State Capitalism

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I figured cappies might want to talk about this idea.

So, let's look at pre-revolutionary China, and Russia . . . mostly pre-industrial, quasi-fuedal, and generally not what anyone would think of as breeding places for "socialism" as Marx and most leftist philosophers enivisioned it.
Communists succeeded in throwing off foreign domination, but what, realisticly speaking, did they establish? After failed initial experiments, the "socialist" systems established in these countries was really a sort of state-monopoly capitalism - the extraction of surplus value, neo-colonial dependance relationships (Cuba-USSR) functioned just like in the West, albeit in a somewhat less efficient way.
Why? Because socialism, really, demands an industrial base which simply did not exist in these countries, so the revolutions were necessarily capitalist. It's kinda "What comes next" on the historical agenda after feudalism. They were "doomed" from the start, at least in terms of creating an authentic socialism (though still very necessary in terms of damaging imperialist hegemony, pushing development forward, etc.).

Admittedly, this is all a little sketchy, but I figure it's enough to start a discussion.
So . . . GO!

[PRC-UTE]

One issue never, or rarely elaborated upon by reactionaries, is how the USSR changed the status of women almost overnight. They went from having no rights to being in positions of leadership. That would also lend some validity to your argument that the russian revolution was by necessity an objectively bourgeois revolution despite being subjectively socialist (claiming to be socialist, led by socialists, anarchists, etc).

[allixpeeke]

There’s no such thing as State Capitalism. That’s an oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently opposed to the initiation of force, and if there’s anything government is good at, it’s initiating force. In short, fuck government.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:58 AM
There’s no such thing as State Capitalism. That’s an oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently opposed to the initiation of force, and if there’s anything government is good at, it’s initiating force. In short, fuck government.
"Capitalism is inherently opposed to the initiation of force"? Fine, now tell it to the Pinkertons or paramilitaries killing unionists for Coca-Cola in Columbia. Capitalism can't work without force and coersion. In short, f*** capitalism.

[Freedom Works]

Fine, now tell it to the Pinkertons or paramilitaries killing unionists for Coca-Cola in Columbia.
Do you fail to realize that the unionists initiated the force?


Capitalism can't work without force and coersion.
No, you're thinking statism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:58 PM
There’s no such thing as State Capitalism. That’s an oxymoron. Capitalism is inherently opposed to the initiation of force, and if there’s anything government is good at, it’s initiating force. In short, fuck government.
Wrong.
Governments in capitalist countries are a tool of the capitalist class. They protect capitalism, capitalist laws, and the capitalists themselves. The social programs enacted by these governments are an effort to appease the dissatisfied, oppressed people. They may involve sacrificing some of the capitalists' money... but in the end it prevents uprisings.

So contrary to popular belief, governments are not a means by which democracy takes place... they work to suppress democracy... and enforce capitalism.

Capitalism in itself is very forceful. Oppression is force.

And great post, VMC.

[quincunx5]

Governments in capitalist countries are a tool of the capitalist class.


And governments in socialist countries will become tools of the socialist class.
The individuals will be ignored.



So contrary to popular belief, governments are not a means by which democracy takes place... they work to suppress democracy... and enforce capitalism.


Why do you pretend that democracy is a desirable thing?

It's nothing but an expedience. Democracy is only good for deciding things like which movie to see with your friends, it is not a good mean of running society.

[Andy Bowden]

:o


Yes, damn those evil Colombian trade unionists for trying to represent their workers....they sure deserve death....


Oh and BTW, what about all those wars which happen because of Private Corporations coercion of the state to defend and advance their interests?

EG Halliburton and Iraq.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And governments in socialist countries will become tools of the socialist class.
The individuals will be ignored.

I don't see how "socialists" is an economic class... but if you mean the working class or the people as a whole... then yes, you're right. Socialism intends to do just that.


Why do you pretend that democracy is a desirable thing?

It's nothing but an expedience. Democracy is only good for deciding things like which movie to see with your friends, it is not a good mean of running society.

If you want other people telling you what to do, that can be arranged as well.

[Freedom Works]

Oh and BTW, what about all those wars which happen because of Private Corporations coercion of the state to defend and advance their interests?
Occurs because there is a State, not because of capitalism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The state exists because capitalism exists.

[Freedom Works]

The State exists because of the same reason religion exists - ignorance.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 30 2005, 04:12 PM
The State exists because of the same reason religion exists - ignorance.
The same can be said of capitalism. :lol:

I kid.

You wanna show some evidence for that, buddy?

[Freedom Works]

You wanna show some evidence for that, buddy?
Read some articles about religion by Richard Dawkins, then apply it to statism.

[quincunx5]

If you want other people telling you what to do, that can be arranged as well.


Hello? That's the staple of a Democracy.



I don't see how "socialists" is an economic class... but if you mean the working class or the people as a whole... then yes, you're right. Socialism intends to do just that.


Capitalism is nothing more than trading, saving, and reinvesting. It works best in anarchist form, and worse in state form.

Your problem is labeling everyone you don't like as a "capitalist" and everyone you do like as a "socialist". Nothing more, really. You don't even realize that capitalists provides you with everything you've got and ever had.

[KC]

Your problem is labeling everyone you don't like as a "capitalist" and everyone you do like as a "socialist".

Your problem is labeling everyone a capitalist. (and every socio-economic system "capitalism")

[More Fire for the People]

There were two main faults for the Soviet Union: lack of democratization of the political system and the rise of reviosionists and bad leaders (Kruschev [former], Stalin [latter]).

The faults with Vietnam, Laos, China? Revisionism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Hello? That's the staple of a Democracy.

No. Democracy is where the people get to decide things collectively. Society is run by the consent of the whole. That is democracy. If you want society to be run by the consent of an elite capitalist class, then I believe you're in minority. Most of us want to have a fair say in the general decision-making in society.


