Cartels

[Nolan]

This (http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/staff/connor/papers/Zimmerman_Connor_Determinants_of_Cartel_Duration_0 4_04_05.pdf)is a nice paper I found on the net.

Discuss.

[Havet]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1735588&postcount=55

Discuss

[Dean]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1735588&postcount=55

Discuss

I thought that quote wasn't about cartels,which you posit later in that thread:



I'm glad you value facts, because I have some for you:

Complete Free-enterprise does not achieve conglomeration, and there is no evidence of this occurring, especially in 1900. To keep it simple, my main points are that government regulatory agencies, which actively enforced laws which AID conglomeration, formed PRIOR to 1900:Well, your quote deals with cartels which are definitely not conglomerates.

Wrong

In any case, we are left with this position:

Cartels can be effective at providing monopoly power, but are sometimes ineffective, and occasionally adversely affect the business. (your example versus a slew in tha above essay)

So, your conclusion is to not concern yourself with cartels - "the free market will somehow create total barriers to their effective implementation" (paraphrased because you are so adverse to making actual assertions).

Mine is to point out that even if sometimes it fails, those times it succeeds - even in the off chance it was only about 1% - it will have a compelling effect on the market to empower come firms, disempower others, but more importantly to disempower wage laborers and consumers by providing a standard business model.

So, it needs to be considered as an expected output of for-profit market regimes.

[Havet]

Mine is to point out that even if sometimes it fails, those times it succeeds - even in the off chance it was only about 1% - it will have a compelling effect on the market to empower come firms, disempower others, but more importantly to disempower wage laborers and consumers by providing a standard business model.

So, it needs to be considered as an expected output of for-profit market regimes.

that is bollocks and you know it. it would be analogous to me claiming:

Mine is to point out that even if sometimes stalinist attempts fail, those times it succeeds - even in the off chance it was only about 1% - will have a compelling effect on society to empower some party members, disempower everyone else, but more importantly to disempower wage laborers and consumers by forcing a ruthless totalitarian government.

So, it needs to be considered as an expected output of communist regimes.

[Dean]

that is bollocks and you know it. it would be analogous to me claiming:

Mine is to point out that even if sometimes stalinist attempts fail, those times it succeeds - even in the off chance it was only about 1% - will have a compelling effect on society to empower some party members, disempower everyone else, but more importantly to disempower wage laborers and consumers by forcing a ruthless totalitarian government.

So, it needs to be considered as an expected output of communist regimes.

You're pretty much spot-on up until the last statement, which seeks an erroneous link between the interests represented by a communist regime, which has been understood:
-on the one hand, by Marx, (which may be considered an authority because the soviet regimes, and subsequent regimes which used communism as a tool for propaganda base their primary ideological lineage on Marx) describes socialist organization (which he calls for) a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - this is not a dictatorship as we know of today, since remember we are dealing with a different linguistic paradigm. Rather, Marx is demanding a state of economic organization which places the working class as the primary arbiter of economic relations - those relations they exist in, in other words: in control of their lives.

Communism is 100% the devolution of power to the productive class, in order to transform the distribution to benefit more people more closely to their input-value, but also to create a more cooperative social organization.

Your best argument would probably be "it hasn't existed, and we can't expect such systems to become commonplace." I don't see any other option - the free market creates precisely the system which all capitalist systems call for, and all but a select few (typically weak) states call for the same kinds of systems.

[Havet]

You're pretty much spot-on up until the last statement, which seeks an erroneous link between the interests represented by a communist regime, which has been understood:
-on the one hand, by Marx, describes socialist organization a "dictatorship of the proletariat" . Rather, Marx is demanding a state of economic organization which places the working class as the primary arbiter of economic relations - those relations they exist in, in other words: in control of their lives.

I am not talking of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", I am talking of the very realistic fact that communist attempts have a chance to degenerate into totalitarian hell holes, and by your own line of reasoning, since those totalitarian hell holes disempower wage laborers and consumers, then totalitarian hell holes need to be considered as an expected output of communist regimes

I'm just following your line of reason here.

