A rational debate- empahsis on econ - no c&p for fucks sake

[uncle moneybags]

OK, ive been reading this forum for a few days, came over from the antio-state.com foruims. granted i havent looked much past the 1st pages in the categories, but i have yet to see a good, clean, rational argument as to how large-scale communism can work.

I say large scale because i do realize that with a small group of DEDICATED individuals, communism can work to a certain extent. However, this would of course require each person to surrender their natural desires to imporve themselves and to benefit themselves. Therefore, if you want to start a commie community, have fun, go ahead, and good luck; just dont force me to do so. I am a strict ancap, and want no part of communal living.

On another note, anyone notice that communism seems to all but eliminate personal responsibility? I hope you reds realize the implications of this; when you have nothing to lose by working less and nothing to gain by working harder, who wants to do their best except the dedicated few. For this reason forced (statist) communism seems like a pipe dream.

Finally, when are you people going to take an economics class? As much as you hate the market, in its freest form, it allows for peaceful labor-owner relations. IE- if waiters at a restaraunt get paid shit and think they are being exploited, they will demand a pay raise and better conditions. If they are refused, they leave and the owner cannot do business. simple, cut and dry. show me the problem with free association, and please dont use examples like the pinkerton steel strikebreaking incident, initiation of force, especially statist disgusts me and i want no part of a society that does so. workers dont have a responsibility to their employers to work, and vice versa. If you offer me $5 to mow your lawn, and i want that $5 more than i want the time and effort needed, im going to mow your lawn- thats not exploitation.

One last thing- If employers have a social debt to one another, does that mean we are born owing one another? if not, what makes me indebted to you if i pay you for your labor?

on communism- Christmas 365 days a year sounds great, but eventually someone has got to pay the piper.

[uncle moneybags]

bump- whats the matter, none of you reds can defend your views? ;)

[RedComrade]

According to the taft-hartley law don't workers on strike have to go back to work if the strike is doing severe damage to the economy im no expert in economics but i think thats the law in a nutshell.

[uncle moneybags]

Quote: from RedComrade on 8:58 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
According to the taft-hartley law don't workers on strike have to go back to work if the strike is doing severe damage to the economy im no expert in economics but i think thats the law in a nutshell.

yeah, that is the law, and it is unjust. if workers aer getting shafted, they arent forced by any moral law to keep working. You reds seem to think capitalists are all about oppressing workers and making lives miserable. Dont forget that those who benefit the most relatively are the poor- without taxes and minimum wage laws, they keep what they make and there is no unemployment. btw- anyone ever think about that? its hard to live off $20 a day; its a hell of alot harder trying to live off of $0 a day. consider that before you praise minimum wage laws.

[chamo]

Workers do not get the fair pay that they demand. For example, the firefighters in Britain. The government will not give them the money that they are entitled to. Secondly, the rich are the ones who benefit from a capitalist system. They get richer at the expense of the proletriat. If there is still poverty in a system, then how can that be benefitting anyone? how can it be a just system.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Uncle money bags makes some valid points but I do believe that the Taft Hartley act is just as long as its not abused. You can’t have one small minority forcing shutting down the entire economy and forcing people that have nothing to do with their situation to be hurt. But it think in general you hit it on the head there is no substantive science behind communist theories you can’t prove any of these principles using economics. You should take a look at the economist article I pointed out in a pervious post. For some reason people in the liberal arts seem to think that Marx’s theories have great impact on economics or engineering.

[Socialist Pig]

anti-state.com? Damn, those people are idiots.

[Som]

Ah, an anarcho-capitalist, how jolly.

"(statist) communism"

First mistake, theres no such thing as state communism.
Communism is a stateless and classless society.

What you might be meaning is state socialism.

"However, this would of course require each person to surrender their natural desires to imporve themselves and to benefit themselves"

Capitalism is not the epitomy of human nature. Greed and selfishness are far from inherent in humanity. Its part of a the system they are raised in. The desire to improve oneself does not need to come through material gains.

"On another note, anyone notice that communism seems to all but eliminate personal responsibility? I hope you reds realize the implications of this; when you have nothing to lose by working less and nothing to gain by working harder, who wants to do their best except the dedicated few. For this reason forced (statist) communism seems like a pipe dream. "

Nope, don't notice it at all. In socialism (though not the state capitalism of so-called socialist states) you have the personal responsibility to your coworkers and your peers, and to a certain extent, society as a whole.
By working less you have to lose your job likely, your coworkers have no reason to tolerate it.

"If they are refused, they leave and the owner cannot do business."

And if they have nowhere to go? The third world for instance, in all its sweatshops, these are not things kept by the state, the reason they do toil for long hours, and low pay, creating a situation they can't change is that they have nowhere to go. I hardly believe the anarcho-capitalist myth of the super economy, where theres always room, and those without anything still have all the oppurtunity in the world.

"please dont use examples like the pinkerton steel strikebreaking incident, initiation of force, especially statist disgusts me and i want no part of a society that does so."

And if you have no choice? If it is profitible to do such a thing, like stop strikers with force, or threaten them to leave with the same methods, whats to stop them?

[Crusader 4 da truth]

I am a first generation American (my parents immigrated from India). In addition to having visited India many times (I’m going back this summer), I have also preformed missionary work in Haiti and Mexico. So I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the third world being one of the few that has actually spent some time there. Those evil sweet shop jobs that so many college kids rally against are some of the most coveted jobs by the people. Precisely because by their standards it’s a great deal $1 a day may not seem like much to a westerner but when the average job is half that much believe me you’ll have people lined up around the corner for that job. One of the saddest parts of India are the inequities its social system has produced the Hindu religion operates around a strict caste system. With assigns people to social classes based on birth with very no social mobility. Unlike in America where on can join the middle or upper class by learning a skill and working hard (witness my dad who flow into JFK with only $100 in his pocket). The caste system is breaking down in the urban arias but India is still mostly a rural country, most people including my relatives their farm for a living. The point is that the people that get these factory jobs are the lucky ones assured of a livable wage. That’s why this criticism of capitalism was one I always found so strange because it did not take into account the actual people that where effected.

[uncle moneybags]

***edit- too many quotes, cant get the friggin formatting right, hopefully you guys are smart enough to figure it all out***

this could take a while, but im gonna try to answer all your questions


Quote: from happyguy on 9:33 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
Workers do not get the fair pay that they demand. For example, the firefighters in Britain. The government will not give them the money that they are entitled to. Secondly, the rich are the ones who benefit from a capitalist system. They get richer at the expense of the proletriat. If there is still poverty in a system, then how can that be benefitting anyone? how can it be a just system.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but workers arent OWED anything- they work of their free will. To say that someone owes someone a "living wage" or a "fair share" by the very criterea of their existence is an insult to free will and individuality. That is the very notion of implied debt- i owe you something because you are alive. As for the firefighters in Britain, by whos definition is their "entitlement"? If every firefighter gets together and thinks that they are entitled to a million euros a year and a solid gold rolls-royce, it doesnt make it so. As your employer, i offer you capital (money) in exchange for services (work). If you dont like my offer, i do not force you to take it. I do not tell you that this is what you need, its for your ownn good, and coerce you into dong my labor. thats how capitalism works- without labor, employers get nothing done. likewise, without employers and free trade, while it is possible to eke out a substinence living, the efficiency that is inherenet to the free market is necessary.

Also, dont forget that what you call poverty is relative. In an ancap society, wehre everyone who desires a job has one, and prices are much lower due to competition, in relation to an industrial tycoon who employs thousands and creates enourmous amounts offinished goods, yes that person will have little money. However, due to the mechanism of the free market, there WILL be affordable housing, food, and clothing if it could be at all profitable (and it would be). Sure, in communism, there would be no poverty- everyone has an equal share of NOTHING. For an example- check out your blessed proletariat of the USSR or China- then look at the deplorable conditions in capitalist countries that allow the free market to flourish such as America and to a lesser extent western europe pre-socalization- highest gdp/capita in the world, and that high standard of living- oh so harsh. please; unless you plan on removing basic human traits such as individuality, motivation to better oneself, and competition, you need to recognie that large scale communism has not, does not, and can not work.



Uncle money bags makes some valid points but I do believe that the Taft Hartley act is just as long as its not abused. You can’t have one small minority forcing shutting down the entire economy and forcing people that have nothing to do with their situation to be hurt.

yes, you can. like i said before, employers and workers rights are equal- if a employer doesnt want workers, he doestn hire them, if workers dont like their employer, they dont work for them, even if say farmer quit and millions starved. that would be morally reprehensible, but still fair, as all parties are equally responsible. however, it is importnant to note that this would almost certanily not happen in an ancap society, as if an opportunity in the market arose (food production) greedy capitalists would come in and start their own farms. luckily, in a communist society, everyone would know their role and never be unhappy with their job, which makes this moot huh? ;)



anti-state.com? Damn, those people are idiots. yeah, and this site is just a treasure trove of sound reasoning and logical debate. Hell, with folks like you epousiong the benefits of communism, one would wonder how were still in this outmoded, obselete system of capitalism which offer people a chance to improve their lot. for fucks sake, at least give an argument if your gonna flame me

Before i get to you, Som, i just want to say thanks for being the first red to give a reasonable, thought out answer and not resorting to the 12yr olds preferred method of flaming.

on to the topics...
1) statist communism- i agree that no state is necessary for communism on a small scale, but once the number of people grows beyond a point where all are familiar with each others needs, say 200, some governing body is necessary to make sure everyone "does as they are able and takes as they need". It is at this point that i have a problem with communism- once it takes on the form of a state, and thus begins its invertible spiral into corruption and waste. when someone else tells you what you can do and what you need, something is fundamentally wrong.

2) i never said capitalism was the epitomy of human nature; however it does rely on free will(inherently human), natural human competitiveness (and humans as well as all creatures are competitive on some level), and, and a desire to better oneself (also inherently human).
3) i believe that communism does elimiante all but a trace of perosnal responsibility. for example, say i amke widgets, and decide "i fuckin hate my job. i quit, im not making any more widgets". what do you do? "give me the food and shelter im entitled to!". ok, so theres one guy, not a problem. what happens when people see me not working and do the same thing? when you have 1 million working to support the 5 million not, then it is safe to say you have a pretty major problem.
4) the beauty of the free market is that there ARE infinite opportunities, even if the only major employer in your 3rd world country is a nike sweatshop, you can still always start your own business or take a job working for soemone as an individual. hell, if ancap ever comes about, ill hire 500 reds to dance for my amusement for a dollar a day after no one hires them b/c they feel entitled to more. *sorry, i just couldnt resist that :) * also, sweatshops are possibly the worst example you can use- im sick of hearing the liberal media claim that workers are being paid only $3 a day in places like cambodia or sub-saharan africa to make shoes. i hope you take into account the median income there is under 500 a year; doctors and other skilled workers quit their jobs to go make shoes for those tyrannical companies. on an interesting side note, sweatshops in 3rd world countries in asia are havign a hard time getting workers, seems that all the adolescents and young adults who were their base before have moved to code writing.

5) to prevent forcible worker exploitation and to keep corporations from becoming protection rackets like the mob or the state, ancaps have come up with the concept of the personal defense force, or PDF. essentially, you pay a fee for protection from crime, punishemtn if the crime is committed, and protection of your rights.



remeber kids, christmas 365 days a year sounds great, but eventually someone has to pay.

(Edited by uncle moneybags at 11:10 pm on Dec. 30, 2002)


(Edited by uncle moneybags at 11:12 pm on Dec. 30, 2002)

[uncle moneybags]

Listen to crusader 4 da truth you damn armchair communists

[j]

First of all, you seem to be as unaware of Marx as many people here are unaware of economic theory.

Marx proposed that the government should own the means of production and that government should be a dictatorship of the proletariate--this is socialism. Then, as the theory goes, the state withers away to state of anarchy--this is communism.

I am not too sure of how communism would be possible, I'm not too much of an anarchist. I am, however, a democratic socialist.

You are an obvious proponent of free market capitalism. I find free market capitalism to be the essence of evil. If you look at the supply and demand curve, the free market system will be the great equalizer and if government stayed out of it, then things would be OK. You see, some of us have heart and genuine concern for other people. When you let the market fluctuate in a free system people get hurt. How do you deal with drought, flooding, volcanoes in a free market system? How does one survive when there is NO work? The free market system provides no help for humanity.

You see, not everyone believes in free will. We must act in accordance to the rules and mores of society. Free will is diametrically opposed to the rules and mores of society.

