To all right-wing libertarians...

[JKP]

How come I never see Libertarians denouncing the massive increase in the scope of the government?

Things like the Patriot Act.

The religious right.

And of course, Ashcroft's gestapo style attacks in the name of "homeland security".


And what about the imperialist war in Iraq?

And the "libertarians for bush" clique I saw sometime back.


Do you guys oppose this shit or what?

Because all I hear is silence.

[Publius]

How come I never see Libertarians denouncing the massive increase in the scope of the government?

Things like the Patriot Act.

The religious right.

And of course, Ashcroft's gestapo style attacks in the name of "homeland security".


And what about the imperialist war in Iraq?

And the "libertarians for bush" clique I saw sometime back.


Do you guys oppose this shit or what?

Because all I hear is silence.

Of course.

I denounce it as readily as you, as does every major libertarian organization or group.

antiwar.com is run by libertarians.

www.lp.org the Libertarian Party is officially against it.

www.mises.org is as well.

Most libertarians denounce all American wars since WW2.

And no libertarian should support Bush. They can't. Incompatible terms.

All that being said, I oppose the war for the right reasons, not for sheer America hatred or whatever.

At one time I maintained a hope that it would turn out all right and, retrospectively, have been a good decision.

I now realize this is impossible.

[Freedom Works]

Do you guys oppose this shit or what?
Uh, fucking duh.


Because all I hear is silence.
Must not be listening.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 2 2005, 03:08 PM

Do you guys oppose this shit or what?
Uh, fucking duh.


Because all I hear is silence.
Must not be listening.
I understand the official opinion, but I was more interested as to why you guys aren't going out to the streets and directly confronting this.

[quincunx5]

I understand the official opinion, but I was more interested as to why you guys aren't going out to the streets and directly confronting this.


Unless you are spotted by the media, you can reach more people on the internet than any trip through town.

[Publius]

I understand the official opinion, but I was more interested as to why you guys aren't going out to the streets and directly confronting this.

Because it won't make a whit of difference.

100,000 in NYC? Achieved jack shit.

Millions around the world? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing.

Protests and uprisings COULD make a difference, but they won't.

This regime will not listen to reason so why try reasoning with them?

[quincunx5]

This regime will not listen to reason so why try reasoning with them?


Indeed, it is unfortunate that cold hard reasoning does not produce warm fuzzy feelings.
Hence all the apeal to collectivism.

[kidicarus20]

I denounce it as readily as you, as does every major libertarian organization or group.


This idiot flexes positions according to what forum on, sometimes, he's a republican, other times, he's a libertarian, etc.


antiwar.com is run by libertarians.


Yeah, and they outsource their articles to leftist sites and news sites. The creator is also a flat-out imbecile, and none of the articles written "in house" offer any kind of legitimate critique of war.


www.lp.org the Libertarian Party is officially against it.

www.mises.org is as well.

Probably because they've been held accountable from the left for supporting totalitarian intervention in the third world.

[kidicarus20]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 2 2005, 10:08 PM
Must not be listening.
Really? Libertairans don't spend one-tenth the amount of time on war as they do trival issues like an income tax - probably because they don't understand it. Most libertarian critiques of war are nothing beyond "it's bad" to "it costs the state money," they don't offer up a detailed historical analysis of the war probably because the intellectual climate is so low on the libertarian-fasicst side.

[kidicarus20]

There is no (right-)libertarian Chomsky or Zinn. The problem is most of them are involved in "economics" and other braindead pseduo-sciences.

[Freedom Works]

This idiot flexes positions according to what forum on, sometimes, he's a republican, other times, he's a libertarian, etc.
You have to be careful when using labels, as when he thinks of republican he might think of Classic Republicanism, not the fascists today.


Probably because they've been held accountable from the left for supporting totalitarian intervention in the third world.
Haha.


Libertairans don't spend one-tenth the amount of time on war as they do trival issues like an income tax - probably because they don't understand it.
In my opinion, that is because they take it as a nonissue. Most libertarians were previous republicans, only the democrats who only wanted personal freedom would realize that liberty is the answer.


Most libertarian critiques of war are nothing beyond "it's bad" to "it costs the state money," they don't offer up a detailed historical analysis of the war probably because the intellectual climate is so low on the libertarian-fasicst side.
Most libertarian critiques of war are that people are initiating force, and that is wrong, and NO war the USA has ever fought has been justified.
Libertarian-fascist?


The problem is most of them are involved in "economics" and other braindead pseduo-sciences.
Haha, it's funny cause you're so ignorant.

[pedro san pedro]

All that being said, I oppose the war for the right reasons, not for sheer America hatred or whatever.


i'm curious as to what a caged member sees as being the 'right reasons'...

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:10 AM





This idiot flexes positions according to what forum on, sometimes, he's a republican, other times, he's a libertarian, etc.

This just keeps on getting better and better.

Tell me socialist, how do I act like a Republican on other forums?

I've never argued as anything other than a libertarian, not that you know the difference between the two.



Yeah, and they outsource their articles to leftist sites and news sites. The creator is also a flat-out imbecile, and none of the articles written "in house" offer any kind of legitimate critique of war.

Quite a few of their articles offer a 'legitimate critique of war'.

Need I post links?




Probably because they've been held accountable from the left for supporting totalitarian intervention in the third world.

No, because it's the natural extention of non-interventionist policy.

[Publius]

There is no (right-)libertarian Chomsky or Zinn. The problem is most of them are involved in "economics" and other braindead pseduo-sciences.

Rothbard.

[Publius]

Really? Libertairans don't spend one-tenth the amount of time on war as they do trival issues like an income tax - probably because they don't understand it. Most libertarian critiques of war are nothing beyond "it's bad" to "it costs the state money," they don't offer up a detailed historical analysis of the war probably because the intellectual climate is so low on the libertarian-fasicst side.

How would you know, what libertarian books have you read?

[kidicarus20]

You have to be careful when using labels, as when he thinks of republican he might think of Classic Republicanism, not the fascists today.

"Classical Republicanism" is based on the same totalitarianism and slavery that modern republicanism is based on. They have always been the party of the opulent minority, and the rich, and so on. Even Lincoln was an ardent racist who wanted to send all blacks back to Africa.

Neither Republicans nor libertairans have anything in common with the arguments behind classical liberals like von Humboldt and Rousseau and so on who had freedom, and social-cooperation in mind rather than totalitarian private property ownership and so on. Classical liberalism has a wide variety of views and only a few of them, like Locke, advocated a totalitarian society with eight barrons and so on in charage of various blocks of land - basically feudalism.


Haha.

More capitalist "intellectualism." This is why the party has no intellectuals outside of economics and other junk science.


In my opinion, that is because they take it as a nonissue

They take the death of around six million people in Latin America alone as a nonissue? They take the intervention into other countries with force, probably for the benefit of the rich, where the state institues massive torture and implements death squads and so on as a non-issue? They take interference into elections like in Nicaragua with huge economic sanctions or threat of interventionism as a result of the country voting the wrong way; coups; and wrecking third world countries beyond repair; all as "nonissues?"

Yeah, you're right, the capital gains tax is more important :lol:


Most libertarians were previous republicans, only the democrats who only wanted personal freedom would realize that liberty is the answer.

Yeah, you're right. They put freedom aside to appeal to their mostly Republican (fascist) base.


Most libertarian critiques of war are that people are initiating force, and that is wrong, and NO war the USA has ever fought has been justified.
Libertarian-fascist?

Both Fascists and Libertarianism believe that people only can gain power through private property ownership and most political scientists see fascism as merely an outgrowth of capitalism, which it is is, and Hitler himself prasied free-markets.


Haha, it's funny cause you're so ignorant.

Economics is not a rataional science or any kind of field of study even worth looking into. It merely tries to explain the results of trade or is the study of the distribution of goods and services in a capitalist/fascist economy. This is entirely worthless to any other system, and even within capitalism most of the theories, or all of them, cannot be proved, even the supposedly more grounded ones like "prices rise when demand rises" and so on.

Most "theories" are highly ideological, and not to be taken seriously by anybody. Not even capitalists themselves pay attention to them, the economist is there to justify the exploitation, that is all.

It's mostly the painful elaboration of the obvious, or explaining to other people why they are poor, and so on. Most people in real sciences consider economics a joke and that economists are as "incompetent as their science." Which I agree with.

[kidicarus20]

This just keeps on getting better and better.

Tell me socialist, how do I act like a Republican on other forums?

I've seen you on other forums agreeing with war and imperialism.



Quite a few of their articles offer a 'legitimate critique of war'.

Need I post links?

Perhaps just a couple (no spam, no one has time to read a bunch of LP propaganda) that offer an indepth look at the war, written by a libertarian-capitalist. If you don't have time searching through their archives to find something worthwhile, that's fine, I'm mainly looking for books, anyway.


No, because it's the natural extention of non-interventionist policy.

Why have libertarians like Friedman supported intervention in the past, then? Libertarians, since they have taken a word that belongs to the left, will eventually have to start condemning the same things the left does since they cannot get away with advocating totalitarianism and using that word. Their totalitarianism is just more secrect.


Rothbard.

What's the Rothbard equivalent of _American Power and the New Mandarins_? It doesn't even have to be that good (even some libertarians have said it's the de facto book for understanding that war), give me a Rothbard equivalent of, say, _Political Economy of Human Rights_. Or perhaps _Deterring Democracy_, it doesn't even have to come to the same conclusions, just provide an in-depth look at the problems of the US. Or _Hegomony or Survival_ (do libertarians have anything out that offer a good critique of this war)? I'd settle for something on the level of _What Uncle Sam Really Wants_, which lays out the arguments quickly, though refers you to other places for the research.

