Milton Friedman on Greed

[trivas7]

"The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate self-interest." Milton Friedman here argues that all contemporary societies are based on greed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related

[scarletghoul]

thank you for sharing this with us, trivas7.

[Dimentio]

Why do then parents not sell their handicapped kids to research facilities?

[ed miliband]

http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything

[RGacky3]

First of all, if you want to see Milton Friedmans theories in practice see Iceland (before you right wingers scream out YEAH BUT THE USSR, no, Milton Friedman WENT to iceland and approved of their system, most socialists disaproved of the Soviet system pretty early on).

Second of all, human nature is not set in stone it molds to the circumstances, Capitalist rewards greed so of coarse people will, to survive, be greedy.

Third of all, Even if it were true, why would you want to set a system where a few people have all the economic power if they inevitably will only work in their own self interest? Would'nt it make more sense to democratize the system so as to limit the power one selfish human has?

Fourth of all, there have been many actual controlled scientific studies on human nature, and the Capitalists view of it just does'nt vibe with science.

[Meridian]

People pursue their interests, to the degree that they can, but there is nothing which necessitates that this interest is separate from that of others. Even in modern capitalist societies, the interests of many are not separate from that of others, an example being what Dimentio said.

[RGacky3]

There have been studies done on informal economies within capitalism, that show that informal, non-profit, non-market based economic activity is actually quite sizable when you put market prices on it, that within a society that totally regects and shuns that sort of thing.

[Dimentio]

First of all, if you want to see Milton Friedmans theories in practice see Iceland (before you right wingers scream out YEAH BUT THE USSR, no, Milton Friedman WENT to iceland and approved of their system, most socialists disaproved of the Soviet system pretty early on).

Second of all, human nature is not set in stone it molds to the circumstances, Capitalist rewards greed so of coarse people will, to survive, be greedy.

Third of all, Even if it were true, why would you want to set a system where a few people have all the economic power if they inevitably will only work in their own self interest? Would'nt it make more sense to democratize the system so as to limit the power one selfish human has?

Fourth of all, there have been many actual controlled scientific studies on human nature, and the Capitalists view of it just does'nt vibe with science.

Milton Friedman approved Iceland? The modern experiment with unregulated banking was initialised first AFTER his death.

I am sure the Iceland he approved of was the Icelandic Commonwealth of 900-1200, which ended in complete self-destruction. Neither did it have anything in common with Capitalism, but it is probably the only society in history where every (male) inhabitant has been sovereign.

[RGacky3]

Friedman died in 2006, the reforms started in the early 1990s. Their reforms were heavily influenced on Friedman, and from my recollection, Friedman praised them.

[Dean]

"The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate self-interest." Milton Friedman here argues that all contemporary societies are based on greed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related

And this is precisely why individuals shouldn't be allowed to personally accumulate economic and political power.

[Palingenisis]

Why do then parents not sell their handicapped kids to research facilities?

I honestly dont believe that most people are that greedy, or that greed is that main driving force in their life.

[Thirsty Crow]

I honestly dont believe that most people are that greedy, or that greed is that main driving force in their life.
But nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that some of the psychological motives behind the activities of the most affluent, influential and powerful players in the market stands in some kind of correlation to what we would call greed.
Accumulation of capital is not something that is just desirable. It is completely necessary within the system of economic competition.

[Palingenisis]

But nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that some of the psychological motives behind the activities of the most affluent, influential and powerful players in the market stands in some kind of correlation to what we would call greed.
.

True, of course all of us have greed, and of course there are greedy people in the world but in a lot of cases the hunger for wealth isnt for the wealth in itself but rather for the security and/or power that brings. Also people will want to do well in their job in order that they can start a family with all the costs that that brings. Some may call that greed but I wouldnt call it so. Most people are not high "powered business men". To say that most people are driven principly by greed and not by more social emotions (like love for husband, wife, kids, friends, etc) is wrong I think.