Regardless of who a person is, they are entitled to human rights. This is a belief that is held by the majority of the world. In order to secure human and civil rights, free market capitalism is not a possibility. We are then led to controlled capitalism that we see in countries like the USA. This form of government, while more just than free market capitalism, does not work very well.

Socialism moves us closer to the ideal of human and civil rights. If you do not believe in these things, as it appears, you are heartless.

j

[El Che]

Rational what!? Are you nuts?

You people are amazing. You`d think they`d take the time grasp some general understanding of the subjects involved before they preach to you like kindergarden teachers.

Have a little humility, you square idiot (sorry couldnt resist;)). Not only do you have no conception of what Socialism, strickly speaking, is but you have no idea what the people here believe. Don`t assume, don`t generalise. If you want to fight your own ghosts, by all means, knock your self out but don`t bother me with your garbage. Not only do you pass us all a certificate of stupidity you also pass one atesting dogmatism too. Doctrines and canons are not my trade. Your points are fallacies, all.

One thing your Free Market can not provide you with is civility.

(Edited by El Che at 12:35 am on Dec. 31, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 12:46 am on Dec. 31, 2002)

[uncle moneybags]

quote: Regardless of who a person is, they are entitled to human rights. This is a belief that is held by the majority of the world. In order to secure human and civil rights, free market capitalism is not a possibility.

i can see where you are coming from, and you need to realize that our goals are similar- to improve the standard of living for everyone. the difference is the method i epouse has been proven to be a succesful economic model, especially when the corrupting influence of government is removed.

quote: You are an obvious proponent of free market capitalism. I find free market capitalism to be the essence of evil. If you look at the supply and demand curve, the free market system will be the great equalizer and if government stayed out of it, then things would be OK. You see, some of us have heart and genuine concern for other people. When you let the market fluctuate in a free system people get hurt. How do you deal with drought, flooding, volcanoes in a free market system? How does one survive when there is NO work? The free market system provides no help for humanity.

making money through does not make one some type of heartless monster; you seem to be of the persuasion that free will, wanting to better oneslf, and free exchange of goods and services and caring, compassion, and kindness are mutually exclusive. just because i want to make money off my labor does not mean i will kill thousands of others for a few more dollars. In response to what to do in the event of disaster, i would hardly say that socialism would be much better; the state certainly doesnt know what you ned better than you do. In addition, personal freedom and cooperation are not mutually exclusive- members of a community could work together to help each other out.

quote: You see, not everyone believes in free will. We must act in accordance to the rules and mores of society. Free will is diametrically opposed to the rules and mores of society.

this statement is fundamentally wrong on so many levels i dont know where to begin. alas, i need to go play lacrosee (a voluntary expentidure of my time, money, and effort working together with others for personal gain and satisfaction at the expense of the other team- guess im heartless huh?)

[synthesis]

the difference is the method i epouse has been proven to be a succesful economic model, especially when the corrupting influence of government is removed.

Half the "communist" states have been corrupted by blatant mismanagement and inefficient bureaucracies; the other half were sabotaged for fear of providing a viable alternative to your precious system.

I don't feel I need to go into great detail about the former set of idiots. Here are several threads you can read to find out more about Stalin and Mao.

The Crimes of Stalin (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=26&topic=163)
The Great Leap Forward (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=26&topic=151)

Let's progress to the latter category. There has not been a single communist (or third-world-leftist) country that has gone unsabotaged by U.S. capitalism.

Look at Afghanistan, for example. The leftist government there supported women's rights and environmentalism. The U.S. toppled them and replaced them with the fundamentalist Muslim Taliban, supposedly because of "strong ties to the Soviet Union." Whatever.

Or, take Chile. Salvadore Allende was a Marxist progressive; Chile showed a remarkable amount of progress in the short amount of time Allende was in power before he was overthrown by the U.S.-supported Pinochet regime, whose authoritarian free-market system killed over 6,000 innocent people.

Grenada, the smallest country in South America, was brutally bombed by America due to its communist leadership, who, like Allende, showed definite signs of progress leading their country.

Or, how about Guyana? Cheddi Jagan was a leftist who took Guyana to become the richest country in South America. The C.I.A. organized mass propaganda campaigns and counter-revolutionary activities, and ousted Jagan. By the mid-80's Guyana was the poorest country in South America.

Ho Chi Minh modeled his Vietnamese Declaration of Independance on the American one; in fact, he began it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights..." However. the U.S. resumed battling Vietnam's independance where France had failed, and eventually killed over 3,000,000 innocent Vietnamese civilians.

In Greece, the U.S. assisted the Fascist party against the Greek left who had assisted the U.S. in fighting the Nazis. The Fascist regime killed over 15,000 innocent people.

These stories are not unique, nor are they isolated incidents. Similar tales can be found in Albania, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvadore, Guatemala... the list goes on!

[Som]

"statist communism- i agree that no state is necessary for communism on a small scale, but once the number of people grows beyond a point where all are familiar with each others needs, say 200, some governing body is necessary to make sure everyone "does as they are able and takes as they need"."

First, lets make this a bit easier to argue, if you are refferring to state socialism, call it socialism, state communism is an oxymoron, and we need to keep the terms clear, arguing both of those forms of a socialism at once is a bit confusing.

In stateless communism what happens is the communes, those familiar with eachothers needs federate. They form bottom up organizations instead of states. The local voluntary communes would federate with the others, as well as syndicates to cooperate and to get things done.
This system is not a state, as the federations and confederations have no coercive power, and are at most a voluntary authority set up for the common good to organize efficiently.
Hundreds of thousands of federated communes create a sort of super democracy in the real meaning of the word.

"however it does rely on free will(inherently human), natural human competitiveness (and humans as well as all creatures are competitive on some level), and, and a desire to better oneself (also inherently human). "

A desire to better oneself maybe, but in capitalism that is thought of through material gains, bettering oneself is a vague concept not inherently associated with wealth. I think that sort of reaching for more material things is a product of a capitalist society.
Natural human competitiveness is an odd idea, maybe on some level, though i think people are far more inclined to cooperate with eachother.
Either way, it more comes down to the society they are raised in than an inherent human nature.

"what happens when people see me not working and do the same thing? when you have 1 million working to support the 5 million not, then it is safe to say you have a pretty major problem. "

In socialism, most of the so-called socialist governments gave everyone a job with a living wage, if thats not there, those that don't work get just the bare minimum. People won't have some sort of universal laziness because of a welfare system, even in those countries where people can leech off the system like that, its low and rare. Cubas unemployment is something like 4%, sweden, quite a welfare state, is about the same. Its rather something to avoid to be at the bottom of any system, where you starve or not.

Now, in communism, i'd expect very similiar results, your community or coworkers simply won't let so many people do that, and most people wont. Just like with state socialism they'd be pushed to the bottom in a sense, even when they are equal, theyre not going to treat someone leaching off the system so favorably.

" the beauty of the free market is that there ARE infinite opportunities, even if the only major employer in your 3rd world country is a nike sweatshop, you can still always start your own business or take a job working for soemone as an individual. "

Can't really start your own buisness if your working on subsistance wages can you? it really quites limits your options. As well as hiring those PDF forces.
All capitalist systems, somehow end up with these poor masses, who can't afford to do anything except remain exploited.

The concept of the PDF as well is quite risky. Sound much like a 'state for hire' and when it comes to them theres very little to protect the people from them becoming sort of hired thugs themselves.

[uncle moneybags]

Quote: from El Che on 12:29 am on Dec. 31, 2002
Rational what!? Are you nuts?

You people are amazing. You`d think they`d take the time grasp some general understanding of the subjects involved before they preach to you like kindergarden teachers.

Have a little humility, you square idiot (sorry couldnt resist;)). Not only do you have no conception of what Socialism, strickly speaking, is but you have no idea what the people here believe. Don`t assume, don`t generalise. If you want to fight your own ghosts, by all means, knock your self out but don`t bother me with your garbage. Not only do you pass us all a certificate of stupidity you also pass one atesting dogmatism too. Doctrines and canons are not my trade. Your points are fallacies, all.

One thing your Free Market can not provide you with is civility.


once agian, it is good to see the flower of marxist intellectualism has not been crushed under the jackboot of dogmatism. congratulations, a 100 word post and you dont make a single point, nor give any examples to back up your sweeping genralizations. Calling me dogmatic? please- ya want to look dogma right in its beady eyes? get out your drivers liscense.

You sir, are a hypocrite, a blowhard, and a practitioner of tomfoolery and assorted other no-goodnik activities. (on a more personal note, dont drink absolut while writing critiques of socialism ;)) if and/or when you decide to come back with some reasonable arguments like some of your compatrirots, then we can talk. In the meantime, im going to go eat a hard-boiled california condor egg, and follow it off by smoking a spotted owl.

toodlepip,
uncle moneybags

greasing the gears of capitalism with the blood of the proletariat since 1985 ;) *lighten up guys*

[uncle moneybags]

DYERMAKER, SOME, ET AL. - i see why you think those are the evil actions of the capitalists; however i need to remind ya that that is the actions of the state. If youre a REAL commie, then your better in my book than any republican statist. I am not so much arguing against real communism (anarcho-communism) as i am against socialism and MANDATORY collective ownership. Ill repeat myself again- in an ancap society you would all be free to practice whatever socioeconomic model you decided, from facism to communism- as long as you practice freedom of association as well. If you want communism, fine, just let me opt out, and dont try to take my land by force.

Som-
1)ok, well keep it as such:
statism/socialism/marxism= statist socialist (ie USSR)
ancom/true communism= real communism
if i slip and say commie, pinko, red, no-goodnik in place of statist socialist, apologies in advance.

2) your bottom up organization (can we call them an acropolis? communes sounds like soemthing from the 60's) seems like a good idea until you hit a few obstacles, maybe you could clear these up for me

-what happens when one of these little acropoli decides the people really want to just light up a big fuckin fire of sulfer, or start shitting in the tail or a river that supplies millions, or really think it would be cool to light off a nuke on the border with another acropolis? if they dont want to stop these antisocial actions, do the others intervene? sounds statist to me
-basically all my arguments can be covered in the above, essentially, what keeps cohesivness, nothing but goodwill? if so, that makes mass ancom all but impossible, excpet as the end result of hundreds of years of sucess.

3) i dont necessarily think bettering oneself implies materialism, it is just one avenue that it takes- also, with the economy being many times mroe efficient without taxes and regulations, its is much easier to earn a substinence living and exapnd yourself in ways artistic, spiritual, etc. Just dont expcet your neighbor to pay money for you to fling shit at the virgin mary unless they would willingly do it themselves.

4) sure they have low unemployment, but dont forget that there is an infitine supply of roads to sweep, trees to plant, etc
read this article
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020828/6/olp5.html

5) for evidence of starting business from nothing, look at india for instance- a recent trend has been for a poor woman to take a small (~$50) loan out from the bank and buy a cellphone, then she offers it out to others in the village for a few rupees. recaps the investment, pays off the loan, everyone lives happily ever after- its freedom baby :D

increase the peace

[redstar2000]

A "stateless" capitalist society (that's what anarcho-capitalism means) would combine the worst features of capitalism and feudalism...everyone not part of the capitalist "nobility" would be a serf or a slave.

How do we know this? Because we have abundant examples of how capitalists have operated under "weak states"--in the west during the 19th century and in the third world today.

Fortunately, anarcho-capitalism is impossible; the capitalist class NEEDS an increasingly strong state apparatus to protect its plunder from the wrath of the exploited. It MAY still be too soon to say with certainty, but it certainly looks more and more like FASCISM is the end-stage of capitalist politics.

So I and 499 other reds will never get the chance to dance for uncle moneybags for a dollar a day...which is kind of a shame. We WERE going to do a cute number called "STOMP the RICH BASTARD into the MUCK"...has a great finish, let me tell you. :cheesy:

[synthesis]

For the record, I'd rather live under an anarcho-capitalist system than a Stalinist one, just thought I should get that out.

Anarcho-communism still remains my goal.