Rothbard was not an intellectual and had few books concerning war as far as I'm as aware.

Chomsky has defended his positions against fascism and totalitarianism with capitalists and fascists all over the world, including here in the US with conservatives like Buckley and Pearle. What libertarian book can stand on its own like that?

So where is it? Where's the beef? Where's the evidence from libertarian historians and political scientists that say war is wrong. And I don't want something like "War is the health of the state" and other nonsense. For god's sake, give me something I can use. :lol:

I've seen better critiques of war from democrats. Honest to god, liberal doves. Doves like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. have actually given pretty good critiques of this war and compared it to vietnam and showed why it's wrong looking at history, and so on.

And don't tell me libertairans can't offer a detailed critique because they're economists. Edward S. Herman has done some good work, with Chomsky, on exposing war and he is an economist as well.

[kidicarus20]

How would you know, what libertarian books have you read?

Give me the names of the books and I will buy them from BN.com if they're not orderable at my local bookstorke, and read them. I'll determine if they're worthy of leftist critiques, or even modern liberal critiques, of war.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Publius-


Because it won't make a whit of difference.

100,000 in NYC? Achieved jack shit.

Millions around the world? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing.

Protests and uprisings COULD make a difference, but they won't.

This regime will not listen to reason so why try reasoning with them?

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but, as an advocate Neo-Liberal policies. Are you not in favour of smaller states and greater freedom for the flow of Capital. Now surely you recognise such a system diminishes certain segments of societies political influence. So why are you at all suprised "this regime" will not listen to your protests about issues? Surely the overiding priority given to big business over people, in todays America, will please you. Or have I got the basics of Neo-Liberalism all wrong?

[quincunx5]

Both Fascists and Libertarianism believe that people only can gain power through private property ownership and most political scientists see fascism as merely an outgrowth of capitalism, which it is is, and Hitler himself prasied free-markets.


You don't seem to understand the difference between the two. Fascism may allow you ownership of private property - it still REGULATES your usage of it. You are not free to do as you please - but are bound by the duties imposed on you. To a Libertatrian this is an utmost lack of freedom.



Economics is not a rataional science or any kind of field of study even worth looking into. It merely tries to explain the results of trade or is the study of the distribution of goods and services in a capitalist/fascist economy. This is entirely worthless to any other system, and even within capitalism most of the theories, or all of them, cannot be proved, even the supposedly more grounded ones like "prices rise when demand rises" and so on.


What fucking world are you living in?
Economics is nothing more than the study of resources that have alternate uses.
Trading, saving, and reinvesting (what capitalism is) occurs precicsely because human knowledge and raw materials are scarce.



Most "theories" are highly ideological, and not to be taken seriously by anybody. Not even capitalists themselves pay attention to them, the economist is there to justify the exploitation, that is all.


Hmm, I wonder if you view Psychology and Sociology the same way. Are they real sciences to you? If so do you think Economics does not stem from the way humans behave?



It's mostly the painful elaboration of the obvious, or explaining to other people why they are poor, and so on. Most people in real sciences consider economics a joke and that economists are as "incompetent as their science." Which I agree with.


Economists of the Keynesian and Marxist schools are considered a joke! Yes, I agree.

[Publius]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but, as an advocate Neo-Liberal policies. Are you not in favour of smaller states and greater freedom for the flow of Capital.

Greater flow of capital, yes. Smaller states, somewhat, but primarily WEAKER states.



Now surely you recognise such a system diminishes certain segments of societies political influence.

I wish to do away with 'political influence' as a factor entirely.



So why are you at all suprised "this regime" will not listen to your protests about issues?

I'm not.

I didn't vote for them, I don't support them and I don't like them.



Surely the overiding priority given to big business over people, in todays America, will please you.

Of course not.

I don't want priority given to anyone or anything.



Or have I got the basics of Neo-Liberalism all wrong?

Yes.

My sort-of catchphrase is this:

Libertarians are anti-government not pro-business.

I could care less about corporations, I want freedom.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:59 PM



Or have I got the basics of Neo-Liberalism all wrong?

Yes.

My sort-of catchphrase is this:

Libertarians are anti-government not pro-business.

I could care less about corporations, I want freedom.
Read about libertarian socialism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:04 AM



Read about libertarian socialism.

I have.

It's appealing on the emotional level, but I simply don't think the economy would work, so no go.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:42 PM


I have.

It's appealing on the emotional level, but I simply don't think the economy would work, so no go.
Why?

[Freedom Works]

"Socialism must either be a system where the state doesn't exist (utopian communism) or a command economy centrally directed. That's why an anarchist who advocates "redistribution" is a contradiction. There can be no redistribution without a state, and anarchists don't believe in the legitimacy of the state." -There's No Government Like No Government

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 4 2005, 05:29 PM
"Socialism must either be a system where the state doesn't exist (utopian communism) or a command economy centrally directed. That's why an anarchist who advocates "redistribution" is a contradiction. There can be no redistribution without a state, and anarchists don't believe in the legitimacy of the state." -There's No Government Like No Government
Why not?

Read what ANARCHISM is, and how it was applied in history.

Basically, workers overthrew there bosses and established self managed factories who where linked through free association and decentralized federalism.

[Freedom Works]

Why not?

Because if the 'workers' overthrow their "bosses"(which are not rulers, since it is voluntary, unlike taxconsumers), they are "government".

Anarchy litterally means rulerless. If there are taxes, and/or force used to subdue using the wealth from the taxes, it is not rulerless.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 4 2005, 06:46 PM

Why not?

Because if the 'workers' overthrow their "bosses"(which are not rulers, since it is voluntary, unlike taxconsumers), they are "government".

Anarchy litterally means rulerless. If there are taxes, and/or force used to subdue using the wealth from the taxes, it is not rulerless.
Anarchists aren't against a government, because a government is a form of managing ourselves.

We are against A STATE.

Besides, in libertarianism, corporations thrive and own the means of production.

Because without the means of production we cannot survive, they can be the "state" in some way.

A minority controlling the mayority!

[quincunx5]

Besides, in libertarianism, corporations thrive and own the means of production.
Because without the means of production we cannot survive, they can be the "state" in some way.
A minority controlling the mayority!


Without government, corporations will be on equal footing with everyone else. It would be almost impossible for any single corporation to obtain a monopoloy even in a limited geographic region.

These corporations would still have public stocks. Which can earn dividends, and can be traded. In essense anyone can own a piece of the means of production.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:54 PM


Besides, in libertarianism, corporations thrive and own the means of production.
Because without the means of production we cannot survive, they can be the "state" in some way.
A minority controlling the mayority!


Without government, corporations will be on equal footing with everyone else. It would be almost impossible for any single corporation to obtain a monopoloy even in a limited geographic region.

These corporations would still have public stocks. Which can earn dividends, and can be traded. In essense anyone can own a piece of the means of production.
Not really.

History has shown us that corporations KNOW that there are things where they should agree, for the better of their class.

That is why you see alot of corporative cartels.

Besides, rich people can buy things called PRIVATE POLICE.

So yeah, in anarcho capitalism, they are pretty much the ruling class.

[quincunx5]

History has shown us that corporations KNOW that there are things where they should agree, for the better of their class.

That is why you see alot of corporative cartels.


That's interesting, why don't you give me an example of a cartel formed without government backing.

I'll help you out: There was a cartel in the DRAM market. What happend? They all cheated on each other. They also lost big to their competitiors.

A cartel does not last for any feasible amount of time in the free market.



Besides, rich people can buy things called PRIVATE POLICE.


And the poor can buy private police. did you have a point?
Anarcho-capitalism has a base ideology of non-agression. If the collectivists can flap their arms and proclaim people to be benevolent, then anarcho-capitalists can at the very least say that there is no need for violence.



So yeah, in anarcho capitalism, they are pretty much the ruling class.


Aside from the government, does anyone have rule of your private property today?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:26 PM




So yeah, in anarcho capitalism, they are pretty much the ruling class.



That's interesting, why don't you give me an example of a cartel formed without government backing.

I'll help you out: There was a cartel in the DRAM market. What happend? They all cheated on each other. They also lost big to their competitiors.

A cartel does not last for any feasible amount of time in the free market.

OPEC, Debeers cartel?




And the poor can buy private police. did you have a point?
Anarcho-capitalism has a base ideology of non-agression. If the collectivists can flap their arms and proclaim people to be benevolent, then anarcho-capitalists can at the very least say that there is no need for violence.

I don't know about other collectivists but,

I can certainly say that there is no such thing as human nature and that our behavior is crafted by our material surroundings and our relations to the means of production and capital.

Obviously, a shareholder would have very different ideals of a peasant that works on a land collective.

Besides, history has shown us that enterprises don't give a shit for people.

Do you think that such thing as private police, which is an enteprise, would be as benevolent with the poor than with those thay pay them billions of dollars?




Aside from the government, does anyone have rule of your private property today?

My government is almost synonimous to the bourgeoise, so no point.

[Freedom Works]

Anarchists aren't against a government, because a government is a form of managing ourselves.

We are against A STATE.
Wrong. Managing ourselves? How is that at all different from a boss?
:rolleyes:
But it doesn't matter, because no "government" is legitimate.


Besides, in libertarianism, corporations thrive and own the means of production.
That depends on your definition of 'corporation'. But in the way you seem to be using it, that is silly collectivist propaganda.


Because without the means of production we cannot survive, they can be the "state" in some way.
This would be true, but we all own the means of production, so the point is moot.