[brigadista]

he is the last person to speak of greed...

[#FF0000]

Self interest =/= greed

[Ravachol]

Thank you, persuing my self-interest as a proletarian would mean the abolition of class society and the destruction of state and Capital so I'm down with that.

[guydebordismyhomeboy]

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.

No, I believe that's called the state of nature.


The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus.

Two words: the Internet.


Einstein didn't construct his theory on order from a bureaucrat.

He also didn't construct it on order from a CEO.


Why do people believe that Friedman was such an amazing thinker again?

[Revolution starts with U]

Government beureaus have created;
Extensive roadways... basically roads in general, complex stonemasonry, sea and ocean going ships, space flight, the internet, the roman aquaduct system, the concept of formal schooling, the law, and every capitalists favorite development; private property laws

In addition the following people have worked for the government when they made their creations;
Imhotep, Hippocrates, confuciaus, newton, copernicus, watson and crick, openheimer, al gore and everyone else who worked on arpanet.

Idk, that was just a rough, from memory, outline. There's probably far more I'm leaving out.

[NGNM85]

"The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate self-interest." Milton Friedman here argues that all contemporary societies are based on greed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related

There are a number of problems with this. However, first and foremost is this myth that individuals have discrete interests.

[trivas7]

http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything
Until socialism comes to pass we are obliged to pursue greed the capitalist way.


And this is precisely why individuals shouldn't be allowed to personally accumulate economic and political power.
Spoken like a true authoritarian.


There are a number of problems with this. However, first and foremost is this myth that individuals have discrete interests.
What do you mean by this?

[Dean]

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

Right, not supporting the accumulation of power over others makes me authoritarian. What you're saying indicates that you would consider it authoritarian of me to oppose slavery. Which shows just how stupid and childish your quixotic worship of property rights really is.

[Revolution starts with U]

I was thinking the same thing

[#FF0000]

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

are you joking

[Palingenisis]

are you joking

Id be happy to show trivas true authoritarianism. ;)

[RGacky3]

Friedman died in 2006, the reforms started in the early 1990s. Their reforms were heavily influenced on Friedman, and from my recollection, Friedman praised them.


Dimentio, this is where you say "my bad."

[NGNM85]

What do you mean by this?

Unless they live by themselves in a hut completely severed from the rest of humanity, no-one can be said to have discrete interests. If you need a new pair of shoes that is not merely your own interest, it is the interest of the shoemaker, and to his suppliers, and distributors, to the plants and factories and farms that produce the basic ingredients, and all of their employees and their children, etc., etc. There is virtually nothing you could want, from posessions, to physical necessities, to romantic love, that can be said to be a discrete interest.

[trivas7]

And this is precisely why individuals shouldn't be allowed to personally accumulate economic and political power.

What makes you authoritarian is that you would enforce upon others what they can and cannot do with their lives and energy, thus breaking the non-aggression princlple. You would, of course, justify your aggression in the name of the good of society.

LIke all do-gooders you say outright that you purport to know what the good is and wills to enforce your morality upon an entire society.

[RGacky3]

What makes you authoritarian is that you would enforce upon others what they can and cannot do with their lives and energy, thus breaking the non-aggression princlple. You would, of course, justify your aggression in the name of the good of society.


So stopping people from taking authoritarian control is .... authoritarian?

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes. According to your definition, people that were abolitionists were authoritarian as well.
We're well aware of how capitalists think of "liberty." :mad:

[Dean]

What makes you authoritarian is that you would enforce upon others what they can and cannot do with their lives and energy, thus breaking the non-aggression princlple. You would, of course, justify your aggression in the name of the good of society.

No. I only justify aggression as a response to exploitation, which is always accomplished via the usage of power over others, which I seek to abolish.