Capitalism is nothing more than trading, saving, and reinvesting. It works best in anarchist form, and worse in state form.

This society was created by capitalists. Why do you think they made a governemnt? To protect the capitalist society and evetually later on give the miserable masses some rights so they wouldn't rebel. But not too many rights. That's bad for the capitalists they're catering to.


Your problem is labeling everyone you don't like as a "capitalist" and everyone you do like as a "socialist". Nothing more, really. You don't even realize that capitalists provides you with everything you've got and ever had.

Bullshit.
Workers whose labor was bought by the stolen capital of the bourgeoisie provided me with everything I have.

[quincunx5]

No. Democracy is where the people get to decide things collectively.


They get to decide, but once the decision is made, it is not easy to reverse.
After the decision is made, it will have to be ENFORCED. The minority is oppressed.

Compare this to the market, where you can still purchase your favorite flavor of a given item, even though the majority or plurality prefer something else. You never get this kind of service in democratic politics.

You can't just ignore enforcement, and only focus on the deciding.



Society is run by the consent of the whole. That is democracy.


That's the problem. The consent is not from the whole. It never is.
It's from a majority or plurality.



Most of us want to have a fair say in the general decision-making in society.


Making decisions alone does not get things done. In fact the more people involved in making a decision the longer it will take to do anything, and the less likely it will be that the final result will be liked by each invividual making the decision.



This society was created by capitalists. Why do you think they made a governemnt? To protect the capitalist society and evetually later on give the miserable masses some rights so they wouldn't rebel. But not too many rights. That's bad for the capitalists they're catering to.


Don't be stupid. The governments were created by a few businessman and aristocrats with special interests to protect. Don't equate them with all capitalists.

Ever noticed that the writers of the declaration of independence stongly opposed the writers of the constitution?



Workers whose labor was bought by the stolen capital of the bourgeoisie provided me with everything I have.


You mean the capitalists paid the workers the value of a future good at a present discounted value. That's what the worker agreed to. That's all that a profit is.

And what happened when the capitalist lost money on his investment? Well the worker still got paid weekly up until closing. You lefties always leave this out.

And what about the worker himself, who also engages in capitalistic actions?

[allixpeeke]

Fine, now tell it to the Pinkertons or paramilitaries killing unionists for Coca-Cola in Columbia.Obviously, murder (except in self-defence) is anti-Capitalist.

I have no problem with unions.


Capitalism can't work without force and coersion.False. Capitalism cannot work with initiation of force or coercion.

I don’t think you understand Capitalism. Nothing can happen under Capitalism that does not involve voluntary mutual consent. If you’re killing people simply for trying to start a union, then you absolutely 100% not-a-Capitalist.


Governments in capitalist countries are a tool of the capitalist class. They protect capitalism, capitalist laws, and the capitalists themselves.No. That never happens under Capitalism.

Perhaps you’re confusing Capitalism with Corporatism. Governments under Corporatism use force (such as subsidies [i.e. Corporate Welfare], patents, license to pollute, etc.) to help Big Business.

Under Capitalism, everyone is on an even playing field. If one business starts to monopolise, another company will see that customers are dissatisfied with the new high costs or the poor product or inefficient service, and will start offering better products/services for less. Free, healthy competition between businesses is what makes, ultimately, the standard of living rise under Capitalism faster than under any other system. I say healthy competition because murdering one’s opponents, or using force against them in any way, is of course anti-Capitalist.

Big Government, on the other hand, just hurts Capitalism and infringes on the Free Market. When the government give Corporate Welfare to preferred companies, it makes it harder for alternative companies to compete, thus allowing more room for monopolisation.

When the government gives patents to Big Pharma on various drugs, it allows them to raise the price exorbitantly, making it harder for the consumer to get the drugs he or she need. Under Capitalism, the Consumer, the People, controls all. Big Business bends to the will, the demand, of the consumer. Those that don’t lose business, lose profit. But when the government allows Big Business to monopolise on a product, like medicine, then that business is no longer responsible to the people. Needless to say, giving patents to Big Companies is anti-Capitalist.

I also mentioned pollution. The EPA has a tendency to give license to preferred companies to pollute. Obviously, this unlevels the playing field.

All of these are examples of Corporatism, NOT Capitalism. This is a common mistake among Leftists.

Perhaps you’ve heard a quote from Mussolini saying that Fascism would be better described as Corporatism, because it merges Corporate and State power. Whereas it’s been argued that Mussolini never actually wrote this, the comparison seems apt. Corporatism is just as anti-Capitalist as Socialism. Capitalism is the only system that gives power directly to the People.

You may also see above where I stated that Capitalism provides a level playing field. Even Mr. Nader agrees with this.

“Concentrated corporate power violates many principles of capitalism. For example, under capitalism, owners control their property. Under multinational corporations, the shareholders don’t control their corporation. Under capitalism, if you can’t make the market respond, you sink. Under big business, you don’t go bankrupt; you go to Washington for a bailout. Under capitalism, there is supposed to be freedom of contract. When was the last time you negotiated a contract with banks or auto dealers? They are all fine-print contracts. The law of contracts has been wiped out for 99 percent of contracts that ordinary consumers sign on to. Capitalism is supposed to be based on law and order. Corporations get away with corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. And finally, capitalism is premised on a level playing field; the most meritorious is supposed to win. Tell that to a small inventor or a small business up against McDonald’s or a software programmer up against Microsoft.

“Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community other than to control them or abandon them. So what we have now is the merger of big business and big government to further subsidize costs or eliminate risks or guarantee profits by our government.” – Ralph Nader, June 2004


Capitalism in itself is very forceful.Obviously false.


Why do you pretend that democracy is a desirable thing?