So yeah, in anarcho capitalism, they are pretty much the ruling class.
There is no ruling class if there is anarchy, it is simply a contradiction of terms.


I can certainly say that there is no such thing as human nature and that our behavior is crafted by our material surroundings and our relations to the means of production and capital.
Very ignorant. Do you know what sociobiology is?


Besides, history has shown us that enterprises don't give a shit for people.
This is simply wrong. They have a self-interest in making money, and the best way to make money is to satisfy your customer. Only when "government" steps in does it shift from benefiting the people to hurting them.


Do you think that such thing as private police, which is an enteprise, would be as benevolent with the poor than with those thay pay them billions of dollars?
Should they be? What is the point of working hard if you don't get any benefit from it?


My government is almost synonimous to the bourgeoise, so no point.
This is because in truth, the class struggle is between taxconsumer and taxpayer, not capitalist and worker.

[black magick hustla]

Wrong. Managing ourselves? How is that at all different from a boss?
:rolleyes:
But it doesn't matter, because no "government" is legitimate.

Wrong?

Anarchism is a very well defined ideology that is rooted on leftist thinking and started in the 19th century with people like proufhon or bakunin.

You anarcho-capitalists are the ones that highjack the term "anarchism".
Besides, having shareholders means that the orders come from above and then, they trickle to below. In real anarchist societies, the orders would come from below, that is, the mayority, and would trickle all the way to above, to a smaller quantity of delegates.






That depends on your definition of 'corporation'. But in the way you seem to be using it, that is silly collectivist propaganda.

Generally, most of the profits made by corporations are seized by a small minority.



This would be true, but we all own the means of production, so the point is moot.

Not really.

The means of production mainly profit a small minority.

If the shareholders decide to close a factory, workers get fucked and kicked out.

Its not the workers' decision.


Very ignorant. Do you know what sociobiology is?

Very ignorant, do you know what historical materialism is? Besides, even evolutionary thinkers would agree that we are a product of our surroundings.

Because, you know, evolution is crafted by the surroundings of a specie.



Should they be? What is the point of working hard if you don't get any benefit from it?

You have proven my point.

People having privilieges over the means of production would logically have privilieges granted by a private police.




This is because in truth, the class struggle is between taxconsumer and taxpayer, not capitalist and worker.

Most governments have always fought in favor of those who own the means of production. Regardless if they are noblemen or bourgeois.

That is why you still see the government fighting against trade unions. Don't buisnessmen hate them? :rolleyes



This is simply wrong. They have a self-interest in making money, and the best way to make money is to satisfy your customer. Only when "government" steps in does it shift from benefiting the people to hurting them

Well atleast here, international corporations make deals with sweatshop owners.

For example, pants buisnesses ask sweatshop owners to manufacture pants from them.

I don't see how is the government intervening here! The corporations find cheap labor a nice thing!

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:14 PM



Why?

Supply and demand.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:05 AM


Supply and demand.


And why wouldn't self managed factories be able to satisfy this?

There are many relatively succesful self managed factories you know.

[Freedom Works]

Anarchism is a very well defined ideology that is rooted on leftist thinking and started in the 19th century with people like proufhon or bakunin.
The original proponents of Anarchism wanted nothing more than to "dismantle the state" - and talked about nothing more. But soon after they began to turn into utopian communists.


You anarcho-capitalists are the ones that highjack the term "anarchism".
Anarchy solely means "rulerless"(http://tinyurl.com/abluz), nothing more, nothing less. Just because the word was used to describe the anarcho-communists does not mean that the word means such now.


Besides, having shareholders means that the orders come from above and then, they trickle to below. In real anarchist societies, the orders would come from below, that is, the mayority, and would trickle all the way to above, to a smaller quantity of delegates.
Orders? In anarchy? No such thing, there are no rulers in anarchy.


Generally, most of the profits made by corporations are seized by a small minority.
Great way to dodge the definition!


The means of production mainly profit a small minority.
And there is no limit to the means of production.


If the shareholders decide to close a factory, workers get fucked and kicked out.
First off, the shareholders would have to have a reason to shut it down. If there is no profit being made, it is not helping society, but rather sucking off the wealth of others and making their lives worse.


Very ignorant, do you know what historical materialism is? Besides, even evolutionary thinkers would agree that we are a product of our surroundings.
We are a product of our surroundings, but there is a lot of instinct within humans that I doubt you would like to acknowledge, such as people naturally being favorable to communism, because in the past humaniods would survive more successfully in that manner, but now it will simply only work in a free society.


Because, you know, evolution is crafted by the surroundings of a specie.
But there is a degree of nature and a degree of nurture.



Should they be? What is the point of working hard if you don't get any benefit from it?


You have proven my point.
And you have dodged my questions.

But alas, how do private police not act benevolently? They would have to, or else they would not be hired by people.


People having privilieges over the means of production would logically have privilieges granted by a private police.
What is this even supposed to mean?


Most governments have always fought in favor of those who own the means of production. Regardless if they are noblemen or bourgeois.
This is the problem with "government", and why it should be abolished. Large corporations are only a byproduct of "government", without the "state" to lean on, there would be small and medium size business only.

That is why you still see the government fighting against trade unions. Don't buisnessmen hate them? :rolleyes



This is simply wrong. They have a self-interest in making money, and the best way to make money is to satisfy your customer. Only when "government" steps in does it shift from benefiting the people to hurting them


Well atleast here, international corporations make deals with sweatshop owners.
And the reason is because of "government" stifling trade.


I don't see how is the government intervening here! The corporations find cheap labor a nice thing!
The "government's" are the ones oppressing the people though, not the corporations.


And why wouldn't self managed factories be able to satisfy this?
They can, they are oppressed by the "government" through all the laws.

[black magick hustla]

The original proponents of Anarchism wanted nothing more than to "dismantle the state" - and talked about nothing more. But soon after they began to turn into utopian communists.

I am talking about a concrete ideology. Anarchism started to take its form as a socio economic policy in the 19th century.


Anarchy solely means "rulerless"(http://tinyurl.com/abluz), nothing more, nothing less. Just because the word was used to describe the anarcho-communists does not mean that the word means such now.

Anarchism is a very well defined ideology.

You are talking about "anarchy" here. Anarchy IS NOT synonimous to anarchism, for anarchy is just a state of being, while anarchism is an IDEOLOGY.

Besides, anarchy means many things, as socialism does.




Orders? In anarchy? No such thing, there are no rulers in anarchy.

In your anarchocapitalist wet dream, there are.

You see, in order for buisinesses to work, you need things like GIVING ORDERS TO WORKERS.



Generally, most of the profits made by corporations are seized by a small minority.

I don't care for your bullshit semantics. I am talking about the truth, aren't there a bunch of shareholders in most enterprises that get most of the profit the buisness produces?



They can, they are oppressed by the "government" through all the laws.

IBy self managment I mean workers' self management:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management



And there is no limit to the means of production.[/Quote]

What do you mean by this?


First off, the shareholders would have to have a reason to shut it down. If there is no profit being made, it is not helping society, but rather sucking off the wealth of others and making their lives worse.

You are so wrong in this.

So many workshops, in the economic breakdown of argentina, where taking by the workers by force because the owners of such shops declared themselves bankrupt and started to fire people.

The ones that survived legal persecution are pretty successful right now!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/wor...296991.html< (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2004/08/296991.html<) ---- Info about one of those factories.


We are a product of our surroundings, but there is a lot of instinct within humans that I doubt you would like to acknowledge, such as people naturally being favorable to communism, because in the past humaniods would survive more successfully in that manner, but now it will simply only work in a free society.

Appart of fundamental surviving mechanisms, like shitting, eating, and having shelter, i don&#39;t believe in such thing.



But there is a degree of nature and a degree of nurture.
What?



And you have dodged my questions.

What questions have I dodged?


But alas, how do private police not act benevolently? They would have to, or else they would not be hired by people.

They don&#39;t need to be hired by everyone, with 5% having 90% of the capital, why would they?


What is this even supposed to mean?

It means that logically, if someone pays more money, his interests are above the others with less money. That would happen with the private police.




This is the problem with "government", and why it should be abolished. Large corporations are only a byproduct of "government", without the "state" to lean on, there would be small and medium size business only.

Generally, big corporations come from places where there is less government interference.

That is why you see alot of AMERICAN TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS fucking around&#33;

Even if you qualify america as socialist (ahahahahah), it is one of the countries where there is LEAST INTERFERANCE on the corporations&#39; capital flow.
[/quote]


And the reason is because of "government" stifling trade.


Can you explain that further?



The "government&#39;s" are the ones oppressing the people though, not the corporations.

Most governments are sustained by the corporations themselves. That is why you see war being waged in Iraq.

Sure, the american government doesn&#39;t directly seize it, but AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES do&#33;

[quincunx5]

OPEC, Debeers cartel?


Why don&#39;t you give me non-government involved examples like I asked?

OPEC - Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Do you see any private organizations involved without government backing?

Debeers? Another example of government backed monopoly.
And even Debeers is currently in great competition with the Indian Jains.



Anarchism is a very well defined ideology that is rooted on leftist thinking and started in the 19th century with people like proufhon or bakunin.


I love it when anarchist collectivists mention prudhon. Now here was a guy who changed his position multiple times. Late in his life he wrote this:



"Communism, as I have often complained, is the very denial of society in its foundation, which is the progressive equivalence of functions and capacities. The communists, toward whom all socialism tends, do not believe in equality by nature and education; they supply it by sovereign decrees which they cannot carry out, whatever they may do. Instead of seeking justice in the harmony of facts, they take it from their feelings, calling justice everything that seems to them to be love of one&#39;s neighbor, and incessantly confounding matters of reason with those of sentiment."