LIke all do-gooders you say outright that you purport to know what the good is and wills to enforce your morality upon an entire society.
Oh, give me a break. You support a specific model of property distribution and ownership, so this criticism applies no less to you than me. The difference is that I actually have a system with which I can assess property and its social character. You, on the other hand, pretend that "neutrality" doesn't endorse the extant, exploitative order - which is of course bullshit.

[ComradeMan]

Oh, give me a break. You support a specific model of property distribution and ownership, so this criticism applies no less to you than me. The difference is that I actually have a system with which I can assess property and its social character. You, on the other hand, pretend that "neutrality" doesn't endorse the extant, exploitative order - which is of course bullshit.

Assessing is one thing, making a change is another.

[Dean]

Assessing is one thing, making a change is another.
Thanks for the token hyperbole, this thread needed that.

[Dimentio]

I honestly dont believe that most people are that greedy, or that greed is that main driving force in their life.

Well, that would lie in their "rational, egoistical self-interest" wouldn't it?

[ComradeMan]

Thanks for the token hyperbole, this thread needed that.

It's not token hyperbole. It's a valid point. It's easy to assess- it's harder to change things. ;)

[Dean]

It's not token hyperbole. It's a valid point. It's easy to assess- it's harder to change things. ;)
rad


:D:thumbup1:

[Dimentio]

What makes you authoritarian is that you would enforce upon others what they can and cannot do with their lives and energy, thus breaking the non-aggression princlple. You would, of course, justify your aggression in the name of the good of society.

LIke all do-gooders you say outright that you purport to know what the good is and wills to enforce your morality upon an entire society.

And if some people do not have resources to be able to choose what they want to do with their lives?

If a person had zero talents, would actually wreck things on a workplace out of sheer clumsiness, is totally socially incompetent to the point of being outcast from society, what would you advice that person?

[NGNM85]

Trivias7, I don't want to come off like a dick, but I am genuinely curious how you reconcile this issue of 'discrete interests.' To my mind this is a massive, gaping hole in Objectivist philosphy, and while I'm pretty sure we disagree on most things, I would like to know what your take is on this.

[Milk Sheikh]

It's not token hyperbole. It's a valid point. It's easy to assess- it's harder to change things. ;)

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.;)

[Ravachol]

What makes you authoritarian is that you would enforce upon others what they can and cannot do with their lives and energy

Which is exactly what is the case under Capitalist social relations. The Capital/Labour relation means that, by 'virtue' of owning nothing but one's labour, one has to sell his or her time to those who own Capital in order to survive. This 'enforces upon others what they can and cannot do with their lives and energy'. Also, nobody cares when something is enforced upon the bourgeoisie, tough shit, deal with it.

[Palingenisis]

Well, that would lie in their "rational, egoistical self-interest" wouldn't it?

Yes and no...I mean people through out the world make sacrifices for others that go against their "rational, egoistical self-interest". I know this sounds hippyish but I believe that love is the strongest driving force in human nature (or at least when human nature is healthyish).

[trivas7]

So stopping people from taking authoritarian control is .... authoritarian?
This is indeed how historically Communism in practice has worked out, no?


Trivias7, I don't want to come off like a dick, but I am genuinely curious how you reconcile this issue of 'discrete interests.' To my mind this is a massive, gaping hole in Objectivist philosphy, and while I'm pretty sure we disagree on most things, I would like to know what your take is on this.
I am not an Objectivist, but I appreciate its sympathy for the individual:



Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.'

To say that there are no discrete interests among individuals is to believe that we have a hive mind that works collectively, but this just isn't the case. Individuals as individuals have hopes and goals that are private to themselves and are not shared by others. Self-actualization is an individual affair.I understand that there is an understanding of individualism among leftist that goes back to Marx Stirner; IMO it is an unprincipled one.

Having said all this I am bothered by my stance; I am not really convinced that the NAP is correct and confess I remain confused in my politics.