It's nothing but an expedience. Democracy is only good for deciding things like which movie to see with your friends, it is not a good mean of running society.

It was Democracy (i.e. the tyranny of the majority) that banned gay marriage in a bunch of States in 2004. We live in a system of government where a 51% majority faction can infringe upon the rights of the other 49% at will. What we should live in is a society in which not even a 99.9% majority faction can infringe upon the rights of a 0.1% minority.


Oh and BTW, what about all those wars which happen because of Private Corporations coercion of the state to defend and advance their interests?

EG Halliburton and Iraq.

Glad you asked.

Halliburton is anti-Capitalist.

The initiation of war is anti-Capitalist.

The war in Iraq is anti-Capitalist and unjust.

Halliburton receives no-bid contracts from Uncle Sam. But no-bid contracts themselves are anti-Capitalist, since it eliminates competition. Halliburton is effectively a monopoly, and monopolies cannot exist under true Capitalism.


I don't see how "socialists" is an economic class... but if you mean the working class or the people as a whole... then yes, you're right. Socialism intends to do just that.

Socialism intends to help the Politician Ruling Class gain more power over the people. They do this in the name of equality, despite the fact that they’re monopolising power, which they usurp from the governed without consent.

The Politician Ruling Class tends to care little about the people. As O’Brien points out in 1984, power is not a means government seeks for an ends, power is the ends that government seeks.



Why do you pretend that democracy is a desirable thing?

It's nothing but an expedience. Democracy is only good for deciding things like which movie to see with your friends, it is not a good mean of running society.

If you want other people telling you what to do, that can be arranged as well.

Democracy IS “other people telling you what to do”.

Monarchy is a single person telling you what to do. Oligarchy is a small group of people telling you what to do. Democracy is a big group telling you what to do. Anarchy is no one except yourself telling you what to do.


The state exists because capitalism exists.

The State exists for two reasons. One, because people are afraid of murder, rape, theft, etc. Secondly, because the Politician Ruling Class craves power.


Capitalism is nothing more than trading, saving, and reinvesting. It works best in anarchist form, and worse in state form.

This is correct.


If you want society to be run by the consent of an elite capitalist class, then I believe you're in minority.

Impossible. Just because we Capitalists advocate Capitalism (i.e. Free Trade based solely on voluntary mutual consent) doesn’t make us elite.

What is this Capitalist “class”? I’m unaware of any caste of people based on Capitalism. If you’re referring to the wealthy, let it be noted that not everyone who’s wealthy is a Capitalist. Bush is wealthy, but he despises Capitalism. Let it also be noted that not everyone who’s a Capitalist is rich. I’m a Capitalist, yet by American standards, I’m pretty poor. Further, I don’t own the means of production.

Capitalism is an economic philosophy. So is Socialism. Likewise, these are also economic systems based on their respective philosophies. Unless you believe that one philosopher is inherently in a higher caste than another philosopher based on nothing more than the opposing philosophies, there is no “elite Capitalist class”.


This society was created by capitalists. Why do you think they made a governemnt? To protect the capitalist society and evetually later on give the miserable masses some rights so they wouldn't rebel. But not too many rights. That's bad for the capitalists they're catering to.

The more rights the people have, the higher their standard of living will be, and thus the the more wealthy society will be. Wealth is created. When one person becomes wealthier, another does not become poorer (unless that money was stolen by someone or by the government and then redistributed, or if the government inflates the currency). Under Capitalism, it’s reasonable to afford everyone their total rights.

Of course, in Socialist systems, rights are infringed upon. Socialists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Karimov, Castro, Jong-Il, Bush, etc. deny people rights to make them more dependent upon government, thus ensuring their own monopoly on power through governmental coercion.


That's the problem. The consent is not from the whole. It never is.
It's from a majority or plurality.

Great point. This is why I support IRV as a replacement for the Plurality Voting system we currently have.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 30 2005, 09:52 PM

You wanna show some evidence for that, buddy?
Read some articles about religion by Richard Dawkins, then apply it to statism.
Government isn't a "meme" or memeplex like religion, moron.
Yr reading of Dawkins is obviously incredibly shallow, at absolute best.

[Andy Bowden]

How exactly can Halliburton be anti-capitalist?

:blink:


And how does war happen just because of the state - surely there are motivations involved in war.

[Freedom Works]

Government isn't a "meme" or memeplex like religion, moron.
The belief that "government" can save us from a villian is not the same that a god can?



And how does war happen just because of the state - surely there are motivations involved in war.
War is only profitable if a company can utilitize taxmoney.

[Andy Bowden]

War is only profitable if a government can utilize tax money

War doesnt happen because it is porfitable for govt though. It happens because it is profitable for the US Oil companies who are now enjoying a bonanza in Iraq.

[Freedom Works]

The solution is still the same - abolish "government".

[KC]

The belief that "government" can save us from a villian is not the same that a god can?


No. Government exists.



War is only profitable if a company can utilitize taxmoney.

What about seizing resources? Such as Andy Bowden has said; what about the oil companies in Iraq?


The solution is still the same - abolish "government".

Why don't you address Andy's response? Why do you dodge his question? Please, enlighten us!!!

[Freedom Works]

War doesnt happen because it is porfitable for govt though.
You have got to be kidding. You believe that "government" does not want to expand it's power?

[KC]

How about addressing the rest of his post? Or mine, for that matter?

[Freedom Works]

No. Government exists.
No, the people exist, but "government" is just an idea - one that some believe can save them from tyranny and increase prosperity.


What about seizing resources? Such as Andy Bowden has said; what about the oil companies in Iraq?
When has killing people been more profitable than trading? Never, unless you are utilizing taxmoney - which is involuntary.

[KC]

No, the people exist, but "government" is just an idea - one that some believe can save them from tyranny and increase prosperity.