[Zanthorus]

I am not talking of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", I am talking of the very realistic fact that communist attempts have a chance to degenerate into totalitarian hell holes, and by your own line of reasoning, since those totalitarian hell holes disempower wage laborers and consumers, then totalitarian hell holes need to be considered as an expected output of communist regimes

I'm just following your line of reason here.

This is not a problem peculiar to the implementation of communism though. Does anyone really need reminding of this.

http://www.blastmilk.com/decollete/gallery/guillotine/robespierre02.jpg

[Dean]

I am not talking of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", I am talking of the very realistic fact that communist attempts have a chance to degenerate into totalitarian hell holes, and by your own line of reasoning, since those totalitarian hell holes disempower wage laborers and consumers, then totalitarian hell holes need to be considered as an expected output of communist regimes

I'm just following your line of reason here.
No, you're not, because capitalism is alive and well. Markets are alive and well. The same cannot be said of communism except in fractured instances which do not typically represent the ruling paradigm.

If we had a capitalist state with an oppressed communist economy, then you might have a point. Rather, we have an 'oppressed' market (capitalist) economy with a capitalist state.

[Havet]

No, you're not, because capitalism is alive and well. Markets are alive and well. The same cannot be said of communism except in fractured instances which do not typically represent the ruling paradigm.

If we had a capitalist state with an oppressed communist economy, then you might have a point. Rather, we have an 'oppressed' market (capitalist) economy with a capitalist state.

Capitalism may be alive and well, but free-markets are not alive and well. Just as communism is not alive and well. So the analogy stands.

[Dean]

Capitalism may be alive and well, but free-markets are not alive and well. Just as communism is not alive and well. So the analogy stands.

Nope, that's not a reasonable analogy. Markets may not exist as free, but they exist. There is no broad communist system itching to shed off a few state restriction. In fact, there is none.

Market economies exist and can be critiqued for their market-driven characteristics. The fact that you are unwilling to let any criticism of the market forces go through says a lot. You may as well reject all known economics, including your mutualist store example, since they all existed in that same paradigm.

[Havet]

Nope, that's not a reasonable analogy. Markets may not exist as free, but they exist. There is no broad communist system itching to shed off a few state restriction. In fact, there is none.

Market economies exist and can be critiqued for their market-driven characteristics. The fact that you are unwilling to let any criticism of the market forces go through says a lot. You may as well reject all known economics, including your mutualist store example, since they all existed in that same paradigm.

Again I am able to draw an analogy:

Socialism may not exist as pure, but it exists. There are little nuggets of socialism, wherein state/public-ownership plays a greater role in a certain society, as well as organization of labor, in the form of unions.

Socialist economies exist and can be critiqued for their socialist-driven characteristics. The fact that you are unwilling to let any criticism of the "socialist forces" says alot.[/B]

[Dean]

Again I am able to draw an analogy:

Socialism may not exist as pure, but it exists. There are little nuggets of socialism, wherein state/public-ownership plays a greater role in a certain society, as well as organization of labor, in the form of unions.

Socialist economies exist and can be critiqued for their socialist-driven characteristics. The fact that you are unwilling to let any criticism of the "socialist forces" says alot.[/B]

Actually, I'm not! Please point to worker-driven organization, critique it and I will accept that these are legitimate criticisms of the theory in its context. I am very willing to discuss extant socialist systems, but it is worth noting that the bulk of nations serve the interests of capital, and work as capital - in serving the highest bidder - even states like Iran or Venezuela, with leftist rhetoric, have marginal or non-existent worker control.

To be sure, it exists, and where it does it works well. It even exists in firms in the US, and people are incredibly pleased with it. It's hard to make such a system work well due to competition (remember, capitalists want a very centralizing form of economic organization since it means more available capital for acquisition or reinvestment - so capitalists, already controlling the wealth, are dissuaded from this form of investment) but it is very strong where it has managed to acquire a portion of the market.

[Havet]

Actually, I'm not! Please point to worker-driven organization, critique it and I will accept that these are legitimate criticisms of the theory in its context. I am very willing to discuss extant socialist systems, but it is worth noting that the bulk of nations serve the interests of capital, and work as capital - in serving the highest bidder - even states like Iran or Venezuela, with leftist rhetoric, have marginal or non-existent worker control.