[trivas7]

Oh, give me a break. You support a specific model of property distribution and ownership, so this criticism applies no less to you than me. The difference is that I actually have a system with which I can assess property and its social character. You, on the other hand, pretend that "neutrality" doesn't endorse the extant, exploitative order - which is of course bullshit.
You have a system that legitimizes your particular view that property is inherently exploitative. I have no such view; property is morally neutral IMO.

[Havet]

To say that there are no discrete interests among individuals is to believe that we have a hive mind that works collectively, but this just isn't the case.

We do have some collective needs. You can't deny that.

[RGacky3]

This is indeed how historically Communism in practice has worked out, no?


No one was talking about the USSR, why are you dodging Trivas.

Were abolitionists authoritarians?


We do have some collective needs. You can't deny that.

In a way NO economic activity is individual, its all social to a degree, even just between 2 people, its between 2 people, the line we need to draw is at what point should economic activity be a social process? At what point should it be a individual process? Also we need to see what the power relations should be within that econmic activity.

[trivas7]

Were abolitionists authoritarians?

Neither were they socialists/leftists.

[trivas7]

We do have some collective needs. You can't deny that.
I do deny it. There is no human collective that is a hive mind; we are not a species like ants. All needs are discrete and individual. In Marxist terms species being has no collective needs, only individual men and woman.

[Havet]

I do deny it. There is no human collective that is a hive mind; we are not a species like ants. All needs are discrete and individual.

So, objectively speaking, you deny that all of us need water, food and air (do notice that i'm not talking in any specific amounts here).

We can have colelctive needs without having a collective mind...

[Dean]

You have a system that legitimizes your particular view that property is inherently exploitative. I have no such view; property is morally neutral IMO.

You have a system that legitimizes your view that property is "neutral." This only works if you assume that individuals have no right to opportunity or the pursuit of happiness, since the material dispensation of goods and resources is fundamental to this pursuit.

Further, your viewpoint (in convenient a priori rhetoric) that property is "neutral" is an endorsement of the relations of property as they exist. Even if you attempt to excise the deliberate systems of state regulation with a quixotic dichotomy between economic and political market leverage, it means nothing in a market where private business choices create fundamentally unfair conditions in the market.

I don't think that property is inherently exploitative. The property relations that come about from market activity tend to be. Some "market socialists" and mutualists like to try to excise the worst parts of this corrupt system, but it is only cute children like you that have the audacity to claim that economic conditions won't be exploitative if you would only make the whole thing private.

Its just a convenient ideology all around for you, since you have absolutely no need to engage in specific analysis and criticism of the extant order. But the conclusions inherent in your system only work by being simple and completely detached from the material conditions of the world, and ignoring the history and data we have on economics.

This is why the Austrians, Popper and Rand (from what little I know of her) all specifically ignored data and history: it was the only way they could make their idealist fantasies work.

[RGacky3]

Neither were they socialists/leftists.

Yeah, but your reason for calling socialists authoritarian would also by definition be applied to abolitionists.


There is no human collective that is a hive mind; we are not a species like ants. All needs are discrete and individual. In Marxist terms species being has no collective needs, only individual men and woman.

Theres no connection to having a collective mind, and having collective needs.

[trivas7]

So, objectively speaking, you deny that all of us need water, food and air (do notice that i'm not talking in any specific amounts here).

Food and water satisfy the needs of individual men and woman. Perhaps this is a semantic point or I'm not understanding your point. Am I making any sense?

[Dean]

This is indeed how historically Communism in practice has worked out, no?
No, Communist parties have specifically taken authoritarian control themselves, rather than what a real communist state-of-things would engender: the people themselves taking that same control from the "Communist Party" as well as all the capitalists, bourgeois &c..



I am not an Objectivist, but I appreciate its sympathy for the individual:


To say that there are no discrete interests among individuals is to believe that we have a hive mind that works collectively, but this just isn't the case. Individuals as individuals have hopes and goals that are private to themselves and are not shared by others. Self-actualization is an individual affair.I understand that there is an understanding of individualism among leftist that goes back to Marx Stirner; IMO it is an unprincipled one.