Not really.
The means of production mainly profit a small minority.


It&#39;s funny how in government oppressed countries like the US, 80% of households has their capital floating around to anyone that wants it. It earns interest, and dividends (in case of stocks). The other 20% consists primarily of the following: 18% are too young, and 2% are consistantly in poverty.

It seems to me that the means of production benefit mainly everyone but a small minority.



If the shareholders decide to close a factory, workers get fucked and kicked out.
Its not the workers&#39; decision.


Supposing we had anarcho-communism already. Would you be surprised if the horse and buggy the workers were making were not wanted by anyone at all? Would you be surprised that typewriters were completely useless to most people?

[saint max]

Anarchism is a very well defined ideology.

You are talking about "anarchy" here. Anarchy IS NOT synonimous to anarchism, for anarchy is just a state of being, while anarchism is an IDEOLOGY.

Besides, anarchy means many things, as socialism does.

But what&#39;s more interesting, an experience or an ideology? And if anarchy means many things, then of course there&#39;s many anarchists, ya?


And there is no limit to the means of production.

And that means of course idelness as well, right? That is to say, in anarchy there can be no work...in anarchism we get some &#39;awesome&#39; workers-utopia.






This is the problem with "government", and why it should be abolished. Large corporations are only a byproduct of "government", without the "state" to lean on, there would be small and medium size business only.

Generally, big corporations come from places where there is less government interference.

Either way, why should we demand any less than no economy? demand freedom, don&#39;t you think that capitalism or socialism or any economy is a form government takes? Should&#39;nt we be free from any body that seeks to represent and make decisions for us? and anarchism ideologes, don&#39;t you think that one big union or federation, is pretty similar to one big state?

cheers,
-max

ps: to all the other bleeding heart right-wing extremists, you really should read stirner and uncle T&#39;s manifesto and get off that boring ayn rand shit.

[Freedom Works]

Anarchy is simply &#39;rulerless&#39;, while Anarchism is an ideology that professes a rulerless society.


why should we demand any less than no economy?
Because that would be utterly retarded.


Should&#39;nt we be free from any body that seeks to represent and make decisions for us
Yes, and you would be in a region without "government". You don&#39;t have to buy from the big scary faceless corporation. You do however have to pay taxes, and that is theft.


You see, in order for buisinesses to work, you need things like GIVING ORDERS TO WORKERS.
Haha, yes this is true, if by &#39;order&#39; you mean a &#39;voluntary suggestion if you want to keep your job&#39;.


I am talking about the truth, aren&#39;t there a bunch of shareholders in most enterprises that get most of the profit the buisness produces?
Since they paid for the company, should they not?


What do you mean by this?
Wealth is NOT limited. If I make a million dollars other people are not losing it.


You are so wrong in this.
No, if no profit is being made, it is not helping society. That is just the way it is.


So many workshops, in the economic breakdown of argentina, where taking by the workers by force because the owners of such shops declared themselves bankrupt and started to fire people.
The ability to declare yourself bankrupt comes from "government". Without "government", these people would not have that option. What do you think they would do?


Appart of fundamental surviving mechanisms, like shitting, eating, and having shelter, i don&#39;t believe in such thing.
Well you can &#39;not believe it&#39; all you want, but just like evolution, that does not stop it from existing. ;)


What questions have I dodged?

Should they be? What is the point of working hard if you don&#39;t get any benefit from it?


They don&#39;t need to be hired by everyone, with 5% having 90% of the capital, why would they?
Of course they don&#39;t. But with market forces acting upon them, they will be much more productive and much less corrupt, because they have something at stake.


It means that logically, if someone pays more money, his interests are above the others with less money. That would happen with the private police.
You&#39;re thinking like there is a "government" monopoly. Without a "government", there cannot be monopolies, so this point is moot.


Generally, big corporations come from places where there is less government interference.
Historically, small and medium business overuns big business; but then the big business figures to pump some money into the "government" to make it harder for the little guys. The things that make it harder for the little guy are the same things that are the supposed solution to controlling the big ones. See the downward spiral?


Even if you qualify america as socialist (ahahahahah), it is one of the countries where there is LEAST INTERFERANCE on the corporations&#39; capital flow.
So you are suggesting freedom is bad and the more freedom there is the worse off people are?


Can you explain that further?
Mercantilism; that is what causes the problems leftist&#39;s speak of, and that is their solution. See how it is just a downward spiral?


Most governments are sustained by the corporations themselves. That is why you see war being waged in Iraq.
You see war being waged in Iraq because of "government". Without "government", the corporation would have to pay for it&#39;s own violence, and that is extremely costly, so a legitimate business which was not stealing oil would have a higher bottom line. See how the invisible hand works for the best of everyone?

[Publius]

And why wouldn&#39;t self managed factories be able to satisfy this?

There are many relatively succesful self managed factories you know.

Then why can&#39;t these factories compete in the marketplace?

If they were able to compete efficiently, they would be doing it already.

Why don&#39;t self-managed factories exist in a market economy?

[John Train]

Since Anarcho Capitalists clearly can&#39;t be against free trade. How would sweatshops be dismantled under Anarcho Capitalism? For example, if the U.S. suddenly became Anarcho Capitalist wouldn&#39;t corporations still maintain their sweatshops in the third world?

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but it seems to me unless Anarcho Capitalism was global sweatshops in the third world would still exist. I also don&#39;t understand how a society without unions wouldn’t be highly exploitive and how a class system wouldn&#39;t naturally form, where a minority of corporations which merged from medium sized ones dominates the market place.

One way or another I think any modern society could not function without coercion whether that coercion is from a state or from corporations. The difference is Corporations tend to manufacture "created wants" which rot people’s minds and makes them more complacent. Granted corporate coercion doesn&#39;t use violence to compel people they use peer pressure and advertising but it’s still unseemly to me

Just a quick question to all well read libertarians. I requested "Machinery of Freedom" a while ago from my library and it looks as though it&#39;s been lost. What book would you say is a worthy replacement?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:37 AM


And why wouldn&#39;t self managed factories be able to satisfy this?

There are many relatively succesful self managed factories you know.

Then why can&#39;t these factories compete in the marketplace?

If they were able to compete efficiently, they would be doing it already.

Why don&#39;t self-managed factories exist in a market economy?
http://www.nfb.ca/webextension/thetake/



A worker managed factory undermines the status of the capitalist.

Why is it in his interest to have democracy in the workplace?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:33 PM






A worker managed factory undermines the status of the capitalist.

Why is it in his interest to have democracy in the workplace?

Why must there be a capitalist?

Why can&#39;t it be collectively owned as well?

And I would think the capitalist would see the efficiency in this sytem, and choose to use it.

He can fire all the middle management for instance.

[quincunx5]

Since Anarcho Capitalists clearly can&#39;t be against free trade. How would sweatshops be dismantled under Anarcho Capitalism? For example, if the U.S. suddenly became Anarcho Capitalist wouldn&#39;t corporations still maintain their sweatshops in the third world?


You don&#39;t make any sense. If the US was anarcho-capitalist, but the third world was government-oppressed, then those governments would still dictate what kind of trade would occur.
There would be no real &#39;free trade&#39; as you suggest, as long as the other party is run by government.



Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but it seems to me unless Anarcho Capitalism was global sweatshops in the third world would still exist.


Now you are getting somewhere. The communists also want a global revolution - so that everyone can be equally poor.

You use sweatshops as a dirty word. They existed in the nineteenth century in western europe and US. Today they are not common in these areas. Do you actually expect the third world to go from the brink of starvation to post-industrial middle classdom, without any transition whatsoever?



I also don&#39;t understand how a society without unions wouldn’t be highly exploitive and how a class system wouldn&#39;t naturally form, where a minority of corporations which merged from medium sized ones dominates the market place.


Unions are supported by governments. They are in essence a giant exploitative corporation. In anarcho-capitalism nothing stops you from bargaining collectively. However, an employer has the freedom to not give into your demands.

You should read prior posts.



A worker managed factory undermines the status of the capitalist.


If the workers pooled their money together (and/or borrowed) to buy a factory then
1) It eliminates the single capitalist.
2) It makes all those workers into capitalists.

Problem solved.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:02 PM

If the workers pooled their money together (and/or borrowed) to buy a factory then
1) It eliminates the single capitalist.
2) It makes all those workers into capitalists.

Problem solved.
How can they be capitalists? They dont profit off of others labour.

Capitalism is private ownership. Collectives have nothing to do with capitalism.

[John Train]

You don&#39;t make any sense. If the US was anarcho-capitalist, but the third world was government-oppressed, then those governments would still dictate what kind of trade would occur.

Yes, and as of now those governments are allowing their poor to be exploited by corporate entities from the U.S. that would still exist under Anarcho Capitalism.


You use sweatshops as a dirty word. They existed in the nineteenth century in western europe and US. Today they are not common in these areas. Do you actually expect the third world to go from the brink of starvation to post-industrial middle classdom, without any transition whatsoever?

Of course, I don&#39;t expect anything so grand. I also don&#39;t believe corporations are facilitating that transition.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:50 AM




Why don&#39;t you give me non-government involved examples like I asked?


Hey cappie buddy, corporations are the MOST SUCCESSFUL forms of cartels ever.
Even if they are not OFFICIALLY CARTELS, corporations are simply, a group of COMPANIES.



I love it when anarchist collectivists mention prudhon. Now here was a guy who changed his position multiple times. Late in his life he wrote this:

Who the fuck cares.