To be sure, it exists, and where it does it works well. It even exists in firms in the US, and people are incredibly pleased with it. It's hard to make such a system work well due to competition (remember, capitalists want a very centralizing form of economic organization since it means more available capital for acquisition or reinvestment - so capitalists, already controlling the wealth, are dissuaded from this form of investment) but it is very strong where it has managed to acquire a portion of the market.

Please! Understand what I am saying and what you are saying:

Me: There are no pure examples of free-markets given they are inserted in a capitalist framework

You: There are no pure examples of communism given they are inserted in a capitalist framework

Whenever we point to each other a certain example and how flawed it is, the other replies with the proof of how that example isnt valid given the corruptive nature of the system wherein such example is inserted in.

Of course there are comparisons between capitalism and free-markets (competition, for instance), but their degree is very distant. Just as there are comparisons with current capitalism and communism (labor organization for example), and again the degree of its importance and appearance is very different in each system.

[Dean]

Please! Understand what I am saying and what you are saying:

Me: There are no pure examples of free-markets given they are inserted in a capitalist framework

You: There are no pure examples of communism given they are inserted in a capitalist framework
No. There are limited to few examples of social control, vast numbers of examples of capitalist control. You're dead wrong.


Whenever we point to each other a certain example and how flawed it is, the other replies with the proof of how that example isnt valid given the corruptive nature of the system wherein such example is inserted in.
Oh really? It sounds to me like I keep trying to explain systems were people pay each other to mutually maintain their power, and yo ukeep saying that this explicitly for profit system is somehow not representative of a "market" despite the fact that it has all the makings - sale of a service to benefit the purchaser!


Of course there are comparisons between capitalism and free-markets (competition, for instance), but their degree is very distant. Just as there are comparisons with current capitalism and communism (labor organization for example), and again the degree of its importance and appearance is very different in each system.
Labor organizations are an example of socialism. Very good. Its incredibly weak, and the power has largely been usurped in most cases by a capitalist bureaucracy, but there are good examples.

Now, your criticism of labor unions?

Please note that your above "parallel" between us is false because you're not even providing examples of socialist systems. I am providing examples of market systems.

[Dean]

Actually, you know what? never mind. I'm going to refuse the example of the labor union because there's a state involved in its procedures. That way you can't critize me! Hah!

You've been on the defensive for too long. Criticize my ideology now - that way I can point to the state every time and nullify every one of your examples because - newsflash - the state has it s hands in every fucking economic system and always will so long as there is one, since its nothing more than another power structure with a vested interest in the economy.

You claim rather baselessly that "well lets just get rid of the state, and unicorns will fly us to work." I claim that the underlying system must be understood, that is exploitation of economic and political activity, and those power structures must devolve to community and worker control.

You just ***** about the state - its a convenient scapegoat. You know, Goldman Sachs couldn't defraud people every day if the state wasn't there to... not provide minimal oversight? Wait, so, Sachs only compulsion to provide bad investments was the market value of such enterprise? No, the state psychically compelled them! :laugh:

[Havet]

Actually, you know what? never mind. I'm going to refuse the example of the labor union because there's a state involved in its procedures. That way you can't critize me! Hah!

You've been on the defensive for too long. Criticize my ideology now - that way I can point to the state every time and nullify every one of your examples because - newsflash - the state has it s hands in every fucking economic system and always will so long as there is one, since its nothing more than another power structure with a vested interest in the economy.

You claim rather baselessly that "well lets just get rid of the state, and unicorns will fly us to work." I claim that the underlying system must be understood, that is exploitation of economic and political activity, and those power structures must devolve to community and worker control.

You just ***** about the state - its a convenient scapegoat. You know, Goldman Sachs couldn't defraud people every day if the state wasn't there to... not provide minimal oversight? Wait, so, Sachs only compulsion to provide bad investments was the market value of such enterprise? No, the state psychically compelled them! :laugh:

Thank you comrade, for such a beautiful misrepresentation of my beliefs.