Government is an idea as much as money is.



When has killing people been more profitable than trading? Never, unless you are utilizing taxmoney - which is involuntary.

The oil companies in Iraq are making a lot more from invasion than from trading.

If you understood anything you'd understand that government is a tool of big business. Railing against government and not big business is hypocritical.

[Freedom Works]

Government is an idea as much as money is.
Not true at all. Money (at least commodity-backed money) is simply an extention of barter.


The oil companies in Iraq are making a lot more from invasion than from trading.
Because they are using the "government" to wage the war!


Railing against government and not big business is hypocritical.
If you understood anything you'd understand railing against "government" AND business is idiotic. Big business is big because of "government" not despite of it!

[KC]

Not true at all. Money (at least commodity-backed money) is simply an extention of barter.

Money is an idea.



Because they are using the "government" to wage the war!


The government is a tool of big business, genius! It's just an extension of big business!



If you understood anything you'd understand railing against "government" AND business is idiotic. Big business is big because of "government" not despite of it!

Why big business is big doesn't matter. The fact is that big business controls government, not the other way around.

[Freedom Works]

Money is an idea.
You seem to be confusing value with money.


The government is a tool of big business, genius! It's just an extension of big business!
Yes, because history sure shows us THAT.


Why big business is big doesn't matter.
Suuuurrrreee.


The fact is that big business controls government, not the other way around.
It doesn't matter. If you abolish "government", big business cannot stand the forces of the free market and will disappear, or it will continue to serve the customers and will survive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Fine, now tell it to the Pinkertons or paramilitaries killing unionists for Coca-Cola in Columbia.Obviously, murder (except in self-defence) is anti-Capitalist.

I have no problem with unions.


Capitalism can't work without force and coersion.False. Capitalism cannot work with initiation of force or coercion.In order for capitalism to develop, there were revolutions and forced changes in the structure of society like the Enclosure acts in England.


I don’t think you understand Capitalism. Nothing can happen under Capitalism that does not involve voluntary mutual consent. If you’re killing people simply for trying to start a union, then you absolutely 100% not-a-Capitalist.So, in your view, there has never been an example of capitalism? Nothing is "mutual consent" when one person owns the land and everyone else has to either starve or work for the land owner.


Under Capitalism, everyone is on an even playing field. If one business starts to monopolise, another company will see that customers are dissatisfied with the new high costs or the poor product or inefficient service, and will start offering better products/services for less. Free, healthy competition between businesses is what makes, ultimately, the standard of living rise under Capitalism faster than under any other system. I say healthy competition because murdering one’s opponents, or using force against them in any way, is of course anti-Capitalist.Go read up on Adam Smith and the labor theory of value. The pressures of the market push towards monopolization and getting as much work out of workers for as little wages as possible.


Big Government, on the other hand, just hurts Capitalism and infringes on the Free Market. When the government give Corporate Welfare to preferred companies, it makes it harder for alternative companies to compete, thus allowing more room for monopolisation.No, capitalism itself makes it harder for "alternative" companies to compete. If you have 100 capitalists making widgets, then some are going to profit more for whatever reason and in order for them to keep making profits, they will be pushed to trying to controll and greater portion of the market. The companies that arn't profiting go under and sell out to the sucessful company and you see a narrowing of companies until there is basically a monopoly.

For a historical example, look at the US economy between the American revolution and the Civil war. In about 100 years you see an economy of small shop-owners and apprentices become more and more monopolized and by the eve of the Civil war, industrialization and factories have replaced most shops and plantations have replaced yeomen.


When the government gives patents to Big Pharma on various drugs, it allows them to raise the price exorbitantly, making it harder for the consumer to get the drugs he or she need. Under Capitalism, the Consumer, the People, controls all.Great plan, so the more you consume (i.e. the more money you have), the more powerful you are. Great plan.


Big Business bends to the will, the demand, of the consumer. Those that don’t lose business, lose profit. But when the government allows Big Business to monopolise on a product, like medicine, then that business is no longer responsible to the people. Needless to say, giving patents to Big Companies is anti-Capitalist.What fantasy! Who are the bigest induvidual consumers? I could never buy enough brand X to be more influntial than McDonalds who buys Pepsi breand, so Pepsi brand wins even if the "people" want to buy something else. Factories buy more petrol than induvidual car drivers, so I guess "the people" means "the people who own all the large factories". Your "capitalism" is just a utopian version of the sh** we already have.


Capitalism is the only system that gives power directly to the People.... (let me finish your thought for you) who own all the means of production.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yes!!!! ABOLISH GOV'T!!!!

With out the state to protect y'all, y'all will get pppppppppppppppwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn3333 3333333333333333333dddddddddddddd!!!!


Yeah, I mean, the police and the jails, and whatnot . . . without them, y'all would be alll against the waaaalllllllllllll annnnndd shit!!!!


SHAZAM!!!!!










I'm fuuuuucccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeedf=ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!11111!!!!


p\/\/nx0r 73h 50ci41 1337!!!!111!!!!!111

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 2 2005, 05:38 AM
Yes!!!! ABOLISH GOV'T!!!!

With out the state to protect y'all, y'all will get pppppppppppppppwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn3333 3333333333333333333dddddddddddddd!!!!


Yeah, I mean, the police and the jails, and whatnot . . . without them, y'all would be alll against the waaaalllllllllllll annnnndd shit!!!!


SHAZAM!!!!!










I'm fuuuuucccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeedf=ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!11111!!!!


p\/\/nx0r 73h 50ci41 1337!!!!111!!!!!111

:lol:

Quite clearly.


It doesn't matter. If you abolish "government", big business cannot stand the forces of the free market and will disappear, or it will continue to serve the customers and will survive.

Do you honestly believe that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless and the poor as they do now? How is preaching selfishness and individualism going to ensure that public necessities like clean water and sanitation will be available for all?