He was a leftists, that doesn&#39;t means he was a communist.

Besides, I am more of a syndicalist than a pure anarcho communist.


It&#39;s funny how in government oppressed countries like the US, 80% of households has their capital floating around to anyone that wants it. It earns interest, and dividends (in case of stocks). The other 20% consists primarily of the following: 18% are too young, and 2% are consistantly in poverty.

It seems to me that the means of production benefit mainly everyone but a small minority.

What is your point?



Supposing we had anarcho-communism already. Would you be surprised if the horse and buggy the workers were making were not wanted by anyone at all? Would you be surprised that typewriters were completely useless to most people?

The point is that, closing factories should be a factor WORKERS SHOULD DECIDE.

Besides, in the economic collapse of argentina, many shareholders declared bankrupt and tried to close factories.

Guess what happened?

Workers rebelled and took like 200 factories under worker control.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 5 2005, 11:32 AM



What do you mean by this?












Anarchy is simply &#39;rulerless&#39;, while Anarchism is an ideology that professes a rulerless society.


Yes it is rulerless.

Self managed councils and free federations are rulerless.


Haha, yes this is true, if by &#39;order&#39; you mean a &#39;voluntary suggestion if you want to keep eating&#39;.


Fixed.




Since they paid for the company, should they not?


Because the workers are the ones that obviously harvest the company.

Or maybe, those shares are pretty heavy. Poor shareholders. :(


Wealth is NOT limited. If I make a million dollars other people are not losing it.

In order to be succesful in the capitalist world, you need to somehow BEAT OTHERS.Thats why big companies replace small buisnesses.


The ability to declare yourself bankrupt comes from "government". Without "government", these people would not have that option. What do you think they would do?

What?

If I think that my factory doesn&#39;t profits me, I can declare myself bankrupt.


Well you can &#39;not believe it&#39; all you want, but just like evolution, that does not stop it from existing. ;)


Prove it.


Of course they don&#39;t. But with market forces acting upon them, they will be much more productive and much less corrupt, because they have something at stake.


Market competition creates monopoly.



You&#39;re thinking like there is a "government" monopoly. Without a "government", there cannot be monopolies, so this point is moot.


Anarcho-Capitalism is monopoly.




Historically, small and medium business overuns big business; but then the big business figures to pump some money into the "government" to make it harder for the little guys. The things that make it harder for the little guy are the same things that are the supposed solution to controlling the big ones. See the downward spiral?

Then why countries with less government interferance in capital flow have the biggest corporations?


So you are suggesting freedom is bad and the more freedom there is the worse off people are?

I am a libertarian socialist but,

I would rather trust the state, which has a glimpse of democracy, than fucking trans national corporations.


Mercantilism; that is what causes the problems leftist&#39;s speak of, and that is their solution. See how it is just a downward spiral?

Not really, but I would like to hear your explanation about why we THINK ABOUT MERCANTILISM instead of pure capitalism.




You see war being waged in Iraq because of "government". Without "government", the corporation would have to pay for it&#39;s own violence, and that is extremely costly, so a legitimate business which was not stealing oil would have a higher bottom line. See how the invisible hand works for the best of everyone?

Governments are funded by the corporations themselves and protect their interests.

I am pretty sure corporations could form a coalition agaisnt Iraq and believe me, compare to the profits iraqi oil could create, it wouldn&#39;t be that expensive..


Should they be? What is the point of working hard if you don&#39;t get any benefit from it?

Libertarian socialism is about GETTING BENEFIT of your work. without the capitalist being a parasite.

So therefore, it would be pretty logical to work hard in libertarian socialism because, you know, YOU GET MOST OF THE PROFIT YOU CREATED.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Publius+Sep 5 2005, 07:44 PM--> (Publius @ Sep 5 2005, 07:44 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 07:33 PM






A worker managed factory undermines the status of the capitalist.

Why is it in his interest to have democracy in the workplace?

Why must there be a capitalist?

Why can&#39;t it be collectively owned as well?

And I would think the capitalist would see the efficiency in this sytem, and choose to use it.

He can fire all the middle management for instance. [/b]

The collective ownership of the means of production IS A DEVASTATING ATTACK against capitalists.

Capitalists won&#39;t grant easily THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION to the proletariat.

That is why you don&#39;t see self managed enterprises working out of nowhere.

Besides, without a privilieged class, like middle management, Capitalists would have to hear THE COLLECTIVE OPINIONS of the workers&#39; councils, and that would be his demise.

Middle management is what sometimes prevent workers from seizing THE FACTORIES, you know.

[Publius]

How can they be capitalists? They dont profit off of others labour.

Capitalism is private ownership. Collectives have nothing to do with capitalism.

Sure they do.

Collectives and co-ops are as much a part of capitalism as corporations.

Any free, voluntary exchange is part of the free-market system.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:17 PM


How can they be capitalists? They dont profit off of others labour.

Capitalism is private ownership. Collectives have nothing to do with capitalism.

Sure they do.

Collectives and co-ops are as much a part of capitalism as corporations.

Any free, voluntary exchange is part of the free-market system.
Anarchism has voluntary exchange.

I don&#39;t see how that is unique to markets.


Don&#39;t forget about mutualism.

[Publius]

Anarchism has voluntary exchange.

I don&#39;t see how that is unique to markets.


Don&#39;t forget about mutualism.

What&#39;s voluntary about exchanges in an anarchy?

Isn&#39;t democracy used for production and destribution?

If so, it isn&#39;t voluntary.

If not, it doesn&#39;t differ from capitalism to any meaningful extent.


Any system of mutual exchanges IS capitalism.

In a truly free-market, any and every economic system could develop.

Anarcho-capitalism and various other forms of anarchism differ only in that power is manifested either privately or publically.

You think private ownership is odious. I think public ownership is.

I think only capitalism provides voluntary exchange and that democracy is slavery. You think property prevents equal exchange and that democracy is freedom from oppression.

We&#39;re starting from different axioms.

[Publius]

Mutualism:


Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use. We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid. The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept. What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism.

Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers&#39; cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers&#39; cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker&#39;s natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.

Not collectivist: Good.

I rather agree with a lot of this.

I dislike state capitalism, I support free exchange but I DON&#39;T draw any distinction between the different forms of property.

Close but no cigar.

All in all not a bad form of leftism, if such a thing could be said, but I still do not agree with their assessment of ownership of large scale property as manfeant.

[JKP]

The irony of capitalism is that it isn&#39;t based on free exchange as much as you&#39;d like to admit.

When something is made under capitalism, the worker has no say as to how the fruits of his labour are to be used. Not only does he not get the full product of his labour, but the capitalist can profit off his work despite doing none himself.

The classical liberalists would have been disgusted with capitalism.

John Locke for instance:

"Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This No Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his"


Under anarchism, If I were to walk into a factory and make something, I would be able to keep it for myself, since I made it. I&#39;d give it to the commune because it&#39;s in my self interest to do so.

Under capitalism this liberty is revoked.

[quincunx5]

The irony of capitalism is that it isn&#39;t based on free exchange as much as you&#39;d like to admit.


Anarcho-capitalism is the only way to have truly free exchange.



When something is made under capitalism, the worker has no say as to how the fruits of his labour are to be used. Not only does he not get the full product of his labour, but the capitalist can profit off his work despite doing none himself.


It&#39;s funny how you think that throwing capital around byitself gets things done. The capitalist works by far the hardest. His only interest in doing so is the profits. In the end he may not get any - so his incentive is pursue his project with the fullest extent possible, so that hopefully there are profits.



The classical liberalists would have been disgusted with capitalism.


They supported it head on. What the fuck do you think they were fighting for? Socialism?

Don&#39;t confuse mercantalism with true capitalism.



John Locke for instance:

"Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This No Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his"


As a man with control of your own physical property (body) - you are allowed to sell the labor of your property. This is precisely the basis of capitalism - private property (including yourself).



Under anarchism, If I were to walk into a factory and make something, I would be able to keep it for myself, since I made it. I&#39;d give it to the commune because it&#39;s in my self interest to do so.


Who built the factory? Why did you walk in and steal another man&#39;s labor?

If you made the factory and you made the goods inside the factory - then go ahead and do what ever you want. If the commune made it, the same thing applies.

If the commune produced more with the factory than they did without it - you are all capitalists. You invested your time and energy temporarily from producing X in the hopes that building the factory would lead to producing more of X. Do you see how saving and reinvesting works?



Under capitalism this liberty is revoked.


If there is private property then your liberty is secured.

[JKP]

It&#39;s funny how you think that throwing capital around byitself gets things done. The capitalist works by far the hardest. His only interest in doing so is the profits. In the end he may not get any - so his incentive is pursue his project with the fullest extent possible, so that hopefully there are profits.

Much like a religious figure performing mystical rituals, what the capitalist does is simply superfluous. The capitalist is not necessary, his presence is only parasitical. The collective can function quite well without him.




They supported it head on. What the fuck do you think they were fighting for? Socialism?

Capitalism didn&#39;t even exist in their time. But assuming they maintained their position on the liberty of labour, they would have been appalled had they lived to see it.


As a man with control of your own physical property (body) - you are allowed to sell the labor of your property. This is precisely the basis of capitalism - private property (including yourself).

This has nothing to do with selling. It means means being able to keep what you produce.
Capitalism is theft because it does not allow the choice to keep it.


If the commune produced more with the factory than they did without it - you are all capitalists. You invested your time and energy temporarily from producing X in the hopes that building the factory would lead to producing more of X. Do you see how saving and reinvesting works?

