They're self-sufficient and are mostly, if not completely disconnected from the capitalist system that lies outside their borders. The reason I bring it up is to use an example to better understand this free market socialism. You're saying that under a free market socialist system, people would begin to form their own communes (or things simliar) that could possibly become stronger than capitalism, right?

[IcarusAngel]

So, in order to "get" to free-market socialism, we should start abolishing property titles, landed monopolies, corporate welfare, and so on?

Yes, the government should get out of the property business and let people run cooperatives and destroy businesses.

[Left-Reasoning]

So, in order to "get" to free-market socialism, we should start abolishing property titles, landed monopolies, corporate welfare, and so on?

Correct.


Yes, the government should get out of the property business and let people run cooperatives and destroy businesses.

Finally, something everyone can agree on.

[Kowalsky]

market existed long before capitalism took place the first time and probably will existed long after capitalism will be expired

i really don't know if today's china is market socialist society or if, like Samir Amin states, the market socialist society could be a phase inthe transition toward "real" socialism
what i do know for sure is that market could be used to pull capitalists ona against each other, and that could be a great point in favour of tha cause of the people.

and we have also to say that if we have market, is not so obvious that it is a "free" market

[syndicat]

your two socialisms poses a false dichtomy. The libertarian socialist left historically has proposed that all industries be managed directly by the people who work in them, but most have historically been anti-market. The libertarian socialist left is also anti-state. They want to replace the state with direct popular power, based on workplace and neighborhood assemblies and regional grassroots congresses, a popular militia under democratic control. But your two alternatives don't discuss the question of control outside the workplace.

Also, the libertarian socialist left don't propose to bring about libertarian, self-managed socialism by people forming coops, ie. collective businesses within the market. Most have proposed the development of mass grassroots unions and other mass social miovements to the seize the means of production and dismantle the state. your "free market socialism" would leave open the possibility of capitalism continuing or re-emerging through people hiring other people as wage slaves.

[syndicat]

Skooma addict:
Well then to be clear, you do favor using aggressive force to stop people from voluntarily forming communes with social systems they desire. Thus, you are not anti-authoritarian meaning you are not an anarchist. Correct?

Capitalism is a system based on class division. You have a minority who own the means of production, a large population who have no property of their own. They are forced, then, to work for the bosses who do own the property. The enclosures in England and other forms of force were used to create this propertyless population back in the origins of capitalism.

Advocates for capitalism of course call the labor contract "voluntary." It's not that an individual employer puts a gun to your head. But you're forced to seek a job from some exploiter anyway. The forced nature of the "contract" is then reflected in the managerial tyranny they impose over the workers.

So any society where capitalism exists is a society based on oppression and exploitation, not freedom. So opposition to capitalism is not inconsistent with anarchism. Advocacy of capitalism is inconsistent with anarchism, on the other hand, as any form of oppression is.

of course, to create a libertarian socialist society it is likely the minority dominating classes will have to be forced to go along...the are not likely to give up their power voluntarily. Just as a thief may have to be forced to give back what he has stolen.

[Skooma Addict]

Capitalism is a system based on class division. You have a minority who own the means of production, a large population who have no property of their own. They are forced, then, to work for the bosses who do own the property. The enclosures in England and other forms of force were used to create this propertyless population back in the origins of capitalism.

Advocates for capitalism of course call the labor contract "voluntary." It's not that an individual employer puts a gun to your head. But you're forced to seek a job from some exploiter anyway. The forced nature of the "contract" is then reflected in the managerial tyranny they impose over the workers.

This is only exploitative if you view private property as illegitimate. I can say the same thing for any other kind of social system.


So any society where capitalism exists is a society based on oppression and exploitation, not freedom.

For you maybe. Not for me.


So opposition to capitalism is not inconsistent with anarchism. Advocacy of capitalism is inconsistent with anarchism, on the other hand, as any form of oppression is.


Is authoritarianism inconsistent with anarchism? Is using force to stop people from forming voluntary communes against anarchism?

[syndicat]

skooma:
This is only exploitative if you view private property as illegitimate.

If private ownership of means of production needed for production of things we consume means some are subordinate to others, forced to work for the ends of others, exploited by them...then in those conditions private ownership of means of production are illegitimate, because domination and exploitation are forms of injustice.



I can say the same thing for any other kind of social system.


Every class-divided social system is one where the immediate producers are dominated and exploited, that's true. The purpose of an authentic socialist movement...libertarian socialism anyway...is to eliminate the class system.

me:

So any society where capitalism exists is a society based on oppression and exploitation, not freedom.

you:

So any society where capitalism exists is a society based on oppression and exploitation, not freedom. For you maybe. Not for me.


what capitalism is is a fact. Facts are what they are irrespective of what you may think. Maybe you mean you have more freedom than working class persons typically do...and that may be. so what?


Is authoritarianism inconsistent with anarchism? Is using force to stop people from forming voluntary communes against anarchism?

Using force is not the same thing as "authoritarianism." If someone is attempting to kill you and you use force to kill them, that's not "authoritarianism" on your part. Capitalism is an authoritarian social order. It is so because it subjects people to subordination and exploitation and requires a state to protect the interests of the dominating classes.