[uncle moneybags]

redstar2000- i see where you are coming from. however, as you yourself pointed out- "It MAY still be too soon to say with certainty, but it certainly looks more and more like FASCISM is the end-stage of capitalist politics." our experiences with capitalism so far have been marred by the state. the common exapmle used by ancaps of successful ancap society is either somolia today, actually better off than we give it credit for (thanks to the statist media) and 11th century iceland. arguing with either of these is pretty hard, as most people are convinced somolia is the shithole of the world and 7/8 americans probably couldnt locate iceland, much less know its 11th century anarchist tendancies. But your examples of capitalism run amok (ie robber barons of the 19th century) hold little sway as they still relied on the state to enforce their will, as demonstrated at the use of federal troops to put down strikes. How much would you like to order people back into shitty conditions if they were all packing heat(as would prob be the case in an ancap society)?

finally, out of curiosity, how many of you reds have jobs, and what is your social standing (im just curious). In addition, do you want to stonp your rich boss into teh muck? if so, why the hell do you work there? i live comfortably, not rich, not poor; i worked at wawa (little food market)- it was shitty, the pay wasnt that good, and my boss was an old battle-axe wench. therefore, i quit, voluntarily taking advantage of the capitalist opportunities that i had and picked up a job as a busboy. im not forced to do my job, i dotn really need the money all that much, i dont love my job, but i accept my burden of work in exchange for freely given capital. especially important since i make $3 an hour, all my earnings are from tips. In fact, i will go so far as to call my job a microcosm of the free market. If i do a good job, the waiters tip me out well, hell i might drive home in one night with what i would make in a week at wawa. if i do a shitty job, they will still tip me out, as i preform a vital service to them, but will not go over what is the minimum reasonable tip. Why should they? if i dont hold up my end of the bargain, i know they dont owe me anything. If i knew i was going to be paid the same amoutn whether i did good or bad, how many of you in my position would really bust their ass to make sure each table was clean, each customer happy, and keep your boss and waiters efficient? chew on that for a bit, and really think about what it means to see the fruit of your labor before you talk of how the evil capitalists are exploitng the poor workers

greasing the gears of capitalism with my sweat since 1985

[Som]

"statism/socialism/marxism= statist socialist (ie USSR)"

Not the USSR. Many socialists would call the USSR state capitalist.
There was no worker self-management in the USSR, a key pillar to socialism, instead they had single man management, and during the october revolution, even broke up workers councils and the like replacing them with that. Under Stalin the workers of a factory could essentially fire their boss, but that was all.
Socialism is meant to be an economic democracy, since the USSR had one man management, and no real democratic process, it really can't be said to be socialist.

To this extent, any dictatorial country that called themselves socialist is a poor example, and should be ruled out.

About bottom up organizations, We'll call the voluntary participatory units collectives (Acropolis just doesn't seem right).
I don't see why you wouldn't face these sort of problems in any statless society. There wouldn't be so much a 'border' either, the whole thing would likely be more flexible than borders (minor thing there). Basically i really doubt it would come up very much, but with things of this nature, theirs no perfect system, if people are doing things that are essentially poisoning others, interfering with others basic rights to health and life, they've in a way constituted themselves as authority and would likely be stopped by the others.
It's unfortunate, but might be needed.

"essentially, what keeps cohesivness, nothing but goodwill? if so, that makes mass ancom all but impossible, excpet as the end result of hundreds of years of sucess. "
Goodwill and mutual gain really. Everyone works together for the everyones benefit, thats the cohesiveness of the system.

"sure they have low unemployment, but dont forget that there is an infitine supply of roads to sweep, trees to plant, etc
read this article
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020828/6/olp5.html "

The welfare states don't offer the same motivations really. The article said alot of the problems were to do with strain of work and higher pressures, this would be quite a smaller problem in socialism.
Theres plenty of ways of doing this really.

5 - sort of an isolated incident really, oppurtunities like that can be quite rare.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from uncle moneybags on 11:08 pm on Dec. 30, 2002



anti-state.com? Damn, those people are idiots. yeah, and this site is just a treasure trove of sound reasoning and logical debate. Hell, with folks like you epousiong the benefits of communism, one would wonder how were still in this outmoded, obselete system of capitalism which offer people a chance to improve their lot. for fucks sake, at least give an argument if your gonna flame me

I never said this site was any better. What really disgusts me are some of the articals they have, one example is "Who owns the dead". I simply found that disturbing. Simply skipping over the archive of articles you will see what I mean.

Anarcho-capitalism is a very scary system. A world where a few rich white men control every aspect of society is not my idea of an ideal "goverment".

[uncle moneybags]

socialist pig- you seem to make the same mistake so many reds do- confusing capitalism and the current system. companies are not the problem, the state is the problem. "rich white men" (congratualtions on playing the race, sex, and class warfare cards in 3 words) only have dominating power when they have the guns of the state to back them up. How exactly would these RWM control every aspect of society when they dont have politicians eating out of their palm making laws for them? socialism has the means of production moved to the people- anarchism has (among other things) the means of defense moved to the people. without laws to control people and the state to back them up, robber barons suddenly find themselves quite alone. Its awfully hard to repress peope when everyone is armed. theres a reason in nazi germany the first thing they did was take guns out of the hands of citizens; theres a reason were doing it today. and while some of the articles of asc might be "scary", guess what? life isnt all roses and lollipops- if it was we wouldnt need guns, we wouldnt need PDF's and we wouldnt need any other means of protecting our inherent rights.

Som-
you seem to assume everyone wants the same goals- you say not everyone considers betterign themselves a material issue, i say that not everyone WANTS to work together for the greater good. our greatest thinkers did not do so in committees or communes, they were individuals. ancap gives teh freedom to live as a hermit if one so desires, as well as the ability to live in a commune if that is your thing.

"The welfare states don't offer the same motivations really. The article said alot of the problems were to do with strain of work and higher pressures, this would be quite a smaller problem in socialism.
Theres plenty of ways of doing this really. "

did you get to the bottom of the article?
""They really take care of you here," said Samantha Budd, a British researcher who works for drug maker AstraZeneca in Soedertaelje, south of Stockholm. Her move to Sweden from the United States allowed her more time off, a slower work pace and ergonomic office furniture tailored to her body.
"If it has slipped in standards, what was there before? It's hard to imagine,"
she said."

doesnt sound so bad to me. sounds like they just realized that there is no real positive incentive to work when they dont feel like it; the group will take care of them anyway. right now, the problem is noticable, and grossly inefficeint, but wait till everyone catches on.

to quote pj o'rourke- "Health care is too expensive, so the Clinton administration is putting a high-powered coporate lawyer - - Hillary -- in charge of making it cheaper. (This is what I always do when I want to spend less money -- hire a lawyer from Yale.) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

as for saying that 5) was an isolated incident, come on now, i was just using an example. look at a picture of a bazaar or something- how many people there selling look like they got their startup capital from taxes? with determination and hard work, nothing is impossible. thats right, hard work- theres no such thing as a free lunch, adn you know it as well as i.

also, i realized that once you get to communism, and if the people are idealists and dedicated and willing to supress their instinctive human nature, than sure, communism MIGHT work. the ***** is getting there with anything other than a group of people starting with a clean slate. a necessary middle ground seems to be socialism, and that is where the shit hits the fan. even democratic socialist states such as much of western europe only keep their industry functional by having very high tariffs on foreign goods and only trading with local partners. the economy over there is crumbling and with good reason, with real people, socialism/the welfare state doesnt work.

[Socialist Pig]

socialist pig- you seem to make the same mistake so many reds do- confusing capitalism and the current system. companies are not the problem, the state is the problem. "rich white men" (congratualtions on playing the race, sex, and class warfare cards in 3 words) only have dominating power when they have the guns of the state to back them up. How exactly would these RWM control every aspect of society when they dont have politicians eating out of their palm making laws for them?

Thats the point. There are no laws. Whats to stop every major corporation (ruled by rich white men) creating their own private army. An-cap allows corporations to "go wild". What will stop a monopoly? What will stop microsoft from becoming a pseudo-government? I have debated with various anarcho-capitalists and they all seem to be uncaring and unrealistic.

socialism has the means of production moved to the people- anarchism has (among other things) the means of defense moved to the people. without laws to control people and the state to back them up, robber barons suddenly find themselves quite alone. Its awfully hard to repress peope when everyone is armed. theres a reason in nazi germany the first thing they did was take guns out of the hands of citizens; theres a reason were doing it today

I'm all for the eventual destruction of state.

. and while some of the articles of asc might be "scary", guess what? life isnt all roses and lollipops- if it was we wouldnt need guns, we wouldnt need PDF's and we wouldnt need any other means of protecting our inherent rights.


I for one would not like to live in a world where my corpse can be used to serve the free market.

As a side note: I'd like to say what a pain in the ass quotes are.

[peoplenotprofits]

Without "government" and the "law" everyone would go around murdering people there would be complete chaos.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from peoplenotprofits on 9:12 pm on Dec. 31, 2002
Without "government" and the "law" everyone would go around murdering people there would be complete chaos.

Acording to anarcho-capitalists everything will be owned by corporations. Police, roads, etc. Only those with money can afford justice. Hell, It would probably cost you money to walk on a side-walk. Advirtising would be everywhere.

In my opinion, it brings out the worst in people. Why go down to the store for milk when you can simply pop over to the person next door, shoot them, take their milk and help yourself to their wife.

(Edited by Socialist Pig at 10:34 pm on Dec. 31, 2002)

[peoplenotprofits]

whats to stop you from going over to someones house and shooting them for their milk/wife right NOW?

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Socialist Pig on 10:29 pm on Dec. 31, 2002

Quote: from peoplenotprofits on 9:12 pm on Dec. 31, 2002
Without "government" and the "law" everyone would go around murdering people there would be complete chaos.

Acording to anarcho-capitalists everything will be owned by corporations. Police, roads, etc. Only those with money can afford justice. Hell, It would probably cost you money to walk on a side-walk. Advirtising would be everywhere.

In my opinion, it brings out the worst in people. Why go down to the store for milk when you can simply pop over to the person next door, shoot them, take their milk and help yourself to their wife.

(Edited by Socialist Pig at 10:34 pm on Dec. 31, 2002)


Man that sounds like paradise, because.
A. I love advertising, in fact I just go to website filled with pop up ads because I love them just that much.

B. I would love to revert back to a really basic society like cavemen where it isn't the strong that survive and retain power it is the rich now. That would be awesome always struggling. Who wants less strife? I say everyday has to be a harsh life with no laws hindering the upperclass from doing anything they want! 60 hour work weeks will RULE!

C. Who cares if we have to pay police to come and help us, a good 80% of us will be poor so there is nothing for other people to rob. Besides Police/Healthcare what's the difference it all needs to be priced above our head. Hey maybe that would an awesome incintive to work for a company, "We pay 50% of your police insurance." We could all like pay 20 dollars a month police insurance then when and if the police show up, depending on your coverage - you could get anything ranging from security guard to a marine??

And who cares about paying to walk on sidewalks, sidewalks are a luxury and if I want to walk on them, I'll splurge and get an all day pass. I don't normaly use sidewalks much anyways so I don't want to pay for them when I am not using them.

Of course we could volunteer our time from our 60 hour work weeks and make some sidewalks for the lazy people that got laid off from the last wave of recession - I mean corporate restructering.

This world will rock - I just hope guns are still available for the killing of myself.

[Xvall]

There have never been any communist or socialist states. Some are socialistic or communistic in nature, but are not socialist or communist states. The whole concept of a communist state is foolish; as Marx advocates the dissolution of the state. Socialism replaces private ownership of property with public ownership of property. Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and whatever other countries you may think are socialist; all of those replaces private ownership of property not with public ownership of property; but with state ownership of property.

[Xvall]

It is difficult to argue with anarcho-capitalists; as they, much like anarcho-socialists or anarcho-communists, do not support the states or systems that people commonly associate them with. Just as anarcho-socialists and communists are generally disgusted by states like North Korea and the Soviet Union, anarcho-capitalists are disgusted by the types of economic systems in the United States. The grass is always greener. I have heard anarcho-capitalists say that the United States is turning into a socialist dictatorship; and at the same time I have heard anarcho-communists say that the United States is turning into a capitalistic plutocracy. This anarcho-capitalist is not like the anarcho-capitalists I am used to seeing; so I will not take any stong stance against him. I am curious as to what an 'anarcho-capitalist' society would be like, to be honest.

[Xvall]

You look farmiliar; now that I think about it. I am sure that I have encountered you in an anarcho-capitalist chat room on AOL at one point.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 10:49 pm on Dec. 31, 2002
There have never been any communist or socialist states. Some are socialistic or communistic in nature, but are not socialist or communist states. The whole concept of a communist state is foolish; as Marx advocates the dissolution of the state. Socialism replaces private ownership of property with public ownership of property. Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and whatever other countries you may think are socialist; all of those replaces private ownership of property not with public ownership of property; but with state ownership of property.


Since it is commonly believed that a socialist state has to exist prior to a communist nonstate, and since the countries you named above are socialist in nature with state owning the property vs. people (if we were to only use that one narrow definition). One might estrapulate that we have to live in those types of countries' conditions prior to a communist nonstate. Would a socialist state have to look like those since those are about the only ones around, or does western europe going the right route by slowly de-privatizing certain industries at selected times?