The way you are using capitalism is so nebulous that it could be applied to any time period. Collectives have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is private ownership remember?


If there is private property then your liberty is secured.

I&#39;ll have fun being exploited then.

[quincunx5]

How can they be capitalists? They dont profit off of others labour.
Capitalism is private ownership. Collectives have nothing to do with capitalism.


So a collective can&#39;t have collective private ownership?
20 people can&#39;t buy a house collectively?

You don&#39;t understand what profit is.

If I can afford to eat 2 eggs a day. I can afford do eat 730 eggs a year. Now what if I decide to cut down on my eggs to 1 a day. Well now I have profited from my own desire to eat less eggs. Instead of buying 365 extra eggs, I decide to reinvest that money into something else: chickens. Now I have chickens to lay eggs for me. What am I going to do? Well within time I will never have to buy eggs again. I will sell the extra eggs to somebody else. This is the part where you kill me for &#39;profiting&#39;.

Let&#39;s say that workers of your hypothetical factory are successful in taking it over. They are now running the factory. They make great products. So great indeed that the demand for this product is skyrocketing. Now what happens?

Do you say &#39;fuck you&#39; to the public because you are already working as hard as you can?
Or do you hire more &#39;workers&#39;?. Wait a minute - you can&#39;t hire more workers, there are no profits to do that. Your factory starts breaking down, can&#39;t you just fix it? No - there are no profits.

So what has to happen? Well these workers now have to remove a portion of their earnings to pay for fixing machinery and hiring more workers to meet consumer demand. Exactly as in my chicken/egg example - the profit is whatever these workers decide to reinvest into the factory itself.

They are capitalists.



Yes, and as of now those governments are allowing their poor to be exploited by corporate entities from the U.S. that would still exist under Anarcho Capitalism.


So you are essentially telling me that anarcho-capitalism is no good because of foreign governments? Brilliant.



Of course, I don&#39;t expect anything so grand. I also don&#39;t believe corporations are facilitating that transition.


So if the transition is not occuring fast enough to your standards - it must be a failure. Notice I said 19th century? Yes that was a while ago. If you were born then, you would see the tremendous progress that was made.



Hey cappie buddy, corporations are the MOST SUCCESSFUL forms of cartels ever.
Even if they are not OFFICIALLY CARTELS, corporations are simply, a group of COMPANIES.


And DUCKS is a group of DUCKS, is group of DUCKS, is a group of DUCKS. Sheer idiocy.
By your same idiotic logic collectivism is a cartel.

There is no such thing as an &#39;unofficial cartel&#39;. A cartel is by definition a collusive arrangement by corporations to charge a given price. IT never lasts.



Market competition creates monopoly.
Anarcho-Capitalism is monopoly.


You&#39;ve lost all your critical faculties.



Then why countries with less government interferance in capital flow have the biggest corporations?


Because it&#39;s arbitrary government interference. If your government decided everyone needs lollipops. There will be one lollipop corporation.



I would rather trust the state, which has a glimpse of democracy, than fucking trans national corporations.


You would rather trust the government that creates transnational corporations - then the transnational corporations themselves?

I prefer to not trust either. But the government even more so.



Governments are funded by the corporations themselves and protect their interests.


The government is mostly funded by private citizens (like 80% of budget). I know you hate facts.



I am pretty sure corporations could form a coalition agaisnt Iraq and believe me, compare to the profits iraqi oil could create, it wouldn&#39;t be that expensive..


I&#39;m sure domestic oil producers would love to compete with cheaper foreign oil. NOT. Don&#39;t pretend you know the motive of every single corporation.



Libertarian socialism is about GETTING BENEFIT of your work. without the capitalist being a parasite.


Instead the recipient becomes the parasite.
Capitalism is not about stealing wealth - it&#39;s about creating it. The government you support is in charge of stealing it.



So therefore, it would be pretty logical to work hard in libertarian socialism because, you know, YOU GET MOST OF THE PROFIT YOU CREATED.


So again, you are the capitalist.



What is your point?


You tell me capitalism is bad because the majority suffer. I tell you it&#39;s good because only the minority suffer (by their own will).

I guess you don&#39;t really care about the majority. Why do you still stick to democracy?

[quincunx5]

Capitalism didn&#39;t even exist in their time. But assuming they maintained their position on the liberty of labour, they would have been appalled had they lived to see it.

The way you are using capitalism is so nebulous that it could be applied to any time period. Collectives have nothing to do with capitalism.


Capitalism has always existed. It did not have a fancy name.

What the hell do you think capitalism is?



Capitalism is private ownership remember?


No.

Capitalism is not defined by private ownership of property. It is only greatly enhanced by it. A command economy like the USSR was also capitalistic.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:58 AM


How can they be capitalists? They dont profit off of others labour.
Capitalism is private ownership. Collectives have nothing to do with capitalism.


So a collective can&#39;t have collective private ownership?
20 people can&#39;t buy a house collectively?

You don&#39;t understand what profit is.

If I can afford to eat 2 eggs a day. I can afford do eat 730 eggs a year. Now what if I decide to cut down on my eggs to 1 a day. Well now I have profited from my own desire to eat less eggs. Instead of buying 365 extra eggs, I decide to reinvest that money into something else: chickens. Now I have chickens to lay eggs for me. What am I going to do? Well within time I will never have to buy eggs again. I will sell the extra eggs to somebody else. This is the part where you kill me for &#39;profiting&#39;.

Let&#39;s say that workers of your hypothetical factory are successful in taking it over. They are now running the factory. They make great products. So great indeed that the demand for this product is skyrocketing. Now what happens?

Do you say &#39;fuck you&#39; to the public because you are already working as hard as you can?
Or do you hire more &#39;workers&#39;?. Wait a minute - you can&#39;t hire more workers, there are no profits to do that. Your factory starts breaking down, can&#39;t you just fix it? No - there are no profits.

So what has to happen? Well these workers now have to remove a portion of their earnings to pay for fixing machinery and hiring more workers to meet consumer demand. Exactly as in my chicken/egg example - the profit is whatever these workers decide to reinvest into the factory itself.

They are capitalists.



Yes, and as of now those governments are allowing their poor to be exploited by corporate entities from the U.S. that would still exist under Anarcho Capitalism.


So you are essentially telling me that anarcho-capitalism is no good because of foreign governments? Brilliant.



Of course, I don&#39;t expect anything so grand. I also don&#39;t believe corporations are facilitating that transition.


So if the transition is not occuring fast enough to your standards - it must be a failure. Notice I said 19th century? Yes that was a while ago. If you were born then, you would see the tremendous progress that was made.



Hey cappie buddy, corporations are the MOST SUCCESSFUL forms of cartels ever.
Even if they are not OFFICIALLY CARTELS, corporations are simply, a group of COMPANIES.






Market competition creates monopoly.
Anarcho-Capitalism is monopoly.





Then why countries with less government interferance in capital flow have the biggest corporations?





I would rather trust the state, which has a glimpse of democracy, than fucking trans national corporations.




I prefer to not trust either. But the government even more so.



Governments are funded by the corporations themselves and protect their interests.




I am pretty sure corporations could form a coalition agaisnt Iraq and believe me, compare to the profits iraqi oil could create, it wouldn&#39;t be that expensive..






Libertarian socialism is about GETTING BENEFIT of your work. without the capitalist being a parasite.




So therefore, it would be pretty logical to work hard in libertarian socialism because, you know, YOU GET MOST OF THE PROFIT YOU CREATED.


So again, you are the capitalist.



What is your point?




I guess you don&#39;t really care about the majority. Why do you still stick to democracy?

And DUCKS is a group of DUCKS, is group of DUCKS, is a group of DUCKS. Sheer idiocy.
By your same idiotic logic collectivism is a cartel.

There is no such thing as an &#39;unofficial cartel&#39;. A cartel is by definition a collusive arrangement by corporations to charge a given price. IT never lasts.

You are fucking orgasmic about semantics.

As I said before, it works the same way. ENTERPRISES MERGE AND BECOME A NEW POWERFUL CORPORATION.

That is not COMPETITION, that is agreement.

Also, Syndicalists believe in something called labor cartels.


You lose.



You&#39;ve lost all your critical faculties.
Again you lose, I already explained myself.



Because it&#39;s arbitrary government interference. If your government decided everyone needs lollipops. There will be one lollipop corporation.


You still haven&#39;t answered why do powerful transnational corporations originate in places where capitalism is less monitored

You are only talking about LOL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

Government interference is more usual in places where capitalism is monitored, where, strangely, trans national corporations don&#39;t thrive.

Man, you suck at answering questions.


You would rather trust the government that creates transnational corporations - then the transnational corporations themselves?[/Quote}

Atleast I can for someone who could make capitalism "more humane"-

[Quote]
The government is mostly funded by private citizens (like 80% of budget). I know you hate facts.

I guess I will give you that.


I&#39;m sure domestic oil producers would love to compete with cheaper foreign oil. NOT. Don&#39;t pretend you know the motive of every single corporation.

You said it.

The grand motive of a corporations is PROFITING.

Sorry for using your definition&#33;



Instead the recipient becomes the parasite.
Capitalism is not about stealing wealth - it&#39;s about creating it. The government you support is in charge of stealing it.


Government= Bourgeois

I still fail to see the logic behind WELL SHAREHOLDERS WORK HARDER.

Yeah sure, those shares are pretty heavy and someone needs to carry them&#33;


You tell me capitalism is bad because the majority suffer. I tell you it&#39;s good because only the minority suffer (by their own will).

Oh really?