Having said all this I am bothered by my stance; I am not really convinced that the NAP is correct and confess I remain confused in my politics.
As you should. Self-actualization occurs via interaction in society, and individualism can only really be achieved on a broad scale via the introduction of personal opportunity to actualize yourself with or without others.

But the "actualization" of the laboring man/woman in a workplace owned by a capitalist, indeed the whole paradigm of capitalist (centralized) management of the means of production, is hardly individualist. Individuals will only have the ability and the right to personally actualize themselves when they can control their labor in full, and therefore, control over the means of production in so far as they use them.

Mere ownership over the means of production is not individualist, nor is it liberating - unless, as I pointed out, it is only as a function of one's own labor.

[trivas7]

Yeah, but your reason for calling socialists authoritarian would also by definition be applied to abolitionists.

I call socialists authoritarian because that is how they have acted when they've taken state power.


Theres no connection to having a collective mind, and having collective needs.
How then do collective needs differ from individual needs?

[Havet]

Food and water satisfy the needs of individual men and woman. Perhaps this is a semantic point or I'm not understanding your point. Am I making any sense?

ALL people have the need for air, water and food (by this order). That fact is independent of the race, sex or number of people.

Thus it is a collective need.

I could say that a computer is an individual need, since it depends on a specific job where high computational speed and skill is essential.

[trivas7]

No, Communist parties have specifically taken authoritarian control themselves, rather than what a real communist state-of-things would engender: the people themselves taking that same control from the "Communist Party" as well as all the capitalists, bourgeois &c..
Show me a communist state-of-things before you tell me what it would engender. The real history of the Communist movement is as I have described it.



As you should. Self-actualization occurs via interaction in society, and individualism can only really be achieved on a broad scale via the introduction of personal opportunity to actualize yourself with or without others.

But the "actualization" of the laboring man/woman in a workplace owned by a capitalist, indeed the whole paradigm of capitalist (centralized) management of the means of production, is hardly individualist. Individuals will only have the ability and the right to personally actualize themselves when they can control their labor in full, and therefore, control over the means of production in so far as they use them.

Mere ownership over the means of production is not individualist, nor is it liberating - unless, as I pointed out, it is only as a function of one's own labor.
This just denies that self-actualization has ever happened or is even possible in societies with a division of labor. Whatever then was Maslow talking about?

[Palingenisis]

Dean I dont understand why you would argue with a libertarian. They are pure and simple scum who's daydreams are obviously fed by sociopathy. I wouldnt argue with a bonehead about race and arguing with this wanker about human nature and economics amounts to nearly the same thing. Why not argue with Bud who may be idiotic but still a bit of a decent skin and doesnt see things as totally "me" and fuck everyone else?

[Havet]

Dean I dont understand why you would argue with a libertarian. They are pure and simple scum who's daydreams are obviously fed by sociopathy. I wouldnt argue with a bonehead about race and arguing with this wanker about human nature and economics amounts to nearly the same thing. Why not argue with Bud who may be idiotic but still a bit of a decent skin and doesnt see things as totally "me" and fuck everyone else?

The fact that trivas7 states that he isn't sure about his politics means that he's at least showing some openness to new ideas and debating the old dogmas and reasons every one of us have throughout life.

And stop using the word 'libertarian' so conservatively. No pun intended.

[#FF0000]

I call socialists authoritarian because that is how they have acted when they've taken state power.


Show me a communist state-of-things before you tell me what it would engender. The real history of the Communist movement is as I have described it.

You realize that this history of Communist movements also includes Socialists killing other Socialists who argued for a more open political process, right?

[Palingenisis]

The fact that trivas7 states that he isn't sure about his politics means that he's at least showing some openness to new ideas and debating the old dogmas and reasons every one of us have throughout life.

And stop using the word 'libertarian' so conservatively. No pun intended.