I ask because I could see how many of say, "The following are not communist countries, they are socialist." Then later say, "To become a communist state one has to transition through a socialist state first." Everybody looks around and sees who we refered to as a socialist state.

[Xvall]

The thing you mentioned is unfortunately quite common among the left. I have also known socialists who have stated that the Soviet Union was a communist country and not a socialist one. The two groups seem to commonly lay the blame on each other. I, for one, am stating that those were not socialist countries, and they they would have never dissolved into communist countries. They could have been on the right direction, but they weren't. The majority of the countries I had listed had converted into some isolated state of insecurity. How can that flourish into true socialism or communism. It was ruined because it became a beaurocratic mess; something that socialism is not about. I am not quite sure as to what you are asking. Please be more specific. Thanks.

[Exploited Class]

There have never been any communist or socialist states.

I read that wrong when you posted it sorry, I read it There have never been any communist states

[Exploited Class]

Essentially, I thought you were saying there has never been a communist state(which there hasn't), but there have been socialist states (the ones you listed). Now that I relook it over I see I just read it wrong.

Let's just call it even and promise to never fight again;)

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 3:54 am on Jan. 1, 2003
It is difficult to argue with anarcho-capitalists; as they, much like anarcho-socialists or anarcho-communists, do not support the states or systems that people commonly associate them with. Just as anarcho-socialists and communists are generally disgusted by states like North Korea and the Soviet Union, anarcho-capitalists are disgusted by the types of economic systems in the United States. The grass is always greener. I have heard anarcho-capitalists say that the United States is turning into a socialist dictatorship; and at the same time I have heard anarcho-communists say that the United States is turning into a capitalistic plutocracy. This anarcho-capitalist is not like the anarcho-capitalists I am used to seeing; so I will not take any stong stance against him. I am curious as to what an 'anarcho-capitalist' society would be like, to be honest.


I'm no anarcho-capitalist, but I think this provides a basic explanation as to what an anarcho-capitalist society would be like.

How would anarcho-capitalism work?

Most of the prominent anarcho-capitalist writers have been academic economists, and as such have felt it necessary to spell out the workings of their preferred society in rather greater detail than the left-anarchists have. In order to best grasp the anarcho-capitalist position, it is helpful to realize that anarcho-capitalists have emerged almost entirely out of the modern American libertarian movement, and believe that their view is simply a slightly more extreme version of the libertarianism propounded by e.g. Robert Nozick.

FAQs on the broader libertarian movement are widely available on the Net, so we will only give the necessary background here. So-called "minarchist" libertarians such as Nozick have argued that the largest justified government was one which was limited to the protection of individuals and their private property against physical invasion; accordingly, they favor a government limited to supplying police, courts, a legal code, and national defense. This normative theory is closely linked to laissez-faire economic theory, according to which private property and unregulated competition generally lead to both an efficient allocation of resources and (more importantly) a high rate of economic progress. While left-anarchists are often hostile to "bourgeois economics," anarcho-capitalists hold classical economists such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Jean-Baptiste Say in high regard, as well as more modern economists such as Joseph Schumpeter, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, and James Buchanan. The problem with free-market economists, say the anarcho-capitalists, is not that they defend the free market, but merely that their defense is too moderate and compromising.

(Note however that the left-anarchists' low opinion of the famous "free-market economists" is not monolithic: Noam Chomsky in particular has repeatedly praised some of the political insights of Adam Smith. And Peter Kropotkin also had good things to say about Smith as both social scientist and moralist; Conal Smith explains that "In particular he approved of Smith's attempt to apply the scientific method to the study of morals and society, his critique of the state in The Wealth of Nations, and his theory of human sociability in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.")

Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own logic against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the state could not be turned over to the free market. And so, the anarcho-capitalist imagines that police services could be sold by freely competitive firms; that a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom, precedent, and contract. And in fact, notes the anarcho-capitalist, a great deal of modern law (such as the Anglo-American common law) originated not in legislatures, but from the decentralized rulings of judges. (The anarcho-capitalist shares Kropotkin's interest in customary law, but normally believes that it requires extensive modernization and articulation.)

The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's increasing reliance on private security guards, gated communities, arbitration and mediation, and other demonstrations of the free market's ability to supply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of necessity a government monopoly. In his ideal society, these market alternatives to government services would take over all legitimate security services. One plausible market structure would involve individuals subscribing to one of a large number of competing police services; these police services would then set up contracts or networks for peacefully handling disputes between members of each others' agencies. Alternately, police services might be "bundled" with housing services, just as landlords often bundle water and power with rental housing, and gardening and security are today provided to residents in gated communities and apartment complexes.

The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect individual rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits. Second, firms will want to develop long- term business relationships, and hence be willing to negotiate in good faith to insure their long-term profitability. And third, aggressive firms would be likely to attract only high-risk clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs (a problem parallel to the well-known "adverse selection problem" in e.g. medical insurance -- the problem being that high-risk people are especially likely to seek insurance, which drives up the price when riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if regulation requires a uniform price regardless of risk). Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view that their "private police agencies" would be equivalent to today's Mafia -- the cost advantages of open, legitimate business would make "criminal police" uncompetitive. As David Friedman explains in The Machinery of Freedom, "Perhaps the best way to see why anarcho-capitalism would be so much more peaceful than our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives in a housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France announces that because of troubles with neighboring countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals, and twenty-seven war correspondents."

(Moreover, anarcho-capitalists argue, the Mafia can only thrive in the artificial market niche created by the prohibition of alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes. Mafia gangs might kill each other over turf, but liquor-store owners generally do not.)

Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no objection to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim that punishment does not deter crime to be the height of naivete. Traditional punishment might be meted out after a conviction by a neutral arbitrator; or a system of monetary restitution (probably in conjunction with a prison factory system) might exist instead. A convicted criminal would owe his victim compensation, and would be forced to work until he paid off his debt. Overall, anarcho-capitalists probably lean more towards the restitutionalist rather than the pure retributivist position.

Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems from the apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the need for a generally recognized libertarian legal code (which he thinks could be developed fairly easily by purification of the Anglo-American common law), whereas Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of plural legal systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands of different elements of the population. The difference, however, is probably over-stated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of the law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman admits that "focal points" including prevalent norms are likely to circumscribe and somewhat standardize the menu of available legal codes.

Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or worker-owned firms would be penalized or prohibited in an anarcho-capitalist society. It would be more accurate to state that while individuals would be free to voluntarily form communitarian organizations, the anarcho- capitalist simply doubts that they would be widespread or prevalent. However, in theory an "anarcho-capitalist" society might be filled with nothing but communes or worker- owned firms, so long as these associations were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined voluntarily and capital was obtained with the consent of the owners) and individuals retained the right to exit and set up corporations or other profit-making, individualistic firms.

On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all from the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatized and opened to free competition; regulation of personal AND economic behavior should be done away with. Poverty would be handled by work and responsibility for those able to care for themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot. (Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and elimination of taxation would lead to a large increase in charitable giving.)

Anarchist Theory FAQ

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/b...rfaq.htm#part10 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part10)

[Xvall]

I see. Thank you for the insight DC.

[Umoja]

The problems with Anarcho-Capitalism are many if you ask me. Since Business will be power, what stops Corporations from flowering into their own governments? The police will be completely privatized, and as such hire themselves out to corporations as private armies. These corporations would then become the new states, and those who weren't part of a corporation would likely be horribly poor and living miserable lives.

Even without these problems, racism would florish. A certain racial group could easily be singled out, and employers could easily control all the labor in the minority communities. This would completely stop them from advancing in society, and the cheap, mind-numbing labor of theirs could be cheaply extorted.

[kidicarus20]

I would like to see where noam chomsky has praised adam smith.

[Som]

"you seem to assume everyone wants the same goals- you say not everyone considers betterign themselves a material issue, i say that not everyone WANTS to work together for the greater good. our greatest thinkers did not do so in committees or communes, they were individuals. ancap gives teh freedom to live as a hermit if one so desires, as well as the ability to live in a commune if that is your thing. "

As they have the oppurtunity in any sort of anarchist system.
Everyone has just as much the right to join a commune as they do to not.
As well as being in a commune does not somehow stop the greatest thinkers from anything.
Social anarchism and individualist anarchism are not exclusive to eachother.

"""They really take care of you here," said Samantha Budd, a British researcher who works for drug maker AstraZeneca in Soedertaelje, south of Stockholm. Her move to Sweden from the United States allowed her more time off, a slower work pace and ergonomic office furniture tailored to her body.
"If it has slipped in standards, what was there before? It's hard to imagine," "

Sounds quite nice really, that last quote didn't say anything supporting the implictation.

"sounds like they just realized that there is no real positive incentive to work when they dont feel like it; the group will take care of them anyway. right now, the problem is noticable, and grossly inefficeint, but wait till everyone catches on. "

In state socialism, there are still incentives and punishments and such, that does not sort of drop a need to lessen the quality of not work over work.
In communism work becomes more of a social issue instead of such a purely economic and necesary look to it. So the motivations to work and not work are quite different, and are more connected to social conditions than the usual greed of sorts.

"as for saying that 5) was an isolated incident, come on now, i was just using an example. look at a picture of a bazaar or something- how many people there selling look like they got their startup capital from taxes? with determination and hard work, nothing is impossible. thats right, hard work- theres no such thing as a free lunch, adn you know it as well as i. "

For the toiling masses of poor, anything but a rare chance to make a few dollars to help themselves in the most minor of things is rare.
No such thing as a free lunch, unfortunate though if you can't afford it, but of course i guess some do need those million lunches, because they rest are just starving because theyre lazy.
(sorry about the sarcasm, rare to get to that sort of thing, but was just rather fitting)

"i realized that once you get to communism, and if the people are idealists and dedicated and willing to supress their instinctive human nature"

Ah, playing the human nature card again. Nevermind all the other arguements, you again return to capitalisms assumption that greed is something beyond its society.

"the ***** is getting there"

Well the marxist idea is the socialist state, which is there to develop the right sort of society where the human condition works for it, those with a blank slate.

"democratic socialist states such as much of western europe only keep their industry functional by having very high tariffs on foreign goods and only trading with local partners."

Western europe? socialist? eh? Western europe is full of capitalist social-democratic welfare states.
Canada is quite similiar to these countries, and with NAFTA sure as hell doesn't fit your description.

[Socialist Pig]

Here's a situation I'd like an anarcho-capitalist to look at. In an anarcho-capitalistic society, lets assume a small business employs the police services of a very large and powerful corporation. What stops this company from simply sending in a team of police to murder the owners and taking control of the land. Because this company is very powerful they can easily conceal the crime(which is not a crime because there are no laws). The owner has no protection because the people employed to defend him/her are murdering them.

What stops the corporations?

[Umoja]

And the Corporations don't necessarilly have to be Democratic.

[antieverything]

Exactly, or if the capitalist wants to hire a group of thugs to kill organizing workers...no problem. What are the workers going to do? The boss owns the cops?

Kid Icarus, Noam Chomsky praised Smith because he wasn't the free market proponent that he is made out to be. He made astute observations about the inherent flaws of free markets and his sympathy for the workers, just scroll down to the bottom section of this page-- http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/Quotes-economics.htm . As Chomsky says, "You're supposed to worship [Adam Smith] but you aren't allowed to read him."

A good read for capitalists here would be this... http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker...er/postlang.htm (http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm) an essay on different theories of market socialist forms. RedStar2000 doesn't agree with it but, oh well. Socially (worker/locality) run companies would compete on a market where the uncompetitive, inefficient companies would appear before a court and possibly be put under some level of state control.

Uncle Moneybags, or whatever your name is...Actually, Social Democracies had great success until the recent European recession, outgrowing the American economy and in some cases surpassing its standard of living. Besides, growth doesn't mean as much in a less capitalist society. Regulated markets have worked wonderfully in many occasions but I challenge you to produce any evidence of less government intervention resulting in greater prosperity for the majority of people. Let's try American history...the Gilded Age? Nope. Reagon years? Try again. In the rest of the world...Chile, the lab-test for the free market with an economy designed by a team of free-market economists? Failed miserably...but ironically it is still held to be a major success by America's media because they start the graph of economic growth at the very bottom of the recession that the free-market caused. Chile is now just pulling out of the hole left by the Chicago school of economics thanks only to their abandonment of it and adoption of Japanese style, ultra-regulated capitalism. Has the IMF/Worldbank's crazy policy of forcing privitization in loan seeking countries paid off? For the IMF and Worldbank it has...because they got to buy em up and drive up prices. It killed the economies of several second and third world countries.