I guess Latin America is not suffering sorry my mistake. I guess its fair for someone to work hard and only get meager wages because a capitalist fucko gets most of the profits.

you are wise.

[quincunx5]

You are fucking orgasmic about semantics.
As I said before, it works the same way. ENTERPRISES MERGE AND BECOME A NEW POWERFUL CORPORATION.
That is not COMPETITION, that is agreement.
Also, Syndicalists believe in something called labor cartels.
You lose.


I asked you for specific examples of real monopolies formed in the free market (those firms that did not seek any government intrusions). You have failed to do this. So by your convoluted logic I guess I lost.

Big bureaucratic corporations are an impediment to themselves. By your logic GM would be more profitable than Toyata, even though the opposite is true.



Again you lose, I already explained myself.


Your explanation was lousy. You were practically saying that any business was a monopoly. Do you think che-lives is the only place that sells Che gear? No. But to you, yes.

Which is actually kind of funny in a way. If you look at the Sherman Anti-Trust act of 1890, it had the same definition for a monopoly. IF you sold at high prices - then you are a monopoly. IF you sold at low prices - then you were out-competing your competitors - monopoly. IF you were selling for about the same prices then you must be involved in a cartel - again a monopoly.

You are taking the same stupid logic.



You still haven&#39;t answered why do powerful transnational corporations originate in places where capitalism is less monitored


Because the country they do business with is glad to do business with them. If I walk up to your house and ask you if I can take a shit in your toilet, IF you say yes - would you afterwards call me a bastard for using your toilet paper?

Pardon me for the gruesome analogy - but the argument still holds.

You also do not account for the fact that most transnational companies do business in FIRST world nations. The US does more private business with Switzerland and Netherlands than South America and Africa. Again facts are stubborn things.



Government interference is more usual in places where capitalism is monitored, where, strangely, trans national corporations don&#39;t thrive.


Where people are generally poor.



You said it.
The grand motive of a corporations is PROFITING.
Sorry for using your definition&#33;


Yes. You have not told me why PROFITING is bad. I gave you an example to illustrate that workers who would like to expand their enterprise would deduct a portion of their labor. They would treat that additional forgone labour as a profit and to invest it in equipment and hire new workers. Why have you not said anything about this? Are you denying that profits are needed for progress?



Government= Bourgeois
I still fail to see the logic behind WELL SHAREHOLDERS WORK HARDER.
Yeah sure, those shares are pretty heavy and someone needs to carry them&#33;


Now you are just trying to be funny. Who are the shareholders? A shareholder can be a teacher who indirectly employed her mutual fund to invest in a given corporation. It could be your bank.
You never know. That&#39;s the beauty.



Oh really?
I guess Latin America is not suffering sorry my mistake. I guess its fair for someone to work hard and only get meager wages because a capitalist fucko gets most of the profits.

you are wise.


Indeed I am wise.

For I know that in reality, without government interference - profits in the free market tend to go to ZERO, for a given good or service.

Latin America&#39;s problem is rooted in its weak private property system. Namely the fact that not everyone has private property - when they should.

Read &#39;Mystery of Capital&#39; by Hernando de Soto. He shows you exactly why the third world is the way it is.

[John Train]

So you are essentially telling me that anarcho-capitalism is no good because of foreign governments? Brilliant.

You’re a complete imbecile if you can&#39;t grasp such simple concept. Corporations in the third world have no consideration of age or the health and well being of their workers, which isn&#39;t to say that corporations here do here either. Their was just a labor movement that solved these issues the U.S. of course with a little help from the government.


My obvious point was children would still be working themselves to death in foreign lands under anarcho capitalism unless it was global which is highly unlikely as I&#39;m sure you know. So, that is of no concern to you, I suppose? Do you really believe it&#39;s uplifting their communities from poverty?

[quincunx5]

You’re a complete imbecile if you can&#39;t grasp such simple concept. Corporations in the third world have no consideration of age or the health and well being of their workers, which isn&#39;t to say that corporations here do here either. Their was just a labor movement that solved these issues the U.S. of course with a little help from the government.


You&#39;re an inbecile if you think that the labor movement made any improvements, especially after it was backed by government.

The history looks something like this:
Government bolsters big business.
Government bolsters big unions.

It became a vicious arbitrary cycle that still goes on today. Get rid of government and there will be no need for either.



My obvious point was children would still be working themselves to death in foreign lands under anarcho capitalism unless it was global which is highly unlikely as I&#39;m sure you know. So, that is of no concern to you, I suppose? Do you really believe it&#39;s uplifting their communities from poverty?


It would be preferable if it was global.
Do you think it isn&#39;t uplifting their communities? You think these places were better off before? If you do, prove it.

[John Train]

Does E-X-P-L-O-I-T-A-T-I-O-N mean nothing to you.

[quincunx5]

Does E-X-P-L-O-I-T-A-T-I-O-N mean nothing to you.


Is that the best you can do? You have not shown me that it takes place without government.
You can spell whatever you want - it will not convince me of anything.

[John Train]

You have not shown me that it takes place without government.

It&#39;s logical if anarcho-capitalism was isolated to the U.S. that U.S. corporate sweatshops abroad would continue. Who would stop them?

You still haven&#39;t answered my question about medium sized businesses simply merging and becoming big businesses.

Also, I am interested in some literature that better explains your position.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:22 AM




I asked you for specific examples of real monopolies formed in the free market (those firms that did not seek any government intrusions). You have failed to do this. So by your convoluted logic I guess I lost.

Big bureaucratic corporations are an impediment to themselves. By your logic GM would be more profitable than Toyata, even though the opposite is true.


Yes, I failed at providing you with what your webster dictionary tells you a "cartel" is.

However, you need to be a complete imbecile to not realize that a corporation is a form of agreement, regardless if boureacracy is an impediton.

Therefore it is A FORM of monopoly.

Besides, if they aren&#39;t profitable, why are there many companies that merge to form corporations?
:o

but yes it is unlogical i failed u


Your explanation was lousy. You were practically saying that any business was a monopoly. Do you think che-lives is the only place that sells Che gear? No. But to you, yes.[/Qupte]

No.

I was actually trying to point out that FREE MARKET creates monopoly- I never said ALL BUISNESSES ARE MONOPOLIES.

[Quote]
Which is actually kind of funny in a way. If you look at the Sherman Anti-Trust act of 1890, it had the same definition for a monopoly. IF you sold at high prices - then you are a monopoly. IF you sold at low prices - then you were out-competing your competitors - monopoly. IF you were selling for about the same prices then you must be involved in a cartel - again a monopoly

You are taking the same stupid logic.
What?

Why is this RELATED to my logic in any way?


Because the country they do business with is glad to do business with them. If I walk up to your house and ask you if I can take a shit in your toilet, IF you say yes - would you afterwards call me a bastard for using your toilet paper?

Pardon me for the gruesome analogy - but the argument still holds.

You also do not account for the fact that most transnational companies do business in FIRST world nations. The US does more private business with Switzerland and Netherlands than South America and Africa. Again facts are stubborn things.

Of course&#33;

Obviously, first world nations are the ones that buy all the stuff.

However, from where those the labor power comes?

From China, from Mexico, From El Salvador?

Besides, you still have dodged my question.

Why do powerful corporations originate from the "freest" economies?

According to you, free economies wouldn&#39;t allow big powerful corporations&#33;




Where people are generally poor.

If you consider America poor then yes.


Yes. You have not told me why PROFITING is bad. I gave you an example to illustrate that workers who would like to expand their enterprise would deduct a portion of their labor. They would treat that additional forgone labour as a profit and to invest it in equipment and hire new workers. Why have you not said anything about this? Are you denying that profits are needed for progress?

I never said profiting wasn&#39;t bad.

What I said, is that, WHEN A MINORITY OF SHAREHOLDERS PROFIT BECAUSE OF THE MAYORITY&#39;S WORK it is bad.

Of course, in order to upgrade the means of production, obviously the workers need to deduct a portion of their profits. However, that decision should be in the hands of the workers, not a bunch of greedy shareholders.


Now you are just trying to be funny. Who are the shareholders? A shareholder can be a teacher who indirectly employed her mutual fund to invest in a given corporation. It could be your bank.
You never know. That&#39;s the beauty.
Oh&#33;

Of course&#33;
It is pretty obvious that the minority that controls most of the buisness is not responsible for its success&#33; We all know that in reality, what moves a factory aren&#39;t the biggest capitalists, but the workers.

However, who actually PROFITS MORE? Who actually makes the most decisions?

It isn&#39;t the teacher, not the worker obviously.


Indeed I am wise.

For I know that in reality, without government interference - profits in the free market tend to go to ZERO, for a given good or service.

Latin America&#39;s problem is rooted in its weak private property system. Namely the fact that not everyone has private property - when they should.

Read &#39;Mystery of Capital&#39; by Hernando de Soto. He shows you exactly why the third world is the way it is.

Oh, I can show you a real anarcho capitalist economy right now&#33;

Its called Somalia.

Have you heard of it?

It is a fucking mess.

Interesting, isn&#39;t it?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:37 AM









The irony of capitalism is that it isn&#39;t based on free exchange as much as you&#39;d like to admit.

The irony of this discussion is that it IS based on free exchange, you just dont&#39; realize it.


When something is made under capitalism, the worker has no say as to how the fruits of his labour are to be used.

Of course he does.

He just chooses to sell the fruit of his labor.

He is choosing to sell it.

If you choose to sell me your couch, should you get any say in what I do with after I buy it?

Of course not.



Not only does he not get the full product of his labour, but the capitalist can profit off his work despite doing none himself.

There is more than one type of labor.