What you are advocating is really a free for all where the rich and strongest/most powerful/cunning individuals will benefit. Your promoting the use of brute force over reason.

[Freedom Works]

Do you honestly believe that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless and the poor as they do now?
They don't now. The powerful oppress the less-powerful, but that is because there is "government", not because of 'social inequality'.


How is preaching selfishness and individualism going to ensure that public necessities like clean water and sanitation will be available for all?
Because there is a demand for clean water and sanitation, so it will be more efficient and the price lower than a monopoly could provide.


What you are advocating is really a free for all where the rich and strongest/most powerful/cunning individuals will benefit.
Yep that's completely true. At least for the rich and cunning. Except everyone is rich and cunning to some degree, so there is nothing wrong with a free society.

[Andy Bowden]

Yeah because history sure shows us THAT

It does actually. How many times has the US govt gone up against big business?

Clue: It may have something to do with who bank rolls politicians campaigns.

[Freedom Works]

It does actually. How many times has the US govt gone up against big business?
You missed my point.
-"Government" existed.
-Big business could not compete with small/medium business, so lobbied "government" to increase regulations.
-Big business gets bigger, small/medium businesses cannot obey all of the regulations.
-Big business dominates.
-Idiots complain about big business and suggest the solution is more "government".

[quincunx5]

How is preaching selfishness and individualism going to ensure that public necessities like clean water and sanitation will be available for all?


There is only profits in providing clean water and sanitation. Hence there will be someone selfish enough to provide those things for the rest of us (including themselves).



It does actually. How many times has the US govt gone up against big business?


Quite a number times. In fact government wants to ensure that itself remains in the good spot light.

Off hand: Sherman Anti-Trust Act (basically states that every business is a monopoly), Deregulating airlines, Breaking up Ma Bell, destroying the Pony Express, as well as consistently hampering every new communications technology that emerges.

The general rule of thumb in politics is: Big Business success is always Government Success, every Big Business failure is Big Business failure, even though Government was involved at both times.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The basic problem with the pro-capitalist anti-government argument is the assumption that government is some kind of supernatural entitiy that is "over" society, rather than coming out of society.

Government is different in Feudalism and Capitalism because the order of thoes societies need different things in order to continue their status quo. So when there were revolutions in Europe under Calvinist or Capitalist or republican ideals, they had to do away with aristocracy and common lands and other aspects which helped keep the status quo for feudal countries. They also gradually consolidated and centralized government so that trade wasn't subject to the whims of local rulers.

The government that these libertarians hate is the government that resulted from the needs of business as a whole. While the government may have done things against a particular business, it is still in the larger intrests of the business class. So you have regulations that may hurt one company but the government sees it as helping the entire industry.

If you look at the reforms that FDR did, he said he did these to be "the savior of capitalism" because there was massive labor unrest and so it was in the intrests of business as a whole to give in a little in order to appease labor rather than stay on the corse which would lead to more unrest and strikes and possibly even revolution.

[KC]

You missed my point.
-"Government" existed.
-Big business could not compete with small/medium business, so lobbied "government" to increase regulations.
-Big business gets bigger, small/medium businesses cannot obey all of the regulations.
-Big business dominates.
-Idiots complain about big business and suggest the solution is more "government".

Then why has big business thrived in times of conservative rule? Why did big business grow so big during the Reagan administration?

[bombeverything]

Yep that's completely true. At least for the rich and cunning. Except everyone is rich and cunning to some degree, so there is nothing wrong with a free society.

How is everyone "rich" to some degree? You sound like one of those religious "make money quick" idiots.


Because there is a demand for clean water and sanitation, so it will be more efficient and the price lower than a monopoly could provide.

Why should people have to pay for basic necessities? My question was: do you believe that everyone has an equal right to the means of subsistence? Clearly not.


They don't now. The powerful oppress the less-powerful, but that is because there is "government", not because of 'social inequality'.

This is untrue. The state is not some abstract concept that simply developed outside of people's interactions with their material world. The state arose with inequality.

You also fail to make a distinction between "the state" and "government". Within a given territory, the state remains while government's come and go. The government is that body within the state which claims legitimate authority to make laws; it also directs and controls the state apparatus.

You seem to be ignoring the existence of the state by narrowly opposing (or focusing only on) "government".

[Freedom Works]

How is everyone "rich" to some degree?
Because everyone owns themself.


Why should people have to pay for basic necessities?
Basic necessities are scarce, so cost inevitably is involved.


do you believe that everyone has an equal right to the means of subsistence?
That was not your question. I believe you have to survive on your own: No one deserves a free ride soley for existing.


The state arose with inequality.
The idea of a State is a mind virus.


You also fail to make a distinction between "the state" and "government".
The State (also known as, state-government) is a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent. Government is simply one party that initiates force (it is then 'governing').

[Axel1917]

Uh, has anyone read how Trotsky argued against Tony Cliff's theory of State Capitalism and why the term, deformed workers' state, is what is really applicable to Stalinist nations?

See:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...ch09.htm#ch09-1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/ch09.htm#ch09-1)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:44 PM
Uh, has anyone read how Trotsky argued against Tony Cliff's theory of State Capitalism and why the term, deformed workers' state, is what is really applicable to Stalinist nations?

See:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...ch09.htm#ch09-1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/ch09.htm#ch09-1)
Yeah - I've read it.
It's shallow, and concerns itself more with the terminology of ownership, etc., then with with the essence of the theory of state capitalism.
Were their holes in Cliff's original analysis? Certainly.
However, the . . .

. . . fuck, late for work. I'll back this evening.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How is everyone "rich" to some degree?
Because everyone owns themself.Except for most people who muse rent themselves out for 8 hours a day 5 days a week in order to survive whereas others own themselves, the means of production and then rent other people in return for a wage.