Okay Libertarian Socialists I consider naive but I dont consider them scum. Mises type Libertarians are. The fact that someone would even consider such crap...Well they have shown a serious disconnect from humanity at large.

Isnt sure about his politics? Well lets face it no one, not the establishment even takes them seriously in terms of economics. Im fully prepared to die for my politics, Im also fully prepared to kill for them...And both those things are a good way of judging if people's politics are sincere....As much as I disagree with them Im sure Devrim and Leo are prepared to do both. So I take their politics seriously. Someone who takes Mises's politics seriously is either a sociopath, psychopath or is a trendy student who wants to assert himself because he (and it usually is a he with "libertarianism") hasnt individuated properly. Boohoo...When people are starving to death unnecessarily and little girls are grown as a cash crop for brothels the neurosis of middle class malcontents doesnt really concern me.

[Palingenisis]

The mental masturbation of a maladjusted white boy should be a concern of the revolutionary left? :laugh:

[Dean]

Show me a communist state-of-things before you tell me what it would engender. The real history of the Communist movement is as I have described it.
I've only described what it means when people are in control of their own labor. This has happened, usually on small scale or short periods. And that is simply because such systems are a threat to capitalist economies - the latter consistently do everything to crush the former. Importantly, the same is also true for the NAP model.

The difference is that NAP is an attempt to alienate and compartmentalize society into individuals. Communists, on the other hand, seek to build upon social relations and move forward.


This just denies that self-actualization has ever happened or is even possible in societies with a division of labor. Whatever then was Maslow talking about?
No, it doesn't. I'm describing specific systems in which self-actualization is hampered. These systems are not black and white - they are always mixtures of free and shackled labor. The rate at which capitalists control the means or production is inversely proportional to the freedom of labor under that system.


Dean I dont understand why you would argue with a libertarian. They are pure and simple scum who's daydreams are obviously fed by sociopathy. I wouldnt argue with a bonehead about race and arguing with this wanker about human nature and economics amounts to nearly the same thing. Why not argue with Bud who may be idiotic but still a bit of a decent skin and doesnt see things as totally "me" and fuck everyone else?
Trivas7 used to be a leftist. I'm trying to explain some of the more obvious flaws in his idealism.


I call socialists authoritarian because that is how they have acted when they've taken state power.
Unfortunately for you, the actual implementation of socialism has never been authoritarian. These points have been repeaded ad nauseum but you still don't get it. Even the "socialist revolutions" in Russia, China, Korea and elsewhere have been, of their own admission, capitalist.

[Palingenisis]

Trivas7 used to be a leftist. I'm trying to explain some of the more obvious flaws in his idealism.


My "leftism" isnt a nice or logical idea for me, its born of my love and loyalty for my flatmate and her son, for my family and my friends, and for all those from whom communism is a necesscity.

None of those I mentioned would think of becoming libertarians.

[Havet]

Okay Libertarian Socialists I consider naive but I dont consider them scum. Mises type Libertarians are. The fact that someone would even consider such crap...Well they have shown a serious disconnect from humanity at large.

Isnt sure about his politics? Well lets face it no one, not the establishment even takes them seriously in terms of economics. Im fully prepared to die for my politics, Im also fully prepared to kill for them...And both those things are a good way of judging if people's politics are sincere....As much as I disagree with them Im sure Devrim and Leo are prepared to do both. So I take their politics seriously. Someone who takes Mises's politics seriously is either a sociopath, psychopath or is a trendy student who wants to assert himself because he (and it usually is a he with "libertarianism") hasnt individuated properly. Boohoo...When people are starving to death unnecessarily and little girls are grown as a cash crop for brothels the neurosis of middle class malcontents doesnt really concern me.