...wow, this was easier than I thought.

Here are some more things to read about the lies you are told concerning free-markets.

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/GOVERNMEN...ESS_STORIES.htm (http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/GOVERNMENT_SUCCESS_STORIES.htm)

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/THE_GREAT..._DEPRESSION.htm (http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/THE_GREAT_DEPRESSION.htm)

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-exploit.htm

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-homoeconomicus.htm

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-deregulation.htm

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-growth.htm

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/8Comparison.htm

(Edited by antieverything at 4:58 pm on Jan. 1, 2003)

[antieverything]

Here is a site dedicated to debunking the bullshit put forward by the anarcho-capitalists and libertarian right.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

[peoplenotprofits]

Quote: from Socialist Pig on 7:49 am on Jan. 1, 2003
Here's a situation I'd like an anarcho-capitalist to look at. In an anarcho-capitalistic society, lets assume a small business employs the police services of a very large and powerful corporation. What stops this company from simply sending in a team of police to murder the owners and taking control of the land. Because this company is very powerful they can easily conceal the crime(which is not a crime because there are no laws). The owner has no protection because the people employed to defend him/her are murdering them.

What stops the corporations?


Without "laws" and "government" it would be complete chaos.Murder and theft would run rampant.

[antieverything]

Well, that is a matter for debate and is best left for another time...

The thing about Anarcho-Capitalism is that there IS a state, it just isn't democratic, it's plutocratic. There are still cops...authority that must be obeyed. Only in anarcho-capitalism, this authority is entirely and openly in the hands of capital.

[Som]

Without "laws" and "government" it would be complete chaos.Murder and theft would run rampant.


I wasn't really going to drag this off to that, but since your being quite repetitive, without any real arguements, I'll respond to it.

First let me mention i'll defend it from a anarchist position and not an anarcho-capitalist position. (anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists, as they support authority and hierarchy), as well as anarcho-capitalists do have more laws of sorts, just the law is whatever is profitable.

Are you and most of the people you know just cautious murderers? Thinking most people dont have anything wrong with murder at the least and the only thing keeping them from killing people is fear of getting caught.
As well as the fact that a large motivation of crime is based on the society that surrounds it. many murders are crimes of power in a sense, often a response to being subjugated constantly, as theres not an authority, this problem is quite reduced.
In the same sense of things, do you go and drive on the wrong side of the road when the police aren't around? No, if you do, you're bound to get hit eventually.

As well as the fact that murder is imposing your will on someone, and something thats not tolerated in any society.
On theft, well, in anarchist communism, simply there is no theft.

"You and your damn laws, the good people don't need em and the bad people dont obey them, so what good are they?" -

[Crusader 4 da truth]

My girlfriend is a libertarian (if you haven’t guessed I’m a conservative). While anarchist is a strong word, she does favor the abolishment of most government programs including the police department, public schools, public parks, public libraries, public highways ect. She’s a strict constitutionist the only legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens. Thus all you would need is a flat sales tax to fund the armed services. The difference between her views of limited government is that she (along with most libertarians) respects the rule of law and individual freedoms. With out property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association any capitalist society (anarchist or not) is doomed to failure. In short she respects the political processes while most communist simply encourage mindless revolution with no real policy proposals.

We have already seen some of this ideas been carried out in the present administration. Michael Powel (head of the FCC) has become one the great deregulators of our time. Opening the telecom markets to multitude of competing commercial interests, to ensure that or fledgling telecommunications revolution takes hold in ways we never thought possible. We are already starting to see the results of this deregulations and it will be exciting to watch its progress as it transforms our world.

Christie Whitman announced a variety of bold new policy proposals including rolling back antiquated environmental regulations that where preventing power plants from modernizing to more fuel-efficient technologies. (of course this was widely decried by the left)

Bush appears like he is making some headway on private accounts for social security, ideally this program would be eliminated altogether, but if the government is going to force me to save at least it will be taxed exempt and I will be allowed to control where my money is allocated.

Finally Bush is likely to propose even more tax cuts and I suspect a complete overhaul of the whole system after the 2004 election.

Of course all of this change comes painfully to slowly for some libertarians who want instantaneous change. But more pragmatic thinkers realize that some slow change is better then none. For those that believe in limited government (conservatives and libertarians) the message is clear it’s a long fit but we are winning it.


(Edited by Crusader 4 da truth at 10:04 pm on Jan. 1, 2003)

[uncle moneybags]

Apparently some of you never took the time to read my posts before, and keep claiming murder, theft, and rape would continue with nothing to check them. since anarcho-capitalism relies on the market, we will examine the question with an eye towards profits. As my employer, is it profitable for one to senselessly murder your employees? no. You seem to beleive that without a strong government presence threatening people, everyone would simply go and put a bullet in their neighbor for shits and giggles. The flaw in your argument, as som pointed out, is that people are not intrstically evil and seek only to hurt each other. If this seems a somewhat shallow argument, there is still the fact that people are not defenseless to conted with. Throughout history, various weapons ahve given the common man a weapon against the ruling class- longbows, pikes, and now guns. a bullet will kill a rich capitalist just as well as a poor communist. the goal of these implements is to make it unprofitable for someone to hurt or steal from you. if you own a small house, you keep a gun for defense- a burglar is not going to risk death or injury for a few material posessions. If you own a massive company, you will need to keep a standing security force. While this may sound like a throwback to feudalism, it is quite different.feudal societies kept weapons out of the hands of peasants- ancap has no such restrictions. If my boss buys a tank with the intention of strikebreaking, harcore style, me and some coworkers go out and buy a bunch of cheap rocket launchers. The goal is to make peacful interaction and diplomacy much more palatable and profitable than conflict, which it invariably is. every person killed is one less customer, one less worker, one more nail in the coffin of the company(killing workers doesnt normally go over well with customers). In addition, if one doesnt wish to carry around a rifle and a bazooka and 40 lbs of body armor all the time (and who would?), there is the personal defense force to consider. essentially, it acts much like an insurance company, in that you pay a fee and the company is contractually obliged to protect you in any and all circumstances. there is little incentive for the compnay to take your money and run, as no one would buy personal protection that doesnt work.

"Western europe? socialist? eh? Western europe is full of capitalist social- democratic welfare states.
Canada is quite similiar to these countries, and with NAFTA sure as hell doesn't fit your description. "

thats why i didnt use canada as an example. also, what CAN i use as an example of socialism, everything ive said so far has been declared a capitalist cesspool. theres got to be at least one example? oneida commune? native american societies? anything?

i suggest you read the story of a member of the asc forums who spent several years in a commune. very eye-opening.

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?boar...did=106;start=0 (http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=106;star t=0)

make sure you have the ENTIRE url copied. Also, ancom will work in ancap, but not vice versa; ancap allows freedom to do whatever one pleases; ancom only truly allows for one possible lifestyle, as private property is not allowed. regardless, in either society, not everyone is goign to be happy; that is a simple fact of life. ideally, both of our groups could have a mutual agreement- it seems the state is a mutual enemy, and both systems of society work much better with idealistic members. i have no problem with ancom as long as it allows one to opt out; and i am not responsible for my neighbor and vice versa.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

“i have no problem with ancom as long as it allows one to opt out; and i am not responsible for my neighbor and vice versa.”

Moneybags the problem with communism is that it become incoherent with out a massive government bureaucracy. Yeah a commune might work with a few dedicated followers, but that’s not what the people in this forum want. They want to over through the worlds governments and impose this system on every one. They aren’t happy to live simply in a commune, they want to have high tech medical care and automobiles, PC’s, and all the other things capitalism produces. How is that possible in commune?


(Edited by Crusader 4 da truth at 10:23 pm on Jan. 1, 2003)

[antieverything]

Um, Uncle Moneybags, do you really think that you and your coworkers are going to be able to do shit? The boss owns the police that means he makes the laws. Do you think that huge corporation that makes rocket launchers will sell them to workers? Do you think that if they did, you would be able to win? There would be millions of impoverished unemployed drooling at the chance to take your place...fuck, while you were working at below subsistance wages where do you think you would get money to buy heavy arms? Face it, unregulated greed will eventually destroy liberty. Revolution would be inevitable and the revolution would focus around wealth redistribution.

Wake up, my friend. Welcome to reality.

Crusader, you realize that the internet was produced by THE GOVERNMENT. Without the HUGE expenditures that the government used to fund NASA, we wouldn't have satelite communications. No corporation could fund that sort of thing. The government is spearheading the genome project because no corporation will. Our technology isn't advanced enough to take advantage of the knowledge so it isn't profitable...but we will be able to use it and millions of lives will be saved. No thanks to your magical market.

In democratic socialism, consumer goods would be the most important focus of industry...democracy would put the focus of advancement on the people, not on the military or other such waste. I believe in private enterprise but not exploitation of labor. If you want to make computers, go ahead. I've stated before how the future's high tech medical care will be coming from government-funded research, not pharmacutical mega-corps.

Moneybags, you want an example of socialism in practice? Look at the thousands of worker-run cooperatives in the United States. Many of them are outperforming their capitalist counterparts. Look at Mondragon Corp in Spain...it is one of the largest and most successful corporations in Spain but it is a worker-controlled collective, the living dream of an anarchist priest. Look at Israeli Kabbutzes (Kabbutzi? whatever.) where people are learning advanced tech skills but living communaly at the same time.

Both of you are sadly diluted. I can tell from Moneybag's belief in the equal power of workers when all power rests with capital. I can tell from Crusader's blind following of all things privitized and deregulated. Just look at the problems deregulation has caused in the cable industry...remember when you could choose exactly what channels you wanted? You can't anymore because it isn't as profitable and the government isn't regulating them anymore. In your case, there is hope. You are at least a thinker and I respect that. Moneybags, on the other hand, needs to deconstruct everything he believes and start over...I had to do this myself when I was an Anarchist. When you engage in self-criticism, everything changes.

Happy new year...

[antieverything]

By the way, did either of you read any of the links I posted?

[Socialist Pig]

Corporations buying tanks? People buying rockets? Thats disgusting. Just another example of how anrcho capitalism perpetuates violence and hatred. If this is your idea of a utopia....I feel sorry for you.

Also, the corporations will always be able to afford more tanks than the people can buy rockets.

(Edited by Socialist Pig at 8:55 pm on Jan. 2, 2003)

[Som]

"thats why i didnt use canada as an example. also, what CAN i use as an example of socialism, everything ive said so far has been declared a capitalist cesspool. theres got to be at least one example? oneida commune? native american societies? anything?"

Well, western europe is social-democratic, Quasi-socialist oligarchys are just that, and can be used only to a slight extent.

There have only been little spots of modern history of real socialism and communism.
The best example of socialism, and anarcho-socialism was spain during the spanish civil war in the 30s. Barcelona and areas in that region ran under the principles of anarcho-syndicalism for nearly two years.
As well as some other areas had similiar, though statist systems implemented.
Except for the stuff done by the stalinists.

There have been a few little blips here and there otherwise, the paris commune, the shanghai commune, brief parts during october revolution, a south american year or two before the rightwing coup.

"Also, ancom will work in ancap, but not vice versa; ancap allows freedom to do whatever one pleases; ancom only truly allows for one possible lifestyle, as private property is not allowed."

I don't see much room for anarcho-communism pulling out of a predominatly anarcho-capitalist society. The anarcho-capitalist society is meant to be reached by basically having the state privatize everything before its discarded.
If everything is private property, and those who claim such a trivial thing as ownership use force to enforce these claims, how are we going to make the property public again?

And its not so much that private property is not allowed, its that its trivial and coercive, so that such a claim of property is simply not recognized. "property is theft" and so on. The concept of property is more on a use and consent basis.
When it comes down to it, I suppose theres not much stopping people from choosing to be subject to a economic dictator of a boss instead of democratically run company, but I don't really see why.

"i have no problem with ancom as long as it allows one to opt out; and i am not responsible for my neighbor and vice versa. "

Of course you can opt out, no ones going to force you into joining a commune. Individualists and Socialist anarchist coexist easily.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

“Crusader, you realize that the internet was produced by THE GOVERNMENT. Without the HUGE expenditures that the government used to fund NASA, we wouldn't have satellite communications. No corporation could fund that sort of thing. The government is spearheading the genome project because no corporation will. Our technology isn't advanced enough to take advantage of the knowledge so it isn't profitable...but we will be able to use it and millions of lives will be saved. No thanks to your magical market.”