Why should people have to pay for basic necessities?
Basic necessities are scarce, so cost inevitably is involved. Why are there lay-offs then? If things are scarce, why do companies lower production or not invest? Why are farmers paid not to grow food? People are hungry and yet it's not because there isn't enough food, it's because of the system itself wants to prevent food from loosing monitary value.


do you believe that everyone has an equal right to the means of subsistence?
That was not your question. I believe you have to survive on your own: No one deserves a free ride soley for existing. But a free ride for solely investing capital into things is A-ok! If you invest your life into something, take what we give you though.

So how do you plan on implementing your utopian capitalism? Would you get libertarians into offfice to reform the government and dissolve it? What happens when the powerful companies who use the government and get taxes from the government and are allowed into forign markets because of the government's military and political power start to oppose these reforms? It seems like you only want capitalism to exist on the small-scale, induvidual shops, small factories and family farms; since all the ills of capitalism, in your view, stem from corpratism and government. It's in a corporations intrests to have the government, so how do you replace this system? How do you keep monopolies from rising from localized capitalism as they always tend to do?

[allixpeeke]

How exactly can Halliburton be anti-capitalist?No-bid contracts granted by Tyranny McGovernment are inherently anti-Capitalist. Capitalism works because competition between businesses keep prices low for the consumer, while keeping the quality of the products high. But when the government gives a no-bid contract, that allows no room for competition, so the business, Halliburton in this case, can charge whatever it wants, it its checks are payed for by the U.S. taxpayer wo was coerced to begin with by Tyranny McGovernment to pay those taxes. Capitalism provides natural checks on business, but those checks and balances disappear when your business gets government-subsidised no-bid contracts. Further, the corporation can thus use that position to have unjust influence on government itself. This would never happen if America was a Capitalist nation. In fact, this war wouldn't even have been started if America was a Capitalist nations.
And how does war happen just because of the state - surely there are motivations involved in war.Yes, there are incentives. Power is a big incentive. Political influence on other nations. Bush getting himself a substantial place in the history books. Halliburton profits directly from the U.S. taxpayer.

There's also the idea of Democracy. I think Neo-Conservatives have actually convinced themselves that they're spreading Democracy, and that this justifies nation-building. It's like Orwellian doublethink, where not only are they lying, but they're believing themselves. So, Democracy is another incentive.
The belief that "government" can save us from a villian is not the same that a god can?I have more faith in God than I have in government.
If you understood anything you'd understand that government is a tool of big business. Railing against government and not big business is hypocritical.Your second sentence contradicts your first.

Yes, Big Business does use Big Government. It uses it as a crutch so that it doesn't have to compete against the other businesses. Limit the power of government, and businesses once again have to compete against one another on the Free Market. They can't use government to monopolise anymore.

So, why is one a hypocrite when railing against Big Government and Big Business? If there was no government, Big Business wouldn't be a problem, because the Free Competition that exists in the absence of government provides the necessary checks and balances to keep Big Business in check. :\
Big business is big because of "government" not despite of it!Exactly!
The government is a tool of big business, genius! It's just an extension of big business!What came first, Big Government or Big Business? Big Government.
If you abolish "government", big business cannot stand the forces of the free market and will disappear, or it will continue to serve the customers and will survive.Exactly.
So, in your view, there has never been an example of capitalism?I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.

I think the best example of Capitalism that exists are indie record labels.
Nothing is "mutual consent" when one person owns the land and everyone else has to either starve or work for the land owner.If person X consents to working for person Y, and if person Y consents to allowing person X to work for him, then the consent is mutual.

If person X consents to trade his chicken sandwich for person Y’s turkey sandwich, and if person Y consents to trade his turkey sandwich for person X’s chicken sandwich, then the trade is based on voluntary mutual consent. That’s Capitalism.

If person X gives person Y a gift of his own free will, and person Y accepts of his own free will, that’s Capitalism, too.

There are probably trillions of examples of true Capitalism.
No, capitalism itself makes it harder for "alternative" companies to compete. If you have 100 capitalists making widgets, then some are going to profit more for whatever reason and in order for them to keep making profits, they will be pushed to trying to controll and greater portion of the market. The companies that arn't profiting go under and sell out to the sucessful company and you see a narrowing of companies until there is basically a monopoly.The inefficient businesses die out and the more efficient businesses survive. It’s like Corporate Darwinism.

However, your conclusion is flawed. There is no guarantee that all but one business will die, and assuming it doesn’t, those businesses still thriving have to compete with the other businesses, all of which are very efficient, as evident by the fact that they survived.

And let’s assume that one business is left, thus making it a monopoly. This business would have to remain efficient, providing a good product/service as consumer-friendly prices. The moment this business begins losing efficiency, and it’s realised that there’s a market out there for a better quality product, a small start-up company will offer this product and take up the excess demand. Depending on the efficiency of this start-up company, it will either grow or die, and if it grows (which is likely, if the former monopoly remains inefficient), then this small start-up company will rise to be a major competitor. Monopolies are never permanent.

It doesn't matter. If you abolish "government", big business cannot stand the forces of the free market and will disappear, or it will continue to serve the customers and will survive.