Anarchism or libertarian socialism aims to have the masses of the population liberate themselves. To do so they must remove the power of the dominating classes, and dismantle their state. The dominating classes are not likely to take kindly to this, so force is likely to be necessary...at least the force of numbers, the force involved in seizing the means of production and setting up a new social arrangement. This is called "liberation" if self-management is the outcome. That's because self-management is a positive form of freedom. Hence the order created is not properly called "authoritarian" if it's one based on generalized democratic self-management...even if it was created against the will of a minority.

[Skooma Addict]

If private ownership of means of production needed for production of things we consume means some are subordinate to others, forced to work for the ends of others, exploited by them...then in those conditions private ownership of means of production are illegitimate, because domination and exploitation are forms of injustice.

This all assumes one does not accept private property as legitimate. However, the worker who views private property as legitimate is not being exploited. I can say the exact same thing in a society where all major decisions are made democratically. If I am against majority vote, there is nothing I can do. I am being forced to accept your conception of legitimate property. It works both ways, which is why allowing the communities to coexist is the best way to do it.


Every class-divided social system is one where the immediate producers are dominated and exploited, that's true. The purpose of an authentic socialist movement...libertarian socialism anyway...is to eliminate the class system.

me:

I accept that there are different classes, just not in the way socialists claim.


what capitalism is is a fact. Facts are what they are irrespective of what you may think. Maybe you mean you have more freedom than working class persons typically do...and that may be. so what?

Sure, what capitalism is is a fact. But it is not a fact that capitalism is oppressive for me personally, whether or not I am a worker. This is because I accept private property as legitimate.


Using force is not the same thing as "authoritarianism." If someone is attempting to kill you and you use force to kill them, that's not "authoritarianism" on your part. Capitalism is an authoritarian social order. It is so because it subjects people to subordination and exploitation and requires a state to protect the interests of the dominating classes.

Right, which is why I didn't say "is using force inconsistent with anarchism?" It however is authoritarian to use violence stop people from forming and joining communities which they think will provide the best life for them. That is authoritarian.


Hence the order created is not properly called "authoritarian" if it's one based on generalized democratic self-management...even if it was created against the will of a minority.

what is "democratic self-management?"

[LeftSideDown]

It depends on how you actually get to socialism. I believe socialism would be more efficient. I also believe in democratic decision making. For example, if someone steals someone else's work that should be worked out democratically.

Are you aware that Democracy is one of the least efficient forms of government out there? Just saying.

[LeftSideDown]

This is a straw man, since it ignores the state as an organizational tool for different classes and contrary to what state-capitalists and right-wingers say, socialism is not mearly the nationalization of production.

Thats what some Socialism is though. I know its not your "perfect-utopian-everybody-happy-and-producing-over-9000-times-what-capitalism-produces" but most manifestations of Socialism on this earth thus far have had nationalized production. So you can't say it isn't "merely the nationalization of production" because from what I've seen, thats basically what it is.

[LeftSideDown]

Not at all, if people want to VOLUTARILY, have their economies ruled by capitalists without having a say, they are free to do so, but I seriously doubt thats ever going to happen (the same way very few people VOLUNTARILY give in to a total dictatorship), now if capitalist power is enforced thats a different story.

Why aren't you in China comrade? Or North Korea? Why are you choosing to continue living in the evil capitalist USA?

[Common_Means]

Why aren't you in China comrade? Or North Korea? Why are you choosing to continue living in the evil capitalist USA?

Congrats on presenting the biggest straw-man of all time.

Well done.

[mikelepore]

Are you aware that Democracy is one of the least efficient forms of government out there? Just saying.

In any context, the word "efficiency" means a measure of how much output we obtain for a given amount of input. What sort of output from a form of government are you talking about, such that democracy could be called least efficient? If carrying out the will of the majority of the people is the measure of interest, then democracy IS efficiency.

[LeftSideDown]

Congrats on presenting the biggest straw-man of all time.

Well done.

They're closer to your socialist paradise than the US, you should move there and support their movements!

[Common_Means]

They're closer to your socialist paradise than the US, you should move there and support their movements!

Nonsense. The more advanced capitalism becomes, the closer it is to socialism.

[LeftSideDown]

In any context, the word "efficiency" means a measure of how much output we obtain for a given amount of input. What sort of output from a form of government are you talking about, such that democracy could be called least efficient? If carrying out the will of the majority of the people is the measure of interest, then democracy IS efficiency.

Healthcare. QED.

[LeftSideDown]

Nonsense. The more advanced capitalism becomes, the closer it is to socialism.

Then why do so many socialists advocate things like minimum wage, 8 hour work days, labor unions and all these other things that take away from capitalism? Advocate no regulations and free-market reign so the productive material forces can come about like they are supposed to!

[Common_Means]

Then why do so many socialists advocate things like minimum wage, 8 hour work days, labor unions and all these other things that take away from capitalism? Advocate no regulations and free-market reign so the productive material forces can come about like they are supposed to!