Antieverything as a conservative I’m for limited government not no government. I understand that governments will have to make massive investments in defense to ensure the safety and survival of its citizens, and as a consequence abuse and fraud will occur. But this is a price that free citizens must pay to ensure they can stop the next Hitler, or Stalin.

The Arpanet (precursor to today’s modern internet) was indeed a government program designed to ensure communications could continue in the event that the Soviets nuked Washington. If they took out one node the systems built in redundancy would still be able to carry communications and we could launch our counter attack. But the rapid growth in the Internet only occurred in the 90’s after the government put it out on the public domain. The milestone event that really changed the world wide web was a browser called Netscape. That corporation launched the application that would lead to Internet being adopted by millions of people world wide, as opposed to a couple thousand dorks like me.

Again satellites development was heavily funded by the government because their was a specific need by the military to insure redundancy in the communication network and to conduct intelligence gathering without the possibilities of spy plane being shoot down. Now most of the satellites are privately owned not owned by any government. My TV signal is the result of a private cooperation placing that satellite up there.

There are dozens of military technologies that have been successfully adapted for commercial use. Again I’m not against this. So I’m unclear what your are advocating. Do you want the government to take back the Internet and have it regulated, or shoot down all commercial satellites so that all communications travels across government owned and monitored ones?

As a conservative I would oppose both of those things because I am highly suspicious of concentrated power. Moving these technologies into the public domain where they can be commercialized ensures that no one government will achieve hegemony rather their will always be a variety of corporations vying to provide that service and thus a diffusion of power.

[antieverything]

What I'm saying is that a free market isn't going to produce what is needed...only what is profitable. If satelite communications were never invented, the capitalists would be making just as much money. The thing is that it was government that often plays a hand in things that improve our lives. Markets won't do the human genome project...it is necessary but not profitable.

It is ironic that most of the things that I mentioned were military creations...but it doesn't have to be that way. If you have Kazaa, look for a Noam Chomsky clip called "Automation". It's about how computer automation was produced by the government because the market couldn't do such a monumental task and how automation was used as a weapon against workers instead of using it to put more power in the hands of skilled machinists and get rid of management. Instead, automation was designed specifically to make things less efficient than it could have been but in a way that created more levels of managment and fewer workers...a useful tool in a class war, no doubt. If the people were in control of government the technology that couldn't be developed on the market would be developed by the state FOR the people and not against them.

All in all, the internet wouldn't have happened...the government research ALLOWED Netscape to get big. Government research ALLOWED for private satellites.

What I'm saying is that markets are good but cannot stand on their own. We need a government that takes advantage of market forms but will work for the people in places where the market can't (or assist the market when the market won't).

[Anonymous]

Wasn't Celera Genomics, a private company, also working on the human genome?

[antieverything]

Celera is using government funds for the project, but the genome project has been going on for some time.

http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/hgn/v9n...3/01venter.html (http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/hgn/v9n3/01venter.html)

[uncle moneybags]

yes, antieverything i read several of those articles, and found them to be filled with condescending liberal doublespeak, if not outright lies.

condescending:
"We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang."
condescending
Isn't that "love it or leave it"?
Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

condescending, doublespeak, and lies
We can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.

Yes, you can emigrate, just as you could buy a different car even though your favorite company doesn't produce cars which let you travel at the speed of sound and get 2000 mpg. Even if nobody produces EXACTLY what you want, you can choose any car the market produces or you create yourself.

There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emigrate. They are the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no over-government dictating to those sovereign nations. Indeed, the only difference between the anarchy of nations and libertopia is that anarcho-capitalists are wishing for a smaller granularity. These nations have found that it is most cost-efficient to defend themselves territorially.

you get the idea- your arguments are thick on criticisms, but your own suggestions are unrealistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

"If everything is private property, and those who claim such a trivial thing as ownership use force to enforce these claims, how are we going to make the property public again?"
simple- buy it and do what you please with it. there is nothing to say you cant share the land with anyone you want to.

as to you saying there are 1000's of co-ops outperforming their capitalist counterparts, lets see some facts.
co-op defined as
1)the work force owns the company
2)decisions regarding significant matters, such as choosing a manager, are made democratically on a one-person one-vote basis
3)the labor involved in running the enterprise, and the wages and other benefits that result, are shared on a democratic basis.

sounds remarkably like a normal corporation, except the workers are in place of the stockholders. in fact, i know of a certain prominent worker-owned company that was in the news lately- perhaps you have heard of it? does United Air ring a bell with anyone? the company was 55% owned by workers, and they had a number of seats among other stockholders. this sterling example of worker ownership of the means of production had its pilots vote themselves a pay package of over $350,000/yr (over 3 times the industry average), while lower employees such as stewardresses and mechanics got shafted with some of the lowest pay in the industry. In addition, despite being a recipient of a substantial part of the post-9/11 gov't 10bil. corporate welfare handout, it is now filing for bankruptcy. While i am sure that you are going to denounce this example on some point or another, the point remains the same- worker owned companies sound like a good idea, but the reality is harsh.

as to you saying that the market cannot stand on its own, i think you have your roles reversed; the government is a parasite that needs a healthy host to feed upon; americas gov't is an almost ideal parasite, as it has allowed its host to grow and give ever more sustenance. and stop acting as though the govt develops new technologies(your only example so far) for the public good- they are all originally to benefit the gov't itself. Why dont you talk about the great works of an organization such as the NSA or DARPA? How about LBJ's great society movement that turned thousands of middle class homes into public housing/minority storage facilities? there is a reason that the govt can afford to spend huge amounts of resources towards a potentially worthless thing, and that is the lack of accountability. Also, saying that capitalists would be making the same amount without satellites, etc MIGHT be disputed by comapnies such as AT&T, MCI, and DirectTV. If there is sufficient demand for something, it will be created, profit is a very strong motive. You might not like having to wait to get a new tech, but other people might not like having to pay for something they will never see the benefit of. Hate to break it to you, but the govt isnt some divine oracle who decides to bless us with gifts from on high- it steals from us, violates our rights, and its gifts are entirely self-serving

[uncle moneybags]

Quote: from antieverything on 11:11 pm on Jan. 2, 2003
Celera is using government funds for the project, but the genome project has been going on for some time.


profit motive at work- if you could do something yourself, or somebody offered you $300 million of someone else's money to do it, which would you do? im not saying it is ethical in the least, but thats how life is

[antieverything]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from me: Celera is using government funds for the project, but the genome project has been going on for some time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


profit motive at work- if you could do something yourself, or somebody offered you $300 million of someone else's money to do it, which would you do? im not saying it is ethical in the least, but thats how life is.

...you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Without the government, the human genome project wouldn't happen until it became profitable through market forces. By that time the technology will have been produced to use it but the research will take many more years...with government funding, the knowledge will be used to help people much sooner.

yes, antieverything i read several of those articles, and found them to be filled with condescending liberal doublespeak, if not outright lies.

From your examples you read one and didn't address anything but the most unimportant parts.

as to you saying there are 1000's of co-ops outperforming their capitalist counterparts, lets see some facts.
co-op defined as
1)the work force owns the company
2)decisions regarding significant matters, such as choosing a manager, are made democratically on a one-person one-vote basis
3)the labor involved in running the enterprise, and the wages and other benefits that result, are shared on a democratic basis.

sounds remarkably like a normal corporation, except the workers are in place of the stockholders.

yeah...you get the idea, what point are you trying to make, stockholder control is not the same as worker self-management.

i know of a certain prominent worker-owned company that was in the news lately- perhaps you have heard of it? does United Air ring a bell with anyone? the company was 55% owned by workers, and they had a number of seats among other stockholders. this sterling example of worker ownership of the means of production had its pilots vote themselves a pay package of over $350,000/yr (over 3 times the industry average), while lower employees such as stewardresses and mechanics got shafted with some of the lowest pay in the industry.

United's problem, according to most analysts, was poor managment decisions, not adapting--cutting and adding routes--not high labor costs. If United was an example of worker self-management, why were the bulk of the workers getting such poor pay? If United was an example of worker self management it would still not mean anything. Many worker-run companies are doing quite well and many capitalist ones are failing. Do some research on Mondragon Corp. in Spain or the many succesful worker-controlled businesses around the country.

stop acting as though the govt develops new technologies(your only example so far) for the public good- they are all originally to benefit the gov't itself.

I pointed this out, and when the technology was released, it went to the assistance of the rich. I was quite clear about that in my mention of Noam Chomsky's view. In a people's democracy, these technologies--which would have not been developed by the market for many years down the road--would be directly produced for the benefit of the people. It's only a difference of who the government is representing.

your arguments are thick on criticisms, but your own suggestions are unrealistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

Which suggestions are these?


btw, what the hell is wrong with the "quote" command?

(Edited by antieverything at 12:49 am on Jan. 3, 2003)

[uncle moneybags]

1) celara was already working on the genome project- the govt just gave it a handout to make sure it finished (what it was going to do already). Also, maybe you need to consider where the money comes from- not everyone supports mapping of the genome, and they would not be happy knowing their money goes to support it. Ancap is more pick and choose what services you want, socialsim seems more a grab bag of whatever policy is in style at the time.

2) yes, my quotes came from one link, i am sorry your prodigious googling skillz went to waste. However, it caught my attention as you seemed to feel it was impt enough to warrant its own post, and i had never (still havent) seen any page "debunk my bullshit theories".

3) so what exactly makes worker owned (where workers are stockholders) better than stockholder owned? workers give their time and effort, stockholders give money (objective form of time and effort). Big deal, both still are equally likely to descend into corruption, and both are interested in profits.

4)well the govt makes it and sells/gives it to the rich (not a big difference, where do most tax $ come from?), corporations sell it to the people. from a socialist/class warfare standpoint, i think youre on the wrong side of the line

btw, i think the quote command goes retarded with more than 1 branching reply, which is why this forum software sucks compared to yabb se. which coincidentally is what asc uses. socialist ineffeicency, waste, and user problems vs ancap smoothness and efficiency :)

[antieverything]

1)Wrong, Celera joined the project well after the HGP was started by the government.

2)I don't really like that link, I just posted it because I was in a confrontational mood.

3)Ownership is different than control...stock options do not make it cease to be capitalist in nature.

4)I'm on the side of a government that represents and works for the people...not the American government. I'm pointing out what capitalist governments have done for the private sector as an example of what socialists can do for the people and as an example of the public sector's ingenuity.

5)I concede that point...

[antieverything]

I responded to this...the board doesn't seem to think so, though.

[Charno]

Quote: from antieverything on 4:35 am on Jan. 3, 2003
1)3)

4)I'm on the side of a government that represents and works for the people...not the American government. I'm pointing out what capitalist governments have done for the private sector as an example of what socialists can do for the people and as an example of the public sector's ingenuity.

Ahah! The classic public goods argument.

Here is your claim:
Taking money from group A, and giving it to group B, to produce something that we can say will benefit A, is well worth it. If we did not take the money by force from group A, the product or whatever that would benefit A would not be produced.

There are a few problems with this argument.

1) The subjective nature of value.
You claim that, for example, the human genome project benefits everyone. What do you mean by "benefit"? If we both go in to a restaurant, I will percieve it as a benefit to eat a cheeseburger. But suppose you are a vegeterian. You will value a salad more than a cheeseburger. Because individuals are different, they value things differently. That's why you will see people wearing different clothes, leading different lifestyles, etc.
But fine, I'll even grant you that point. Suppose the human genome project would benefit everyone in society. If so, why is it necessary for the government to be involved? If it is in the percieved self interest of everyone in society to fund the human genome project, they will indeed fund it.

2) Even worse...
Since the project is not being voluntarily funded, its very likely it means that that project is a bad investment. This is why when you see government aid go out to "encourage bussiness" they are 99.9% of the time taking the government money and making a bad investment. But what do they care? Its on the taxpayers tab.

3) What is seen, and what is unseen.
Suppose once again that everyone in our society only accepts one set of values. Everyone is a robot who values money (it doesnt really matter what it is, this is just an easy example). So lets say our Human Genome Project, will save people lots of money with the advances it creates. We will disregard the fact stated earlier that if this was in the self interest of all it would have been funded already. We still have a problem, though. The problem is that even though we see the completion of the genome project, we do not see what could have been produced if the genome project had wealth confiscated for its production!
In order to pay for the human genome project with public funds, you are taking funds from the pockets of everybody else. Even if you only taxed the richest 1% of America, this will still be true. Who knows how these stupid rich people would have spent their money if it hadnt been stolen? They could have bought cars, expensive food, diamonds. All of this would have gone to everyone else in society, instead it nows goes to a few that happened to be favored by the government.
If you can't see the absurdity of it all yet, I'll bring up the classic example of the French economist Frederic Bastiat. Suppose I throw a rock through a window and break it. Isnt this a good thing? After all, the man will have to purchase a new window. To do that his money will go in to the pockets of a glassblower, a window installer dude, whatever. But if the man had been planning on buying a new suit before the window is broken, the mans resources have now been drawn away from the suit and to the window. By breaking the window (the equivalent of collecting taxes) , all we have done is redistribute wealth from the suit maker to the glass blower.