Well imo that is quite insulting

I used to be a convict anarcho-capitalist/right-libertarian/misean not because I was a sociopath or i was detached from reality or because i lived in some sort of bubble. it was because i thought there was data, facts and a logic behind right-libertarianism that could help the poorest of people in the most efficient way

ive been to some of the shittiest places on earth, namely Angola. ive seen children drink out of open sewers because they had no water. ive seen towers of garbage bigger than small buildings. and ive seen the corruption of the government that continues to explore both its people and foreign business with absurdly high entry barriers.

In my country still everyday I am in touch with elements of extreme poverty. And it does not disgust me, making me turn a blind eye; it rather prompts me to action. And i think most right-libertarians are like this, except they based their set of ideas on false data.

I'm not sure if i'm willing to die for my ideas, since i'm no good dead, as I would not be able to help anyone. Sure, its nice to say you'd be willing to die for a cause, or to be arrested for it (which curiously many right-libertarians also say), but if you're in jail you're doing nothing, you aren't bringing any meaningful change. Its a short-sighted strategy imo.

As for other ideologies, my stance is usually one of tolerance within rational limits. I'm quite looking forward the massification of seasteading to an affordable level for people to try new societies more easily. But until then, i still side with 19th-century Voltairine de Cleyre on this one:


There are, accordingly, several economic schools among Anarchists; there are Anarchist Individualists, Anarchist Mutualists, Anarchist Communists and Anarchist Socialists.

In times past these several schools have bitterly denounced each other and mutually refused to recognize each other as Anarchists at all. The more narrowminded on both sides still do so; true, they do not consider it is narrow-mindedness, but simply a firm and solid grasp of the truth, which does not permit of tolerance towards error. (!!!) This has been the attitude of the bigot in all ages, and Anarchism no more than any other new doctrine has escaped its bigots. Each of these fanatical adherents of either collectivism or individualism believes that no Anarchism is possible without that particular economic system as its guarantee, and is of'course thoroughly justified
from his own standpoint.

With the extension of what Comrade Brown calls the New Spirit, however, this old narrowness is yielding to the broader, kindlier and far more reasonable idea, that all these economic conceptions may be experimented with, and there is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of them until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to.

[robbo203]

"The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate self-interest." Milton Friedman here argues that all contemporary societies are based on greed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related


Really? If that were really true the why the hell do the great majority allow a tiny bunch of economic parasites - the capitalist class - to leech off them and grow fat on their efforts? On the face of it it is not greed that contemporary societies are based on but the lack of it. Friedman hasnt got a clue when it comes down to it.

[RGacky3]

I call socialists authoritarian because that is how they have acted when they've taken state power.

No you Called dean authoritarian because he said this.


And this is precisely why individuals shouldn't be allowed to personally accumulate economic and political power.

Now be a man and defend your statement IN context.


How then do collective needs differ from individual needs?

Well if I'm a boss of a factory, my individual need might be to dump pollution in a river, and cut my workers pay to make more money, but that is not in the collective need of the community that uses the river for drinking water or the workers that work in your factory.

[Dean]

My "leftism" isnt a nice or logical idea for me, its born of my love and loyalty for my flatmate and her son, for my family and my friends, and for all those from whom communism is a necesscity.

You may not think of it this way, but that seems completely logical to me.

[trivas7]

Well if I'm a boss of a factory, my individual need might be to dump pollution in a river, and cut my workers pay to make more money, but that is not in the collective need of the community that uses the river for drinking water or the workers that work in your factory.
IMO you don't know what a need is. The collective need of the community is just another way of saying that individuals have a need for clean drinking water -- including the factory boss.

[#FF0000]

IMO you don't know what a need is. The collective need of the community is just another way of saying that individuals have a need for clean drinking water -- including the factory boss. The factory boss can have glacial ice shipped in. The workers are stuck with the creek.

[trivas7]

Its just a convenient ideology all around for you, since you have absolutely no need to engage in specific analysis and criticism of the extant order. But the conclusions inherent in your system only work by being simple and completely detached from the material conditions of the world, and ignoring the history and data we have on economics.