Capitalism will not self-implode if left unimpeded; this is a misconception often presented by the uniformed. Alas, they believe that Marxian perspectives are bankrupt due to the continuation of all being subordinate to capital.

The short answer to this is because capitalism can never operate unimpeded. For instance, if capital was left to its own devices, who would enforce its vision of property?

[LeftSideDown]

Capitalism will not self-implode if left unimpeded; this is a misconception often presented by the uniformed. Alas, they believe that Marxian perspectives are bankrupt due to the continuation of all being subordinate to capital.

The short answer to this is because capitalism can never operate unimpeded. For instance, if capital was left to its own devices, who would enforce its vision of property?

So you're disagreeing with Marx? because essentially what he said is that it would self implode because workers conditions would get worse and worse as the rich get richer and richer.

[Common_Means]

So you're disagreeing with Marx? because essentially what he said is that it would self implode because workers conditions would get worse and worse as the rich get richer and richer.

I'm not disagreeing with Marx at all. Show me the quote in "Capital" that suggests I am disagreeing with him.

[LeftSideDown]

I'm not disagreeing with Marx at all. Show me the quote in "Capital" that suggests I am disagreeing with him.

Only read the Manifesto, sorry!

[syndicat]

me:

If private ownership of means of production needed for production of things we consume means some are subordinate to others, forced to work for the ends of others, exploited by them...then in those conditions private ownership of means of production are illegitimate, because domination and exploitation are forms of injustice.
skooma:

This all assumes one does not accept private property as legitimate.
Wrong. I just gave an argument for the illegitimacy of private ownership by capitalists of means of production. You know what an argument is, right? To repeat:

If something is a form of injustice, it is illegitimate. Systemic oppression and exploitation are forms of injustice. Since these are consequences of the monopolization of private ownership of means of production by the capitalist minority, it follows that their private ownership power is illegitimate.



However, the worker who views private property as legitimate is not being exploited.

Okay, so if I view murder as legitimate, that means it is legitimate?

Exploitation presupposes domination of workers as a class by capitalists, so that the wage rate is suppressed to the point capitalists can make profits. It doesn't matter whether a worker doesn't understand this and thinks it's fine for the capitalists to own whole industries. Whether it's exploitative or not depends on the facts of the situation, the actual power relations, not what this or that worker believes.



I can say the exact same thing in a society where all major decisions are made democratically. If I am against majority vote, there is nothing I can do. I am being forced to accept your conception of legitimate property. It works both ways, which is why allowing the communities to coexist is the best way to do it.

I think you're confused. It's not a question of "democratic vote" being used in some way in society. The present capitalist order uses votes to elect politicians. But it's still a class-divided capitalist arrangement.


It however is authoritarian to use violence stop people from forming and joining communities which they think will provide the best life for them. That is authoritarian.


Yeah, except that I don't accept your characterization of a capitalist society as one that can simply be described as people freely "forming and joining communities." It's a society where, by definition, ownership of the means of production is concentrated in the hands of a small minority, and workers are subordinate to bosses. Capitalism is inherently an authoritarian order. Preventing an authoritarian regime from emerging isn't authoritarian.

If workers have available to them a society where jobs are available for everyone and in all workplaces people collectively self-manage the work, why would they want to be subject to some boss?

Moreover, the tendency of such a system, when it gets going someplace, is to be imperial, to use force and power to take over other areas. That is the history of capitalism.


what is "democratic self-management?"

Self-management means that people control the decisions governing their own activity and the decisions that directly affect mainly them.

Since there are many decisions in workplaces that affect mainly the people who work there, they get to control these decisions. They have general meetings of everyone for decisions that affect the whole operation. For decisions that affect mainly a subgroup such as a department, they have separate general meetings for the decisions that pertain mainly to that group. In departments and in larger workplaces people can also elect coordinating committees, to coordinate the work and ensure that decisions are carried out. Each person has a right to an equal say and vote in these general meetings. If there are particular decisions that affect only one person, then that one person gets to make those decisions. But many decisions in workplaces are social, and these are collectively controlled.

[Skooma Addict]

Wrong. I just gave an argument for the illegitimacy of private ownership by capitalists of means of production. You know what an argument is, right? To repeat:

If something is a form of injustice, it is illegitimate. Systemic oppression and exploitation are forms of injustice. Since these are consequences of the monopolization of private ownership of means of production by the capitalist minority, it follows that their private ownership power is illegitimate.

Yes, but we disagree on what is and is not oppression and exploitation. That is the whole point. I think that if I find some land and build a farm on it, I should be given exclusive control over that land and be allowed to offer people compensation for working on the farm if they so choose. Maybe you think the farms should be collectivized. We will never ever come to an agreement on what is and is not oppression.

Take this for example. Is an anarcho-capitalist worker who chooses to work for a capitalist being exploited?


Okay, so if I view murder as legitimate, that means it is legitimate?

Exploitation presupposes domination of workers as a class by capitalists, so that the wage rate is suppressed to the point capitalists can make profits. It doesn't matter whether a worker doesn't understand this and thinks it's fine for the capitalists to own whole industries. Whether it's exploitative or not depends on the facts of the situation, the actual power relations, not what this or that worker believes.