[Charno]

By the way, I'm another damn capitalist from ASC. I was surfing around over here, saw some economic fallacies that the greedy uncle was having problems with, and decided to point them out.

[Charno]

Quote: from antieverything on 3:58 am on Jan. 2, 2003
Crusader, you realize that the internet was produced by THE GOVERNMENT. Without the HUGE expenditures that the government used to fund NASA, we wouldn't have satelite communications. No corporation could fund that sort of thing. The government is spearheading the genome project because no corporation will. Our technology isn't advanced enough to take advantage of the knowledge so it isn't profitable...but we will be able to use it and millions of lives will be saved. No thanks to your magical market.

Haha. Its true, much of the technology for the first basic internet was produced by the government. But the resources that were used to create that were produced through the free market. Since the original conception of the internet, it has been wholly the free market that has made it as popular as it is. The concept of email, which revolutionized communications, didnt come from the pigs at the defense department.
And then you go on about NASA. Just because the government may have been the first to put stuff in to space (for an unbelievably high price: yet another weakness of socialism!) doesnt mean the free market couldnt have done it. Just because X did Y does not eliminate that possibility that Z could have done Y. If you believe thats true, you believe in a logical fallacy.

[Charno]

Socialism is impossible, comrades.

Why? It violates basic principles of economics.

Suppose at this moment America became a communist nation. The running of the national economy was entrusted in the hands of the members of this forum. In an unreal situation, we are not corrupt power hungry politicians. No, in this situation, we are perfect Socialist Men, as imagined by Guevera. America has also become a nation of socialist men. People do not think of their personal greed at all, and selflessly serve the common good and their brother worker.

So in our fantasy land, socialism is going to work out, right? Wrong. Even in this unreal situation, socialism will collapse. There are two reasons:
1) The lack of the price mechanism that exists in the free market. Economic calculation is impossible.

Suppose we have a factory of one man. Uncle Moneybags works in this factory. We'll assume that we know exactly the amount of food, water, rest, etc. that Uncle Moneybags needs in order to be a happy, efficient worker. Uncle Moneybags job at this one man factory is to be handed iron, and use his magical moneybags power to turn it in to piping (or bicycles or whatever, it could be sporks even). Uncle Moneybags needs to drink 1 gallon of water a day, and eat three loaves of bread. He is a great socialist worker, and turns out 300 crates of piping every day with his magical abilities. He uses 400 pounds of iron to do this.

Anti Everything runs the factory. He's responsible for figuring out how the enterprise is doing, and whether its creating wealth for everyone. Because he is a sensible communist, he sets up a balance sheet.

Daily Expenses:
1 gallon of water
3 loaves of bread
400 pounds of iron

Daily Production:
300 crates of pipes

Anti Everythings blow flexes with agony. How can he know whats going on here? He just has one good going in, and one good going out! He has no idea how much water, bread, iron, or piping is worth to consumers. He doesnt know if Moneybags work is wasteful, or useful. For instance, perhaps the country is already awash in piping. Perhaps it would be better if we used Moneybags magic to make food instead.

But oh, no! Anti Everything does not know what to do. Multiply this situation by hundreds of thousands, and you'll see what I mean.

Even worse, remember how we assumed that we know what Moneybags needs on a daily basis? Is it going to be possible for the people on this forum to figure out what everyone in this nation needs, of every product? This would take godlike abilities! For all we know, Moneybags might be hungry and soon starve at only 3 loaves a day. But when we're dealing out an equal amount of ration cards, there's no way to account for individual needs.

But walah! Magical Wizard Charno transforms the entire society back to capitalism. Now, Iron, water, piping, and bread have a market price.

Anti Everything, now an evil capitalist, looks at his balance sheet.

Daily Expenses:
8$ an hour, 8 hours ($64)
400 pounds of iron ($,5000)

Daily Production:
300 crates of pipes ($4,000)

Anti everything can now look at his balance sheet, and see that his bussiness is unprofitable. Perhaps there is a surplus of pipes in the economy. He can either find a way to cut costs (perhaps using a material cheaper than iron), or perhaps he can be a smart entrepeneur and see the high price of food. Oh boy, our old forumers emphasis on industry and computer production really left food a little lacking, didn't it? Perhaps he should apply Uncles talents to making food with his magic powers instead!

Add corrupt politicians, unaltruistic workers who would rather slack off and just get their ration card, and the millions of other circumstances that arise in a human society, and you can now account for just how fucked up socialism is. Though I'm not sure this was the best example, there's certainly room for improvement.

Feel free to attack all this stuff I just posted.

[peoplenotprofits]

haha anti everything thought he was so smart when he was copying and pasting.what a chump.
thanx charno you are the man.

[Zozothedog]

socalism is not communism, just wanted to clarify that, there are MANY very sucesfull states that could be classified as socalist, or heavily inflenced by socalism and they are not calapsing, it is very easy to be a non communist socalist, communism is a dream yes, socalism (it appears to me) is workable, and is working

[Charno]

Quote: from peoplenotprofits on 6:51 am on Jan. 5, 2003
haha anti everything thought he was so smart when he was copying and pasting.what a chump.
thanx charno you are the man.

Where am I copying and pasting from? I didn't copy and paste.

[Charno]

Quote: from Zozothedog on 10:44 am on Jan. 5, 2003
socalism is not communism, just wanted to clarify that, there are MANY very sucesfull states that could be classified as socalist, or heavily inflenced by socalism and they are not calapsing, it is very easy to be a non communist socalist, communism is a dream yes, socalism (it appears to me) is workable, and is working

Yes, there is a difference between communism and socialist theory. What I meant when I said socialism was a system under which everything is owned by one organization (be it the state, some kind of "federated workers collective", or McDonalds).

Communists like Marx believed that if you created a socialist nation, the state would "wither away" and we would head in to a new utopian era of communism. I guess this is even more of a fantasy than socialism, but the fact is that socialism is also an unworkable system for the reasons I stated above...

[antieverything]

First of all, ignore peoplenotprofits. He seems to be convinced that I copy and paste everything that I write just because he has no idea about any issue I'm talking about.

Second of all, the human genome project can benifit society as a whole without benefiting every person in that society. Alternate fuel sources benefit society as a whole but not people employed by the oil industry.

Thirdly, the unbelievably high price is exactly why the free market wouldn't have done it for such a long time...no one corporation could afford such an undertaking.

Fourthly, I believe in a system of decentralized market socialism which does have market mechanisms to increase efficiency and productivity. What you describe is state monopolies which require some type of democratic centralism. Democratic centralism is undemocratic and state monopolies are a bad idea for obvious reasons. Besides, this inefficiency is still not as crippling as you say. Standards of living in the USSR continued to grow during its near century of existance. If state capitalism worked as badly as you say, the state capitalist regimes would have collapsed MUCH sooner...or some of them at all.

Fifthly, I'm not a Marxist nor am I a Utopian.

Sixthly, if socialism so obviously violated basic rules of economics, it wouldn't have such vitality among the most educated economists.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from Charno on 6:07 am on Jan. 5, 2003

Add corrupt politicians, unaltruistic workers who would rather slack off and just get their ration card, and the millions of other circumstances that arise in a human society, and you can now account for just how fucked up socialism is. Though I'm not sure this was the best example, there's certainly room for improvement.

Feel free to attack all this stuff I just posted.


And capitalism isn't fucked up?

The working class is traped in a perpetual state of exploitation. Driven by the material desires set by advertising. Poeple destroy themselves with long and painfull working hours simply to acquire meaningless objects which distract them from how pathetic their lives really are.

Nothing in capitalism is real. Smiles people greet you with in stores are fake. They have to be happy, otherwise they will be fired. The food you eat is artificialy enhanced with chemicals so that it tastes perfect. It's not real. You might as well flavour dirt.

Capitalism values human life with small pieces of green paper.

[Charno]

Quote: from Socialist Pig on 3:46 am on Jan. 6, 2003


And capitalism isn't fucked up?

The working class is traped in a perpetual state of exploitation. Driven by the material desires set by advertising. Poeple destroy themselves with long and painfull working hours simply to acquire meaningless objects which distract them from how pathetic their lives really are.

Nothing in capitalism is real. Smiles people greet you with in stores are fake. They have to be happy, otherwise they will be fired. The food you eat is artificialy enhanced with chemicals so that it tastes perfect. It's not real. You might as well flavour dirt.

Capitalism values human life with small pieces of green paper.
Hahahah!

[Som]

Quote: from Charno on 5:25 am on Jan. 5, 2003
By the way, I'm another damn capitalist from ASC. I was surfing around over here, saw some economic fallacies that the greedy uncle was having problems with, and decided to point them out.


The lot of you seem to have a habit of dispersing around the internet.

Quite odd, property crusaders. Sortof little internet white guards. (Sort of an odd analogy to use considering the ideologies of such, but nevermind, its funner that way)

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from Charno on 5:00 am on Jan. 6, 2003

Quote: from Socialist Pig on 3:46 am on Jan. 6, 2003


And capitalism isn't fucked up?

The working class is traped in a perpetual state of exploitation. Driven by the material desires set by advertising. Poeple destroy themselves with long and painfull working hours simply to acquire meaningless objects which distract them from how pathetic their lives really are.

Nothing in capitalism is real. Smiles people greet you with in stores are fake. They have to be happy, otherwise they will be fired. The food you eat is artificialy enhanced with chemicals so that it tastes perfect. It's not real. You might as well flavour dirt.

Capitalism values human life with small pieces of green paper.
Hahahah!


A dagger through my heart ;)

[peoplenotprofits]

Quote: from Socialist Pig on 6:46 am on Jan. 6, 2003

Quote: from Charno on 5:00 am on Jan. 6, 2003

Quote: from Socialist Pig on 3:46 am on Jan. 6, 2003


And capitalism isn't fucked up?

The working class is traped in a perpetual state of exploitation. Driven by the material desires set by advertising. Poeple destroy themselves with long and painfull working hours simply to acquire meaningless objects which distract them from how pathetic their lives really are.

Nothing in capitalism is real. Smiles people greet you with in stores are fake. They have to be happy, otherwise they will be fired. The food you eat is artificialy enhanced with chemicals so that it tastes perfect. It's not real. You might as well flavour dirt.

Capitalism values human life with small pieces of green paper.
Hahahah!


A dagger through my heart ;)

Mr. "Capitalism" doesn't value anything because it does not exist.You act as though this entity,"Capitalism", is going around bashing in people's heads and exploiting the poor.Please get over this delusion.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from peoplenotprofits on 10:01 am on Jan. 6, 2003
[
Mr. "Capitalism" doesn't value anything because it does not exist.You act as though this entity,"Capitalism", is going around bashing in people's heads and exploiting the poor.Please get over this delusion.

uh..what are you talking about? I never claimed capitalism was an entity.

[Charno]

Quote: from Som on 5:26 am on Jan. 6, 2003

Quote: from Charno on 5:25 am on Jan. 5, 2003
By the way, I'm another damn capitalist from ASC. I was surfing around over here, saw some economic fallacies that the greedy uncle was having problems with, and decided to point them out.


The lot of you seem to have a habit of dispersing around the internet.

Quite odd, property crusaders. Sortof little internet white guards. (Sort of an odd analogy to use considering the ideologies of such, but nevermind, its funner that way)

We're argumentative bastards.

[Charno]

Quote: from antieverything on 11:28 pm on Jan. 5, 2003
Fourthly, I believe in a system of decentralized market socialism which does have market mechanisms to increase efficiency and productivity. What you describe is state monopolies which require some type of democratic centralism. Democratic centralism is undemocratic and state monopolies are a bad idea for obvious reasons. Besides, this inefficiency is still not as crippling as you say.
Could you clarify what you mean by "decentralized market socialism"? And why isn't it as crippling as I say?



Quote: from antieverything on 11:28 pm on Jan. 5, 2003

Standards of living in the USSR continued to grow during its near century of existance. If state capitalism worked as badly as you say, the state capitalist regimes would have collapsed MUCH sooner...or some of them at all.
Yes, living standards in the USSR did grow. But I would say that this in spite of socialism. Contrast growth of living standards in America (a much more free economy compared to the USSR) with that of the USSR.