This is why the Austrians, Popper and Rand (from what little I know of her) all specifically ignored data and history: it was the only way they could make their idealist fantasies work.
OTC, t's you who are the idealist if you think that capitalism is a "system" that doesn't engage in specific analysis and self-criticism. This happens on a daily basis. You believe in something that doesn't and seems more and more apparent will never come to pass. Capitalism as it is now practiced isn't something that produces "conclusions" or is engaged in some mass conspiracy to disenfranchise people. OTC it is the only way that has ever allowed the masses to lead lives of relative decency and dignity.

[#FF0000]

OTC it is the only way that has ever allowed the masses to lead lives of relative decency and dignity.

Except for the masses that can't.

[Revolution starts with U]

Upon further analysis you will see that those "gains" only came through constant agitation of bourgie republicanism on behalf of socialists, anti-authoritarians, and other anti-capitalist leftists.
Were it capitalism that provided, or democracy?

[Dean]

OTC, t's you who are the idealist if you think that capitalism is a "system" that doesn't engage in specific analysis and self-criticism. This happens on a daily basis. You believe in something that doesn't and seems more and more apparent will never come to pass.
Oh no, capitalism does. But you don't, and that's what we're talking about here. You have no interest in critically assessing the economic system we live in. Others, including some capitalists, actually do.

And capitalism itself consistently seeks ways in which it can accrue value and wealth without producing as much or providing as much compensation for labor. It's self-criticism is consistently in this vein - not some humanism as you childishly imply.


Capitalism as it is now practiced isn't something that produces "conclusions"
No, but you do make conclusions.

or is engaged in some mass conspiracy to disenfranchise people.
Actually, it is, by nature of the valorization process, which defines capitalism at its core.


OTC it is the only way that has ever allowed the masses to lead lives of relative decency and dignity.
Hah! you don't even know what you're saying here. Feudalism was "the only way that has ever allowed the masses to lead lives of relative decency and dignity" in its time. Its ridiculous to cite something as "unique" and then describe a "relative uniqueness." I don't think you even understand the English language.

Communists roundly accept that capitalism has been better than previous systems. Recently, however, it has culminated in massive graft and aggregation of wealth, which lowers the dispensation of funds to the massive consumer class. This, in turn, slows demand and makes production slow dramatically.

I could go on about finance capitalism but - as you have indicated - you don't think there is any need to critique economic systems. Their self-criticism is sufficient!

[RGacky3]

The collective need of the community is just another way of saying that individuals have a need for clean drinking water -- including the factory boss.

Yeah, ALL the individuals need clean drinking water, thats the definition of a collective need.

Oh but no, the Boss lives in a rich community, so he does'nt need that cleaning water, so his needs are not the same.

There are millions of these examples, I can't believe I had to give you one.

[Rafiq]

People do pursue their personal interest. But their personal interest a lot of the time is making sure others pursue they're personal interest.

Never the less, this has nothing to do with greed.

Milton Friedman's Ideas would work perfectly.... If everyone in the world was a capitalist.

Unfortunately for him, only 1/20 of the humans on Earth can for fill their greedy desires.

Bourgeois economists like to pretend that workers are just animals, slaves, if you will, and their theory's only apply an benefit to the Bourgeoisie.

[Rafiq]

OTC, t's you who are the idealist if you think that capitalism is a "system" that doesn't engage in specific analysis and self-criticism. This happens on a daily basis. You believe in something that doesn't and seems more and more apparent will never come to pass. Capitalism as it is now practiced isn't something that produces "conclusions" or is engaged in some mass conspiracy to disenfranchise people. OTC it is the only way that has ever allowed the masses to lead lives of relative decency and dignity.

Really, because I'd rather live in non-capitalist state of affairs in a place like Cuba, than live in a capitalist state of affairs, in Cuba.

The least you could do, is admit, that the 'abolishing' of 'capitalism' in the third world has brought impressive economic results, including the raising of the standard of living.