In other words, you decide when a person is and is not being oppressed (even if they think otherwise), and to relieve them of their oppression you must force them to adopt some form of democracy in the workplace which they do not want. So what if it turns out that the worker decides that they liked working for a capitalist better?

By the way, would workers in your system be payed before their product is produced? Please at least tell me there would be some form of currency.



I think you're confused. It's not a question of "democratic vote" being used in some way in society. The present capitalist order uses votes to elect politicians. But it's still a class-divided capitalist arrangement.

But the point I was making is that a person (like me) who views your form of property as illegitimate is just as oppressed living under a libertarian-socialist community as a socialist is in a capitalist community. This is because these disagreements stem from disagreements regarding legitimate property, and there is no fact of the matter on this. There is only opinion.


Yeah, except that I don't accept your characterization of a capitalist society as one that can simply be described as people freely "forming and joining communities." It's a society where, by definition, ownership of the means of production is concentrated in the hands of a small minority, and workers are subordinate to bosses. Capitalism is inherently an authoritarian order. Preventing an authoritarian regime from emerging isn't authoritarian.

If workers have available to them a society where jobs are available for everyone and in all workplaces people collectively self-manage the work, why would they want to be subject to some boss?

Moreover, the tendency of such a system, when it gets going someplace, is to be imperial, to use force and power to take over other areas. That is the history of capitalism.

It is not true that ownership of the means of production is by definition owned by a small minority. But anyways, you are not preventing an authoritarian regime from emerging. You are preventing peaceful individuals from voluntarily joining communities which are most in line with their preferences. You are being authoritarian, and I wonder how exactly are you supposed to achieve this without a state? Or is a state acting on your behalf not authoritarian?

[syndicat]

Yes, but we disagree on what is and is not oppression and exploitation. That is the whole point. I think that if I find some land and build a farm on it, I should be given exclusive control over that land and be allowed to offer people compensation for working on the farm if they so choose. Maybe you think the farms should be collectivized. We will never ever come to an agreement on what is and is not oppression.


I don't care if you don't agree with me. Oppression refers to the denial of negative and positive liberty. Positive liberty is equal access to the means to sustain and develop your abilities, your potential, and also self-management over the decisions that affect you. Capitalism is a class system that forces workers to work under a tyrannical management regime, threatening them with loss of livelihood if they don't stay in line (that's coercion), and denying them control over decisions that affect them. Hence it's a system of oppression.

"Finding land" is a neat trick. The European colonizers who came to the Americas allegedly "found" land...except it was already being used by the indigenous populations. So they used their guns to push back or kill or enslave those indigenous populations to "take" the land. That's capitalism for you.

All agricultural operations need to be collectively self-managed by the workers.


Is an anarcho-capitalist worker who chooses to work for a capitalist being exploited?

yes. it doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are. it's an objective relationship.


By the way, would workers in your system be payed before their product is produced? Please at least tell me there would be some form of currency.


Workers would receive compensation for their work effort. I favor equal pay per hour of work, but also equal obligation as far as putting in your fair share of the effort. People would receive consumption credit...an entitlement to consume up to what they've earned, plus there would be a portion of the total social product provided in the form of free services to everyone without any requirement of paying for it...health care, education, child care, etc. It would be up to the society to determine the extent of this.

Whether there is a currency isn't that important one way or the other. Your pay might come to you via a debit card.

me:
Exploitation presupposes domination of workers as a class by capitalists, so that the wage rate is suppressed to the point capitalists can make profits. It doesn't matter whether a worker doesn't understand this and thinks it's fine for the capitalists to own whole industries. Whether it's exploitative or not depends on the facts of the situation, the actual power relations, not what this or that worker believes.

you:

In other words, you decide when a person is and is not being oppressed (even if they think otherwise), and to relieve them of their oppression you must force them to adopt some form of democracy in the workplace which they do not want. So what if it turns out that the worker decides that they liked working for a capitalist better?


Doesn't matter. It's up to what the bulk of the workers think, either way. Capitalism won't be overthrown and replaced by worker management unless there is a very large mass of workers who are intent on this. And if a handful preferred the old way, it doesn't matter as long as most don't.


But the point I was making is that a person (like me) who views your form of property as illegitimate is just as oppressed living under a libertarian-socialist community as a socialist is in a capitalist community. This is because these disagreements stem from disagreements regarding legitimate property, and there is no fact of the matter on this. There is only opinion.


again, it's not a matter of someone's opinion. it depends on the objective power relationship.


It is not true that ownership of the means of production is by definition owned by a small minority. But anyways, you are not preventing an authoritarian regime from emerging. You are preventing peaceful individuals from voluntarily joining communities which are most in line with their preferences. You are being authoritarian, and I wonder how exactly are you supposed to achieve this without a state? Or is a state acting on your behalf not authoritarian?