Do you honestly believe that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless and the poor as they do now?How are they exploiting the poor?
How is preaching selfishness and individualism going to ensure that public necessities like clean water and sanitation will be available for all?Being a Minarchist rather than an Anarchist, I don’t mind government performing basic functions.
The basic problem with the pro-capitalist anti-government argument is the assumption that government is some kind of supernatural entitiy that is "over" society, rather than coming out of society.Government is supposed to be a tool of the people to secure basic inalienable rights. However, more often then not, government acts as though the people are an expedient for its goals. It often infringes upon those inalienable rights that it was established to protect.
While the government may have done things against a particular business, it is still in the larger intrests of the business class.Government is in the largest interest of the politician ruling class that wants to gain power at the expense of general Liberty.
If you look at the reforms that FDR did, he said he did these to be "the savior of capitalism" because there was massive labor unrest and so it was in the intrests of business as a whole to give in a little in order to appease labor rather than stay on the corse which would lead to more unrest and strikes and possibly even revolution.FDR hated Capitalism, just like Bush.
Then why has big business thrived in times of conservative rule? Why did big business grow so big during the Reagan administration?For the record, just because Reagan had small-government rhetoric doesn’t mean he wasn’t a Big-Government hypocrite.
How is everyone "rich" to some degree?Everyone on this board is in the top five percent richest people in the world.
My question was: do you believe that everyone has an equal right to the means of subsistence? Clearly not.Everyone has a right to seek these things, and to seek happiness. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Because everyone owns themself.Very true. Anyone who opposes private property opposes self-ownership. Anyone who opposes private property believes that everyone has equal ownership over all things. If I have no private ownership over my body, then my body is publicly owned by the collective, in which case I’m a slave. Opposition to private property is a promotion of slavery and despotism.

The reason murder is philosophically unjust is that I own my life. If you take my life, you’ve committed theft. But, if you co-own my life, then you’re not taking it, and thus murder is justified without private property. Likewise with taking one’s sex: i.e. rape.
Except for most people who muse rent themselves out for 8 hours a day 5 days a week in order to survive whereas others own themselves, the means of production and then rent other people in return for a wage.If they choose to rent out their body for a certain amount of time, that’s their choice. I’m not going to stand in their way.

They still own themselves, which is why they have the right to quit any time.
Why are farmers paid not to grow food?Didn’t FDR pay farmers to fuck up their food supplies? It is, in my opinion, nutty to pay people to do this. Only government would be that stupid.
But a free ride for solely investing capital into things is A-ok!As long as you invested it voluntarily, and without coercion.

[bombeverything]

Because everyone owns themself.

And as a result of our social nature we have a responsibility to those whom our behaviour harms. How does owning property and making a profit equate with “owning oneself”? Sure the ruling class might own themselves --- they do tend to have a lot of “freedom”. The freedom to exploit. Yet in a capitalist system, the actual basis of society: the working class “own themselves” as much as they can compete with each other to secure limited jobs, and work for pitiful wages. The capitalists take the profit. Under capitalism our labour is “for sale”, not owned by the individual as you are oddly suggesting. Who are we selling our labour to if we “own ourselves”? Everything is sold for a price. For most people, the only way to get money is to sell your labour in return for a wage. What you are advocating is barbarism, not “freedom”.


Basic necessities are scarce, so cost inevitably is involved.

They are? Yeah under capitalism basic necessities are scarce because they have been stolen by the capitalists. If we “own ourselves” as you claimed before then we should also own the product of our labour. We are advocating a society where things are produced to fulfil human need, not increase the profit of a ruling elite.


That was not your question. I believe you have to survive on your own: No one deserves a free ride soley for existing.

When did I say anything about a “free ride”? You’re the one advocating a free for all. People must contribute equally to the society in which they live. Under capitalism, the working class do just that --- work, whilst the capitalists sit on their asses and make money through exploiting the labour of the workers. It is the capitalists that have a free ride under the existing conditions. You want to increase this inequality?


The idea of a State is a mind virus.

Sorry? Could you please elaborate on this strange comment? So you believe that the state is something that we imagine? The state very real and is the means by which a small minority control and dominate the huge majority in the interests of the ruling class in our society. The state is the name given to describe a monopoly of government, or the continuation of government even though the actual people involved change.


The State (also known as, state-government) is a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent. Government is simply one party that initiates force (it is then 'governing').

But the “state government” and “the state” are two different things.


How are they exploiting the poor?

By stealing the things that they produce, ie. reducing them to wage slaves.


Everyone on this board is in the top five percent richest people in the world.

What does this have to do with anything?


Everyone has a right to seek these things, and to seek happiness. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

And when exactly have I advocated this? I simply said that under so called “anarcho-capitalism” basic necessities will not be guaranteed. And what do you mean by happiness? Does this include happiness that necessitates the exploitation of others?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't know about anybody else - I don't own myself - I am myself.

God, y'all must have a fucked up conception of what it means to be you, if you concieve of the relationship between "me" and "I" in terms of an economic relationship.

I am me.
I use this room, and this computer (though I "own" neither).

Y'all must be on more drugs than me - and that says something.

[Zingu]

"The reason the state has to exist under Marxist thinking has nothing to do with keeping law and order, it is a simple logical resolution.

Post revolution there will still be two classes. Classes are classes because they have competing interests, one necessarily has to be "higher" than the other, if they were equal, they wouldn't be classes. And thus one necessarily forms the state, which as Marx points out is the organization of the ruling class.

A state is thus, a natural occurance of class society -- unless the proletariat remains completely unorganized, in which case... good luck doing anything."


Basically, the state is the result of class antagonisms, that still exist in Capitalist society obviously, what the "Anarcho"-Capitalists and Libertarians wish to do is impossible, not realizing their own heros are ultimately against them.

[Freedom Works]

Unless you realize that classes do not exist.

[KC]

Please tell me why we can't classify people into owning the means of production, and not owning the means of production. If you're saying we can't do this, then you might as well stop posting.

[Freedom Works]

Because the means of production is reason.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 8 2005, 05:35 AM
Because the means of production is reason.
:lol:

That may actually be the most flakey thing I've ever heard.
Anywhere.

How can you pretend yr ideas have any basis in material reality while claiming that "reason" - an ideal, or, at best, a method - is the means by which value is produced.

Damn, I wish I could just reason myself up a week's worth of groceries!!