State capitalism will inevitably collapse. Every day, with more and more government interference with the market and endless regulations this comes closer. Eventually leviathan will be crushed under its own regulatory weight, and take the economy with it. State capitalism in the form of the Federal Reserve bank is what has created our current economic recession in America.

[antieverything]

Decentralized market socialism is similar to the platform of the Green Party (not the Nader one, the hardcore libertarian socialist green party). You can find their platform at www.greenparty.org or you can find an economic essay concerning market socialism here: http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker...er/postlang.htm (http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm)

The fact is that for quite some time, the USSR's economy was outgrowing America's. It isn't as crippling as you would have us believe because the hand of government guiding the growth of an economy can be very effective.

You say this and yet state capitalist regimes remain and the old guard is once again on the rise in the former USSR.

"State capitalism in the form of the Federal Reserve bank is what has created our current economic recession in America. "

I'm sure you are an intelligent person but this is just an incredibly ignorant statement. I'm tired of refuting ignorant statements with ponderous amounts of actual evidence so I'll put that burden on you. I'll bet you believe that big government caused the Great Depression too! Recessions happen but economic policy as seen in use by the Fed has completely eliminated the depression from our economy. With a totally free market would the economy be expected to constantly be on the rise?

[peoplenotprofits]

I wonder if antieverything jacks off to pictures of Lenin.

[antieverything]

What would make you think that? I may have jacked off ON a picture of Lenin a few times.

[uncle moneybags]

Quote: from Zozothedog on 10:44 am on Jan. 5, 2003
socalism is not communism, just wanted to clarify that, there are MANY very sucesfull states that could be classified as socalist, or heavily inflenced by socalism and they are not calapsing, it is very easy to be a non communist socalist, communism is a dream yes, socalism (it appears to me) is workable, and is working


many very socialist countries that are successful? like what? im guessing you are going to shoot scandanavia and much of the eu at me- sorry, they are still bound to the free market, albeit stifled by heavy taxes. China has grown grealty recently; they have also been quietly switiching to the free market in the past few years. hell, look it up, the most prosperous part of the country isnt some commune in the middle of bumfuck prefecture, its the capitalist testing grounds of shenzen. In addition, the guandong. to quote cnn

"The Guangdong province city, bordering capitalist Hong Kong, was established as a "special economic zone" in 1980. Since then it has grown into China's fourth-biggest economic driver, after Shanghai, Beijing and nearby Guangzhou.
Shenzhen has attracted a population of migrants from all over China, lured by its newness and the chance of higher-paying jobs. Most of its 4.7 million residents are under 30.
Its output per capita is the highest in the country, a yardstick the mayor said the city aims to boost to $7,500 to $8,000 per year by 2005."

facts speak louder than genralizations

[Charno]

Quote: from antieverything on 12:30 am on Jan. 8, 2003
Decentralized market socialism is similar to the platform of the Green Party (not the Nader one, the hardcore libertarian socialist green party). You can find their platform at www.greenparty.org or you can find an economic essay concerning market socialism here: http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker...er/postlang.htm (http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm)

The fact is that for quite some time, the USSR's economy was outgrowing America's. It isn't as crippling as you would have us believe because the hand of government guiding the growth of an economy can be very effective.

You say this and yet state capitalist regimes remain and the old guard is once again on the rise in the former USSR.

"State capitalism in the form of the Federal Reserve bank is what has created our current economic recession in America. "

[quote]Quote: from antieverything on 12:30 am on Jan. 8, 2003

I'm sure you are an intelligent person but this is just an incredibly ignorant statement. I'm tired of refuting ignorant statements with ponderous amounts of actual evidence so I'll put that burden on you. I'll bet you believe that big government caused the Great Depression too! Recessions happen but economic policy as seen in use by the Fed has completely eliminated the depression from our economy. With a totally free market would the economy be expected to constantly be on the rise?

Yes, government interference was a factor in the Great Depression (especially in prolonging it).

Relating to our current depression, there are some undeniable facts. From "Norman, Strong, and Greenspan" by Sean Corrigan:

"...autumn 1998, when the world economy, still racked by the problems of the Asian credit bust over the preceding year, then had to cope with the Russian defualt and the implosion of the mighty Long Term Capital Management."

He continues:

"Over the next eigteen months, the Fed added $55 bullion to its portfolio of Treasuries and swelled repos held from $6.5 billion to $22 billon... This translated into a combined money market mutual fund and commercial bank assets increase of $870 billion to the market peak, of $1.2 trillion to the industrial production peak, and of $1.8 trillion to date [August 2001]- twice the level of real GDP added in the same interval"

In basic terms, the Fed inflated the currency and flooded the banks with money. They also increased the amount of "hard" cash in the economy. The result of this is that everyone thought they had "more" money. The average consumer spent more. Banks gave out easy credit to just about any bussiness. Bussiness like Enron, or the various internet startups. The fed artificially lowered interest rates (as we can see them doing now) to encourage false growth as well. The basic trend of everyone in the economy became spend, spend, spend and invest in the latest hyped up, faddish stock, the tech market.
Unfortunately, this can't last forever. The folks at the fed knew that if they kept this up, it would lead to a full blown economic collapse (like the Weimar Hyperinflation in the 30s). So the fed raised interest rates again, and stopped flooding the banks with easy credit. Many dot com and other bussiness had terrible bussiness models that counted on "building market share" and running at a loss for fifteen years. Basically, these companies were living entirely off of stock purchases.

When it became clear that the fed was ending its former policy, thats when everything crashed. You could have watched CNBC and known this, its common knowledge...

As you put a burden on me, I'll put a burden on you. How does the fed prevent depressions from occuring? I'm really curious to know...

[Charno]

Quote: from antieverything on 12:30 am on Jan. 8, 2003
The fact is that for quite some time, the USSR's economy was outgrowing America's. It isn't as crippling as you would have us believe because the hand of government guiding the growth of an economy can be very effective.

Outgrowing? How are you measuring growth? You can't measure growth in dollars. I suppose you are measuring growth in the amount of material production, and if that is true its not surprising.

Russian factories probably turned out a lot of goods. But are goods necessarily wealth? No. The wealth lies in the fact that the good is useful for the consumer. I mean, I have probably produced a lot of fecal matter throughout my lifetime, and that is not "wealth". The USSR probably produced a lot of crap, especially military crap. None of that benefited anyone. The best way to measure how well a socialist economy is doing is living conditions, and needless to say Soviet living conditions were inferior to those of the United States.

Also, in a country with banks and a stock market, there is a motivation to not spend your money right away. People will save their money to make a profit in the long term.

You talk about the "hand of government guiding the growth of the economy". That's the whole problem with your analysis. Nothing "guides" the economy but individuals acting in their percieved self interest.

[Charno]

Quote: from uncle moneybags on 2:54 am on Jan. 9, 2003
facts speak louder than genralizations

Yep. Communists claimed that Mao was increasing the wealth of China with his "Great Leap Forward" program. All Mao did was move all the resources in to steel production. Too bad you can't eat steel....

[Charno]

Quote: from antieverything on 12:30 am on Jan. 8, 2003
Decentralized market socialism is similar to the platform of the Green Party (not the Nader one, the hardcore libertarian socialist green party). You can find their platform at www.greenparty.org or you can find an economic essay concerning market socialism here: http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker...er/postlang.htm (http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm)

I don't really want to read the whole long essay. What I'm guessing at is that market socialism is like a free market, except all bussiness are made worker owned, and the workers vote on what the company will do. If there is more to it than this, could you please explain it in your own words? I've done everything in my own words so far, instead of barraging you with essays.

[uncle moneybags]

this post has really turned into a full on charno diatribe. i also notice all the reds except antieverything, s.pig, and som have left... thats odd. maybe kneejerk "kill the cap" reactions dont hold up under scrutiny too well...

[peoplenotprofits]

Quote: from Charno on 1:25 am on Jan. 10, 2003

Quote: from antieverything on 12:30 am on Jan. 8, 2003
Decentralized market socialism is similar to the platform of the Green Party (not the Nader one, the hardcore libertarian socialist green party). You can find their platform at www.greenparty.org or you can find an economic essay concerning market socialism here: http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker...er/postlang.htm (http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm)

I don't really want to read the whole long essay. What I'm guessing at is that market socialism is like a free market, except all bussiness are made worker owned, and the workers vote on what the company will do. If there is more to it than this, could you please explain it in your own words? I've done everything in my own words so far, instead of barraging you with essays.


Maybe its something like Oskar Lange, who proposed that central planning boards could determine prices through "trial and error"?

[antieverything]

Sorry for taking so long, I've been to busy lately to respond to this but I have been reading it.

I don't really want to read the whole long essay. What I'm guessing at is that market socialism is like a free market, except all bussiness are made worker owned, and the workers vote on what the company will do. If there is more to it than this, could you please explain it in your own words? I've done everything in my own words so far, instead of barraging you with essays.

What you describe is Syndicalism (also closely related to anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism) which is fairly close to what I propose but my vision of market socialism does has some key differences which I will talk about in detail some time in the future because I'm still pretty busy.

Outgrowing? How are you measuring growth?

The Soviet Union's economy was outgrowing the American economy by a few percentage points for a period during the first half of the century. Economic growth is measured in GDP, correct? Standards of living were fast improving as well...I'm not exactly sure what period but if you want me to I will look it up in the article where I read this (Encyclopaedia Brittanica). Of course I must stress that economic growth and rising standards of living do not validate Soviet methods and forms. This is the same argument that advocates of slavery used before (and even after) the Civil War. Living conditions were much better for slaves in the 1840's than they were in the 1760's. All that this shows was that Communism was able to do something that was considered impossible: industrialization in one generation.

You talk about the "hand of government guiding the growth of the economy". That's the whole problem with your analysis. Nothing "guides" the economy but individuals acting in their percieved self interest.

I'm sure that you didn't think about this too carefully before you typed it...I understand that, it happens to the best of us. It is true that nothing guides a pure free-market economy besides self interest but it isn't true that nothing CAN guide an economy besides that. Look how Asia's so-called Tiger economies function: government encourages (and even forces, in some cases) investment in certain areas. In Hong Kong, "capital flight" is an offense punishable by death. Interestingly enough, these economies registered the fastest economic growth of any region in history and it didn't just happen in industrializing countries but also in advanced economies such as Japan.

Yes, government interference was a factor in the Great Depression (especially in prolonging it).


When I made the statement that this was a response to I was setting up a trap...you bit and you bit hard. When the Great Depression hit, America was on the gold standard (you like the gold standard, right?) and laissez faire was the prevailing mood in government--especially at the national level. Taxes and regulation had been slashed and remained at low levels for the last decade. What caused it? Many things, but that isn't the issue here because I've already proven that it wasn't government intervention and it wasn't even the stock market crash...in fact, if you look at the real causes, it is a pretty disallusioning image of free markets at work (for you, not me.) What prolonged it? Most economic historians would say Hoover--but not because he betrayed the free market ideal as most conservatives claim but instead because he didn't to anything at all. Well, he did do some things but it was much too little, too late. The only "major" thing that I can think of was his enactment of tarrifs but international trade was such a minor part of our economy at that point that it could hardly be blamed for doing much damage, especially since it happened after the worst had hit. In fact, all the evidence points to the fact that it did help...but not very much. The whole of his time in office, he would not allow the Fed to use its (modest compared to what they can do under Keynesian economic policies) power to increase the money supply.

If Government intervention did prolong the Depression, it must have been the New Deal but by any estimation the New Deal was a huge success. I doubt that any laissez faire solution would have done what the New Deal did for the country. While coming out of the Depression, the world adopted Keynesian monetary policies and now the depression has been virtually eliminated from our economic vocabulary.

Concerning that article...it was written by a crazy libertarian who criticizes Greenspan at every opportunity even though Greenspan has a pretty excelent record. What he describes is the tech bubble bursting which was a few years ago and (in the big picture) wasn't that big of a deal...these things happen. Furthermore, it wasn't so much a failure of the Fed as it was a symptom of the Stock Market system's sickness: the state of mind that a company is only profitable if it is constantly growing. I'm not criticizing the stock market system, really...it is fairly benevolent. It has some obvious side effects and puts to much emphasis on perception rather than productivity...but I don't want to get into it because I really don't have an opinion on the issue. ;)

[uncle moneybags]

bump...
or is it dead in here?

(Edited by uncle moneybags at 3:56 am on Jan. 16, 2003)

[antieverything]

You tell me...is it?