I was talking about the definition of capitalism. You keep changing the subject. It's the organized population who prevent the re-emergence of capitalist schemes. This is a part of social self-management. The population as a whole have their neighborhood assemblies, city-wide and regional congresses of delegates, who are elected from workplace or neighborhood assemblies (general meetings of everyone in that area). This forms the basis of the governance power in that region. It's not a state because it isn't based on top-down power over the population, there is no bureaucratic class running things through managerial hierarchies, as there is in a state. If people disagree with decisions in a regional congress, the decision can be forced back to the base assemblies for discussion and vote. The militia is under the direct control of these regional congresses and assemblies, it's not some army of occupation as the big city police nowadays are.

So the mass of the people have the institutional means to protect themselves from some capitalist scheme re-emerging. I would imagine that in this society trying to hire people to be your wage slaves, as a boss, would be illegal.

[Thirsty Crow]

But the point I was making is that a person (like me) who views your form of property as illegitimate is just as oppressed living under a libertarian-socialist community as a socialist is in a capitalist community. This is because these disagreements stem from disagreements regarding legitimate property, and there is no fact of the matter on this. There is only opinion.

So, what you want to communicate is that within a socioeconomic model which would grant you public services you need, as well as provide you with a job you're skilled to do (unless you're a stock broker:p) and a right to directly participate in decision which concern you, you would feel oppressed because you would have been denied the "right" to extract surplus value, thus placing yourself ostensibly higher on the echelons of wealth (which equals power which equals freedom in our existing system)?
That's interesting. The one who would dominate now feels dominated.

[Skooma Addict]

I'll respond this and give you the last word to save us both from having an argument which will go on for too long.



I don't care if you don't agree with me. Oppression refers to the denial of negative and positive liberty.

And what is legitimate positive and negative liberty is not a fact, it is an opinion (assuming that positive/negative liberty is a meaningful distinction). I will always be able to trace this back to subjective preferences.


yes. it doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are. it's an objective relationship.


No it isn't. A person who agrees with private property is not being oppressed when they voluntarily choose to work for a capitalist. They are being oppressed when you force them to live under a social system which you deem best for them.

Trust me, when I go to work, I am not being oppressed. I am happy with the voluntary mutually beneficial relationship I have with the company. I don't want you to rescue me and force me to live in a socialist society. I just want you to leave me alone. I will to the same for you.


Workers would receive compensation for their work effort. I favor equal pay per hour of work, but also equal obligation as far as putting in your fair share of the effort. People would receive consumption credit...an entitlement to consume up to what they've earned, plus there would be a portion of the total social product provided in the form of free services to everyone without any requirement of paying for it...health care, education, child care, etc. It would be up to the society to determine the extent of this.

Whether there is a currency isn't that important one way or the other. Your pay might come to you via a debit card.

Equal pay for an equal hour of work? Ok, I am not going to work hard at all, and I am going to choose the easiest job there is.

Also, when you say you favor an "equal obligation to put in your fair share of the effort," do you mean to say that you favor forcing people to work?


Doesn't matter. It's up to what the bulk of the workers think, either way. Capitalism won't be overthrown and replaced by worker management unless there is a very large mass of workers who are intent on this. And if a handful preferred the old way, it doesn't matter as long as most don't.

This is just majority oppression over the minority.



So the mass of the people have the institutional means to protect themselves from some capitalist scheme re-emerging. I would imagine that in this society trying to hire people to be your wage slaves, as a boss, would be illegal.

It is too bad that non-violent non-coercive mutually beneficial transactions would be illegal.

[Wolf Larson]

I think we should torch the markets to the ground, they offer nothing remotely socialist.

As would the Technocracy system. It would be burned to the ground by the revolutionary proletariat. I see both the Technocracy people and the "agorists" as ill informed and naive pseudo socialist reactionaries and revisionists. I'm glad to see 'left reasoning' finally restricted.

The 'agorists' are essentially "anarcho" capitalists who have taken the works of Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker and Spooner and warped them into fitting some free market fantasy where private property can still exist without a state and wage slavery, rent, interest and usury are voluntary. This is of course different from technocracy but no less delusional and ill informed as far as what it will take to end the exploitative conditions of capitalism.

The "agorists" and "anarcho" capitalists completely misrepresent Tucker in regards to advocating wage labor for a boss. Tucker [as with Stirner] advocated a system where workers would exchange labor and in no way shape or form would there be bosses and employees or a population excluded from the means of production. Stirner advocated a "union of egoists" based on a society of WORKERS who all had equal access to the means of life. Proudhon advocated worker control of the large means of production while preserving the artisans ability to be self employed in smaller one man businesses which did not employ wage slaves.

The manner in which Tucker, Proudhon and Strirner have been warped by these capitalists [in denial] is just the tip of the iceberg [the subjective revisionism started with Rothbard]. These people completely ignore, as our friend has pointed out, the fact that the state and private property [capitalism] are and have never been a separate entity [see The Great Transformation -Polanyi-]. Private property or capitalist free markets are impossible without a state which is why Rothbard advocated a private state. Free market capitalism would be a tyranny worse than the era of robber barons. They also ignore how monopolies have formed throughout history and place the blame squarely on government subsidy. Government subsidy has in fact created a monopoly here and there but any student of history can see monopolies have also been formed by businesses colluding with one another to fix prices and melding together [consolidating] in order to push competitors out of business. This was a trick the robber barons used themselves and it goes on to this day forming monopolies government subsidy or not.