[KC]

Because the means of production is reason.

Could you please tell me how reason creates automobiles? Do you need "means of production" to be defined for you? Here, I won't even wait for a response; I will define it right here for you:


Originally posted by Capital Volume I Part III
If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour.

[Freedom Works]

Could you please tell me how without reason you could create a weeks worth of groceries, or an automobile? Reason is THE intricate part of the process, and it is what makes our lives better.

[KC]

Could you please tell me how reason creates anything??

[Freedom Works]

Could you please tell me how labor without reason creates anything???

[KC]

I never said labor without reason creates anything. Answer my question.

[Andy Bowden]

Surely production is dependent upon wether or not someone will pay for the product?

Between producing anti-AIDS drugs for the 3rd world, and producing a Diamond studded handbag for Paris Hilton, which do you think has more "reason" to it?

[JKP]

The right-libertarian does not address or even acknowledge that the (absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as workers and tenants). Thus a free-market capitalist system leads to a very selective and class-based protection of "rights" and "freedoms." For example, under capitalism, the "freedom" of employers inevitably conflicts with the "freedom" of employees. When stockholders or their managers exercise their "freedom of enterprise" to decide how their company will operate, they violate their employee's right to decide how their labouring capacities will be utilised. In other words, under capitalism, the "property rights" of employers will conflict with and restrict the "human right" of employees to manage themselves. Capitalism allows the right of self-management only to the few, not to all. Or, alternatively, capitalism does not recognise certain human rights as universal which anarchism does.

This can be seen from Austrian Economist W. Duncan Reekie's defence of wage labour. While referring to "intra-firm labour markets" as "hierarchies", Reekie (in his best ex cathedra tone) states that "[t]here is nothing authoritarian, dictatorial or exploitative in the relationship. Employees order employers to pay them amounts specified in the hiring contract just as much as employers order employees to abide by the terms of the contract." [Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty, p. 136, p. 137]. Given that "the terms of contract" involve the worker agreeing to obey the employers orders and that they will be fired if they do not, its pretty clear that the ordering that goes on in the "intra-firm labour market" is decidedly one way. Bosses have the power, workers are paid to obey. And this begs the question, if the employment contract creates a free worker, why must she abandon her liberty during work hours?

Reekie actually recognises this lack of freedom in a "round about" way when he notes that "employees in a firm at any level in the hierarchy can exercise an entrepreneurial role. The area within which that role can be carried out increases the more authority the employee has." [Op. Cit., p. 142] Which means workers are subject to control from above which restricts the activities they are allowed to do and so they are not free to act, make decisions, participate in the plans of the organisation, to create the future and so forth within working hours. And it is strange that while recognising the firm as a hierarchy, Reekie tries to deny that it is authoritarian or dictatorial -- as if you could have a hierarchy without authoritarian structures or an unelected person in authority who is not a dictator. His confusion is shared by Austrian guru Ludwig von Mises, who asserts that the "entrepreneur and capitalist are not irresponsible autocrats" because they are "unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumer" while, on the next page, admitting there is a "managerial hierarchy" which contains "the average subordinate employee." [Human Action, p. 809 and p. 810] It does not enter his mind that the capitalist may be subject to some consumer control while being an autocrat to their subordinated employees. Again, we find the right-"libertarian" acknowledging that the capitalist managerial structure is a hierarchy and workers are subordinated while denying it is autocratic to the workers! Thus we have "free" workers within a relationship distinctly lacking freedom (in the sense of self-government) -- a strange paradox. Indeed, if your personal life were as closely monitored and regulated as the work life of millions of people across the world, you would rightly consider it oppression.

Perhaps Reekie (like most right-libertarians) will maintain that workers voluntarily agree ("consent") to be subject to the bosses dictatorship (he writes that "each will only enter into the contractual agreement known as a firm if each believes he will be better off thereby. The firm is simply another example of mutually beneficial exchange" [Op. Cit., p. 137]). However, this does not stop the relationship being authoritarian or dictatorial (and so exploitative as it is highly unlikely that those at the top will not abuse their power).

FAQ 1.3

[Freedom Works]

The right-libertarian does not address or even acknowledge that the (absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as workers and tenants).
Yes they do, but they realize that with freedom comes prosperity, and prosperity leads workers to own.

Only in the mindset that free markets create monopolies can you believe that power centralizes in capitalism.


However, this does not stop the relationship being authoritarian or dictatorial
So?
Consent makes everything ok.

[KC]

Freedom Works, you have yet to answer my question.



Yes they do, but they realize that with freedom comes prosperity, and prosperity leads workers to own.

Only in the mindset that free markets create monopolies can you believe that power centralizes in capitalism.


How do you expect to get good debate when you use such subjective terms?


Consent makes everything ok.

Really? What about when a 40 year old man asks a 10 year old child if he "wants to play a game?" If the child says yes, that's okay?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 10 2005, 12:02 AM


Consent makes everything ok.
You could justify a myriad of social behaviors then, including slavery.

[Freedom Works]

Freedom Works, you have yet to answer my question.
Your question does not pertain to my assertion.



Really? What about when a 40 year old man asks a 10 year old child if he "wants to play a game?" If the child says yes, that's okay?
If the terms of the contract and laid out before hand and the child is not defrauded.


You could justify a myriad of social behaviors then, including slavery.
Slavery is wrong because you did not consent.

[KC]

Your question does not pertain to my assertion.


Yes it does. I asked: "How does reason create anything?" That is really a comical stance to take. It is basic economics that resources are what is needed to create a product. Those are Land, Labour, and Capital(rather the tools used to create the commodity).



If the terms of the contract and laid out before hand and the child is not defrauded.


So you are condoning child pornography and sex between a 40 year old and a 10 year old. You're sick.

[Sky]

...