The classical liberalists would have been disgusted with capitalism.

Perhaps.



John Locke for instance:

"Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This No Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his"

So if one owns the property of ones body and hands, can&#39;t he sell it?


Under anarchism, If I were to walk into a factory and make something, I would be able to keep it for myself, since I made it. I&#39;d give it to the commune because it&#39;s in my self interest to do so.

And under capitalism, you can buy things.


Under capitalism this liberty is revoked.

What liberty?

[Publius]

Oh, I can show you a real anarcho capitalist economy right now&#33;

Its called Somalia.

Have you heard of it?

It is a fucking mess.

Interesting, isn&#39;t it?

Yeah, it is a mess.

But isn&#39;t it better than how it was under it&#39;s government?

From Wikipedia:

Some areas in Somalia are more economically active than before the war, when the socialist government of Siad Barre had suppressed free enterprise. Northern Somalia especially has rebounded economically. The lack of a government made a genuine capitalist economy, with no taxes and no other government red tape that free market economists claim stifles economic growth. There are no regulations or licensing requirements for businesses, and no taxes on businesses or individuals. Though Somalia continues to be a poor country, the number of individuals living in abject poverty has diminished —surpassing its neighbors in this respect.


In one of the poorest nations on earth, anarcho-capitalism is doing rather well ESPESCIALLY compared to the dozens of socialist failures in Africa.

Somalia is getting richer in a place where socialist governments make their countries POORER, and guess which one you&#39;re decrying&#33;?

Fucking hilarious.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 10:07 PM

Some areas in Somalia are more economically active than before the war, when the socialist government of Siad Barre had suppressed free enterprise. Northern Somalia especially has rebounded economically. The lack of a government made a genuine capitalist economy, with no taxes and no other government red tape that free market economists claim stifles economic growth. There are no regulations or licensing requirements for businesses, and no taxes on businesses or individuals. Though Somalia continues to be a poor country, the number of individuals living in abject poverty has diminished —surpassing its neighbors in this respect.


In one of the poorest nations on earth, anarcho-capitalism is doing rather well ESPESCIALLY compared to the dozens of socialist failures in Africa.

Somalia is getting richer in a place where socialist governments make their countries POORER, and guess which one you&#39;re decrying&#33;?

Fucking hilarious.
Yeah, I did read that in wikipedia before.
It doesn&#39;t matter though. It isn&#39;t a lie that somalia&#39;s past government was a MESS TOO.

Even if one is a lesser evil, both are still EVIL.

Besides, I am an anarchosyndicalist, so frankly, any argument against governments can&#39;t do anything against me.;)

Besides, Siad Berri was an authoritarian butcher. You cannot compare him to a "true socialist" government.

[Publius]

Read this: http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersL...ova-harford.pdf (http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/280-nenova-harford.pdf)



Yeah, I did read that in wikipedia before.
It doesn&#39;t matter though. It isn&#39;t a lie that somalia&#39;s past government was a MESS TOO.

Nope.




Even if one is a lesser evil, both are still EVIL.

Yeah, I&#39;m sure anarchosyndalicism would have worked wonders there&#33;

:rolleyes:

[Publius]

Besides, Siad Berri was an authoritarian butcher. You cannot compare him to a "true socialist" government.

That IS a true socialist government, take a look at history&#33;

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 10:37 PM
Read this: http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersL...ova-harford.pdf (http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/280-nenova-harford.pdf)



Yeah, I did read that in wikipedia before.
It doesn&#39;t matter though. It isn&#39;t a lie that somalia&#39;s past government was a MESS TOO.





Even if one is a lesser evil, both are still EVIL.



:rolleyes:


Nope.

By mess I meant that he butchered 60 000 people.
Not that it was TOTAL ANARCHY


Yeah, I&#39;m sure anarchosyndalicism would have worked wonders there&#33;

I don&#39;t really what would work,frankly.

In order for syndicalism to work, there needs to be some sort of democratic tradition.

Somalia lacks that.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 10:42 PM

Besides, Siad Berri was an authoritarian butcher. You cannot compare him to a "true socialist" government.

That IS a true socialist government, take a look at history&#33;
Take a look to Venezuela, or even Castro.

Castro didn&#39;t certainly butcher 60 000 people&#33; And besides, the population actually like him&#33;

I could say the same thing for Chavez.

[quincunx5]

Castro didn&#39;t certainly butcher 60 000 people&#33; And besides, the population actually like him&#33;


Yeah, those several thousand people that every year try to float away from cuba must really like Castro.

Cuba went into a depression following the collapse of the USSR. Any illusion of success was contributed by subsidies from the USSR. This subsidy was something like 1.5 times the GDP back then.

What did cuba do to alleviate the depression? Well it opened up the market a tiny bit. Today, 22% of cuba&#39;s economy is from slightly &#39;freer&#39; companies, up from like 2% in 1990.

It seems to me, that the best way to go is FREE MARKETS&#33;

[Publius]

Cuba&#39;s GDP actually shrank from the start of Castro&#39;s reign until a few years ago.

This may have changed over the last few years, but as of 1997 it was true.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:20 AM


Castro didn&#39;t certainly butcher 60 000 people&#33; And besides, the population actually like him&#33;


Yeah, those several thousand people that every year try to float away from cuba must really like Castro.

Cuba went into a depression following the collapse of the USSR. Any illusion of success was contributed by subsidies from the USSR. This subsidy was something like 1.5 times the GDP back then.

What did cuba do to alleviate the depression? Well it opened up the market a tiny bit. Today, 22% of cuba&#39;s economy is from slightly &#39;freer&#39; companies, up from like 2% in 1990.

It seems to me, that the best way to go is FREE MARKETS&#33;
No.

Castro is really liked by cubans, regardless of what america propaganda tells you.

Of course there will be people fleeing&#33; Cuba is a third world country, and America is a first world one&#33; There are thousands of mexicans crossing illegaly the border to America, you know.

Yes, you are right in one thing though.
Generally, state socialist countries become compeltely cornered by capitalist nations. It is really sad. The only form socialists nations would thrive is that there where many, because in that way, they could trade between each other.

[quincunx5]

Castro is really liked by cubans, regardless of what america propaganda tells you.


Suddenly all world facts are part of american propaganda?



Of course there will be people fleeing&#33; Cuba is a third world country, and America is a first world one&#33; There are thousands of mexicans crossing illegaly the border to America, you know.


Yet Mexico was the first nation to experiment with Marxism and anarchism (of the socialist type).
Does this tell you something?



Yes, you are right in one thing though.
Generally, state socialist countries become compeltely cornered by capitalist nations. It is really sad. The only form socialists nations would thrive is that there where many, because in that way, they could trade between each other.


You really should aspire to be a comedian.

You&#39;ve basically said that socialists nations would thrive IF everyone else was just as equally poor&#33;

Cuba pulled itself out of a depression by employing more capitalistic means. Cuba does not trade with any prominently socialistic nation - I wonder why that is?. I know facts are hard to swallow.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:52 AM


Castro is really liked by cubans, regardless of what america propaganda tells you.


Suddenly all world facts are part of american propaganda?



Of course there will be people fleeing&#33; Cuba is a third world country, and America is a first world one&#33; There are thousands of mexicans crossing illegaly the border to America, you know.






Yes, you are right in one thing though.
Generally, state socialist countries become compeltely cornered by capitalist nations. It is really sad. The only form socialists nations would thrive is that there where many, because in that way, they could trade between each other.


You really should aspire to be a comedian.


Yet Mexico was the first nation to experiment with Marxism and anarchism (of the socialist type).
Does this tell you something?

I don&#39;t know where your read this but ok&#33;

you sure know about the mexican history.



You&#39;ve basically said that socialists nations would thrive IF everyone else was just as equally poor&#33;

Cuba pulled itself out of a depression by employing more capitalistic means. Cuba does not trade with any prominently socialistic nation - I wonder why that is?. I know facts are hard to swallow.

Cuba was a very NICE COUNTRY when the "socialist" block was strong. I know this because I have read accounts of this and ASKED many of my music teachers, which are cubans. Most of them like alot castro, and they fleed later because the USSR felt and the gdp dropped pretty badñy-


Without aid of the other socialist countries, of course cuba needs to open to capitalists.

Man you fucking lack any sense of logic.

[quincunx5]

I don&#39;t know where your read this but ok&#33;
you sure know about the mexican history.


All true. Read it up. They didn&#39;t get very far.



Man you fucking lack any sense of logic.


Actually my critical faculties are in full operational order, yours on the other hand is debatable.

You argument comes down to this: Cuba was great when it was subsidized by a naturally rich nation. Now that it is no longer getting a free lunch, things have taken a nose dive.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 06:31 AM


I don&#39;t know where your read this but ok&#33;
you sure know about the mexican history.

Man you fucking lack any sense of logic.


Actually my critical faculties are in full operational order, yours on the other hand is debatable.




All true. Read it up. They didn&#39;t get very far.



The only "anarcho communist" experiments where done in the revolution, by a few anarchist groups, and they lasted some few weeks.

After the revolution, a bourgeoise government took over.

There was no "marxist" or"anarchist" experiment that was remarkable and that could have affected the economy in a way.

I am mexican, and I pretty know my history well&#33;



You argument comes down to this: Cuba was great when it was subsidized by a naturally rich nation. Now that it is no longer getting a free lunch, things have taken a nose dive.

Ahahahahaha


If USA felt, this would happen to many countries too.

Sure, Cuba got alot of aid from the USSR, but, that doesn&#39;t eliminates the fact that Cuba actually traded with warsaw pact countries.