On the topic of "voluntary socialism" forming by coops "competing" with capitalism? This is where the Technocrats, anarcho capitalists, agorists , Fabian/parliamentary socialists cross paths. They think capitalism will just wither away or can be slowley "outcompeted" by a combination of, well, competition and convincing the capitalist to give up his privilege for a new moral system. The Technocracy people also share another trait in common with the capitalists in their disdain for democracy. Ironically the Technocrats have bought into the bourgeois critique of the people and democracy which is rooted in Locke's vision of the masses being too stupid to facilitate self rule. The Fabian socialists thought along the same lines and believed themselves to be the saviors of mankind. Throughout history this had led them all to stamp out democracy while condoning imperialism/colonialism around the globe. The last thing the capitalists, Technocrats and Fabian socialists want is the abolition of class society while placing the one class, the proletariat, in control of the means of production and thus placing society in a position of self rule and abundance.

Any actual socialist knows socialism can only come about via revolution and cannot be separated from democracy if true communism is to manifest from the ashes of the capitalist system. Capitalism cannot and will not just "whither away peacefully" and an island of socialism cannot exist in a sea of capitalism. Historically and currently the USA's systematic demolition of socialism around the globe [the policy of containment] proves how far the capitalist will go to root out any system which threatens their privilege. To think that capitalists would just let themselves be "out competed" is beyond naive and I find younger people living in online fantasy land have adopted this position even here on RevLeft.

I don't subscribe to Tucker, Stirner and Spooner by the way and am suspect of Proudhon in many regards. Partly because his works are in fact somewhat open for petty burgeosis interpretation as this thread indicates and I obviously oppose any system which opposes worker controlled means of production and democracy.

[syndicat]

On the "everything is subjective" bit you're repeating yourself. And if everything is subjective and there is no such thing as objective oppression, then you have no basis for saying anyone is oppressed if the community owns the means of production and workers collective manage the workplaces and you are not allowed to hire people to be their private dictator in your workplace.


Equal pay for an equal hour of work? Ok, I am not going to work
hard at all, and I am going to choose the easiest job there is.

Jobs would be re-designed and tasks re-assembled to ensure that elements of skill and drudgery are combined. If you slack off, your workmates are going to know it and get pissed. They may censure you, if you keep at it, they may fire you, or dock your pay.



Also, when you say you favor an "equal obligation to put in your fair share of the effort," do you mean to say that you favor forcing people to work?


People will be provided a generous level of social provision of goods like housing and education and health care, but if a person is an able-bodied adult, then, yes, they will be expected to work if they want to receive their share of entitlement to private consumption goods.

If you don't want to help produce the goods and services we all consume, then perhaps you should just make your own. You'd not be living very well. If you want some small plot to grow your own food, I'm fine with that...as long as you don't hire anyone to dictate to them.

[Aesop]

I'll respond this and give you the last word to save us both from having an argument which will go on for too long.



And what is legitimate positive and negative liberty is not a fact, it is an opinion (assuming that positive/negative liberty is a meaningful distinction). I will always be able to trace this back to subjective preferences.

Well of course you could employ moral relativism, however in the real world these 'subjective preferences' have real effects. The needs of the many is greater than the 'needs' of the few. For example, the need for the many children to be able to read and write and have(positive liberty) access to education is greater then the 'need' of few employers who wish to withdraw them from education so they can work down mine shafts.




No it isn't. A person who agrees with private property is not being oppressed when they voluntarily choose to work for a capitalist. They are being oppressed when you force them to live under a social system which you deem best for them.

Okay then people are not forced at gunpoint to work(At least not in the west), but many are forced to work for someone who owns property or at least are coerced to work for them in order to sustain a living. You say they have a choice but this sounds a lot like that typical 'libertarian' babbling in which the other option for not working in some low-paid menial job is starving, so essentially your line of argument basically is 'he can work for 50 pence an hour or starve he/she has a choice'. How much of a choice is that? Your last sentence is just a Red Herring



Trust me, when I go to work, I am not being oppressed. I am happy with the voluntary mutually beneficial relationship I have with the company. I don't want you to rescue me and force me to live in a socialist society. I just want you to leave me alone. I will to the same for you.

*sign* Just because you may be happy in this relationship this not really serve as a cause for retaining the system. By parallel i guess if one girl doesn't mind getting slapped on the arse by her boss, i guess the girls shouldn't complain about getting slapped, and in fact should just accept it. Seeing there is any one planet earth and over 20,000 die as a direct result of the system faults, this victimisation act doesn't rub well.



This is just majority oppression over the minority.
Who are the minority that we intend to oppress and exploit?



It is too bad that non-violent non-coercive mutually beneficial transactions would be illegal.

Are you serious?:blink:

[LeftSideDown]

Well of course you could employ moral relativism, however in the real world these 'subjective preferences' have real effects. The needs of the many is greater than the 'needs' of the few. For example, the need for the many children to be able to read and write and have(positive liberty) access to education is greater then the 'need' of few employers who wish to withdraw them from education so they can work down mine shafts.

Can you prove this? Seems to me you're approaching utilitarian grounds and you can start justifying anything once you reach that point.


Okay then people are not forced at gunpoint to work(At least not in the west), but many are forced to work for someone who owns property or at least are coerced to work for them in order to sustain a living. You say they have a choice but this sounds a lot like that typical 'libertarian' babbling in which the other option for not working in some low-paid menial job is starving, so essentially your line of argument basically is 'he can work for 50 pence an hour or starve he/she has a choice'. How much of a choice is that? Your last sentence is just a Red Herring

So without the capitalist they would be starving? Why aren't you thanking him?


*sign* Just because you may be happy in this relationship this not really serve as a cause for retaining the system. By parallel i guess if one girl doesn't mind getting slapped on the arse by her boss, i guess the girls shouldn't complain about getting slapped, and in fact should just accept it. Seeing there is any one planet earth and over 20,000 die as a direct result of the system faults, this victimisation act doesn't rub well.

The difference is that slapping is an act of aggression whereas selling your labor to those who own capital that makes your labor more productive does not.


Are you serious?:blink:

Was there a black market in the USSR?

[Aesop]

Can you prove this?

Wtf? Now you are just burying your head in the sand. It happens in places like India and all over in the developing world. You really don't need me to give you a reading list or a list of vids to find this out.


Seems to me you're approaching utilitarian grounds and you can start justifying anything once you reach that point.

This is beside the point. In your previous post you were citing that negative and positive freedom are the same and it is subjective. I was stating that in the real world the needs of the many come before the 'needs' of few. Hence my previous example.





So without the capitalist they would be starving? Why aren't you thanking him?

Strawman. I was stating that a person does not really have a choice, because unlike cappies here i don't think having the option between 'working for 50 pence a day or starving' is really a choice. Often enough it is the accumulation of the productive forces and capitalism which drives people into situations like this. Bit saying a slave should be thankful for the slave-holder in providing him work. :blink: Your argument does not legitimize inequitable structures of economic and social organisation




The difference is that slapping is an act of aggression whereas selling your labor to those who own capital that makes your labor more productive does not.

My analogy still holds as it shows that just because you enjoys it doesn't mean that everybody should shut up and put up. The fact it is about slapping is beside the point. Just because you find it okay to be working in the system does not mean everybody else should just get on it it.


Was there a black market in the
USSR?

What has relevance does this have with your previous post :confused:

[LeftSideDown]

Wtf? Now you are just burying your head in the sand. It happens in places like India and all over in the developing world. You really don't need me to give you a reading list or a list of vids to find this out.



No, my point is that you cannot prove at all that by taking money from one person (say a rich man) and giving it to others (say poor people) you improve utility (satisfaction). For instance, if one man has three yachts, and another has one does it improve utility to give one yacht to the man with less yachts? The answer is a definite there is no answer. You can't compare value scales of individuals. Just because its happening doesn't mean its just, and I can site numerous historical examples of this.


This is beside the point. In your previous post you were citing that negative and positive freedom are the same and it is subjective. I was stating that in the real world the needs of the many come before the 'needs' of few. Hence my previous example.

You realize you could justify killing a healthy young man with good organs to save the lives of four other men who just need these transplants. You can justify ANYTHING. The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few because needs are subjective, so the phrase becomes meaningless.




Strawman. I was stating that a person does not really have a choice, because unlike cappies here i don't think having the option between 'working for 50 pence a day or starving' is really a choice. Often enough it is the accumulation of the productive forces and capitalism which drives people into situations like this. Bit saying a slave should be thankful for the slave-holder in providing him work. :blink: Your argument does not legitimize inequitable structures of economic and social organisation

The slave isn't free to associate as he wants to; I don't support slavery. But people lived and existed before capitalism, if its so bad why don't they go back to subsistence farming? What you want is the benefits of capitalism (capital, doi!) without capitalists, and what I'm saying is you can't have your cake and eat it too. I really don't care about inequitable structures. I care about the fact that billions more are living than they could've under feudalism and, at least in the United States, they are living in material wealth.




My analogy still holds as it shows that just because you enjoys it doesn't mean that everybody should shut up and put up. The fact it is about slapping is beside the point. Just because you find it okay to be working in the system does not mean everybody else should just get on it it.

I'm not saying it. Not everybody enjoys life; so does that mean it is the point of our existence to make life pleasureable for them? Sorry, humans exist under conditions of scarcity, and if you don't like that, well, then you can put or shut up. But to blame your employer for scarcity is silly. Its like blaming a buffet for not having food, when they clearly do. I"m not saying everybody else can get on it. I'm saying they don't have to work within the system. I however recognize that my productivity is improved and would much rather work within the system than without it. You would take the system, consume its capital, and live high on the hog for a generation.




What has relevance does this have with your previous post :confused:

Well you said "are you serious" in reply to the statement that mutually beneficial markets would be outlawed. I assumed you were incredulous; why would such a thing be outlawed? But the existence of a black market proves, that to at least some extent, it was and theres reason to believe it would be again.

[Havet]

But people lived and existed before capitalism, if its so bad why don't they go back to subsistence farming?

Because of the Ruling Class (State + Capitalists) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure#Parliamentary_Enclosure_and_open_fields)

[A.R.Amistad]

There are two Socialisms...
One says:
The land to the State
The mine to the State
The tool to the State
The product to the State
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other." - Ernest Lesigne

Meh. Smells a lot like corporatism to me. :thumbdown:

[Aesop]

No, my point is that you cannot prove at all that by taking money from one person (say a rich man) and giving it to others (say poor people) you improve utility (satisfaction). For instance, if one man has three yachts, and another has one does it improve utility to give one yacht to the man with less yachts? The answer is a definite there is no answer. You can't compare value scales of individuals. Just because its happening doesn't mean its just, and I can site numerous historical examples of this.

Fighting against a strawman. My original offering was in regard to the concept of negative and positive freedom. The rest of your post is just a fallacy and a caricature of socialism.






You realize you could justify killing a healthy young man with good organs to save the lives of four other men who just need these transplants. You can justify ANYTHING. The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few because needs are subjective, so the phrase becomes meaningless.

Now your just employing a silppery slope argument. i.e A=B, B=C,C=D. What do you mean needs are subjective??????:blink: so humans having enough to eat, being able to have shelter, being able to develop personally is not a need. Using your logic i guess access to clean water should not be available to you because in 'my' view needs are subjective and i don't think you need water.





[/FONT]



The slave isn't free to associate as he wants to; I don't support slavery. But people lived and existed before capitalism, if its so bad why don't they go back to subsistence farming? What you want is the benefits of capitalism (capital, doi!) without capitalists, and what I'm saying is you can't have your cake and eat it too. I really don't care about inequitable structures. I care about the fact that billions more are living than they could've under feudalism and, at least in the United States, they are living in material wealth.

Many workers in the world are often not free, to 'associate' with whom they wish, that is a feature of capitalism(the world is much more than the USA). Strawman again, i am not advocating for a return to feudalism.The rise productive forces and capicity has came from the workers not capital, a lump of gold left by it's self will in 100 years time will turn to a lump of gold*Shock horror*. Then we are always going to disagree if you don't care about inequitable structures, you libertarians/free market theologians harp on about meritocracy and freedom and extending liberty to every one yet you don't care about the concept of private productive who causes some to have structural adavantages/disadvantages:rolleyes:. Do you read my posts? not once did a advocate for everyone to return to feudalism and once again capitalism is a supra-national system will coincidently means it is more than the USA, capitalism is a supranational system so to say 'least in the united states' is like saying 'hey at least my family are not starving. If you are so concerned about billions living surely a system based on the needs of the people and not profit is necessary, no?




I'm not saying it. Not everybody enjoys life; so does that mean it is the point of our existence to make life pleasureable for them? Sorry, humans exist under conditions of scarcity, and if you don't like that, well, then you can put or shut up. But to blame your employer for scarcity is silly. Its like blaming a buffet for not having food, when they clearly do. I"m not saying everybody else can get on it. I'm saying they don't have to work within the system. I however recognize that my productivity is improved and would much rather work within the system than without it. You would take the system, consume its capital, and live high on the hog for a generation.

Oh piss off. The fact that there is scarcity provides is a stronger case for a planned economy or a system which seeks not to produce products which breakdown after a year. They don't have to work within the system? it is not like people can step outside of capitalism, capitalism is a supranational system.

[FONT=Times New Roman]



Well you said "are you serious" in reply to the statement that mutually beneficial markets would be outlawed. I assumed you were incredulous; why would such a thing be outlawed? But the existence of a black market proves, that to at least some extent, it was and theres reason to believe it would be again.

:confused:Still not aboard. The real alternative would to produce and allocate resources so people did not have to go to a black market to get these goods.

[anticap]

According to the text quoted, the OP appears to be asking for answers to two different questions (paraphrased):

1. Do we believe that socialism can "outcompete" capitalism?

2. What do we think of so-called "free-market socialism" [sic]?

As to #1: I believe that the people will institute socialism when the time is right; it's got nothing to do with competing side-by-side. As I've said elsewhere, I believe that competition is necessary only if the goal is to defeat or destroy; and that if the goal is to create, then cooperation can (and should) be used instead. But since capitalism is inherently competitive and socialism inherently cooperative, and since the question is who would "win" in a competition, the deck is already stacked against socialism. It will have to remain "mixed" in the sense of maintaining competitive structures (most importantly: a military), simply in order to run the race. It will not be allowed to put its full cooperative potential to use in order to see how it might compare with capitalism in its own full "glory." Remember: the primary tenet of capitalism is growth, which it must do if it is to survive; when capitalists burn through their resources, they will come gunning for the socialists, who had better be ready to defend themselves. So #1 can't be taken seriously: it is asking a non-capitalist system to compete against capitalism on capitalist terms and at less than full capacity.

As to #2: I think the very idea is nonsense. The market implies conditions, which ought to be obvious enough, that do not exist in socialism. Thus, "market socialism" is an oxymoron.