Without some agreed definitions, you get mush for discussion.
Let's let Marx define socialism, Musollini define fascism, Adam Smith define capitalism, etc....
Democracy is an old Greek word for "rule of the people"
In any honest history (before its rewritten by the victors), those guys and those definitions were seen by the millions who struggled for those ideas as the creators or definers of them. So those are the definitions that mattered.
It's never been done and there will never be a worker run society (economic democracy) until its done in a country with enough resources to go around immediately. You can't have half starving and half (or just a few) rich or you get Stalinism.
True democracy would mean that we vote on policy. But have we ever voted on any big policy? - War? Healthcare? Transportation?
Mussolini (the 1st fascist) defined fascism: Merging Industry and State. After WWll, they've tried to change the def.
Socialism means workers rule. Certainly you don't believe that the millions who fought for socialist governments believed they were fighting for dictatorships?
You have to know what they thought it meant to understand the 20th century.
The fact that "Stalinism" (One party rule + worker benefits + political repression) took over in all the failed socialisms was just a follow on effect of attempting to build socialism in poor backwards countries. But real socialism has always meant worker rule.
Overall I agree that capitalism is better than socialism not only because force is immoral but also because it is inefficient. However, there might be a need for a small amount of socialism (taxes) and a safety net because: Consider this scenario: There is no public land anywhere, I don't own any land (let's assume i have nothing and no job at this moment). If I sleep on the grass inside your land and you don't want me there that is trespassing. Trespassing is force. (continued)
@PaulBlartMallCop1 (continued part two:) Invariably we are back at the use of force, I use it not because i want to but because i have to (literally i have not other choice, and not just for sleeping but even for standing). Maybe i'm missing something but you tell me.
@LIVINGONTHEDOLE But socialism is considerably more dangerous because those greedy people not only control the institutions of state, but they also control the economy. At least capitalism enables citizens to own their own private property, and so in some sense have some protection from the state.
"But socialism is considerably more dangerous because those greedy people not only control the institutions of state"
What are you talking about? In socialism the power lies with the people.
Not like in capitalism where the power lies with the few extremely wealthy and greedy who not only control the government with their money, but also the economy (which they crashed in their greed by the way)
@founoe you have it backwards, socialism means that the government controls commerce, the people don't get anything, in capitalism every one has the right to own property and commercial rights.
Yes they do, because under socialism, the people IS the government.
"in capitalism every one has the right to own property and commercial rights"
The right, sure, but that is not a guarantee that they do, or will even have an opportunity to do it.
Some in america are getting so insanely rich there's no opportunity left for anybody else, as Marx predicted. The only thing holding USA together is the little socialism they have.
@cragmac1000 And that Power corrupts (but can be regulated by local individuals) but absolute power (as in a democratic/socialist/communist etc,. government) corrupts absolutely.
there is Liberty and there is Tyranny.. it's pretty obvious which one is better.. how this socialism crap is even an argument today is a joke.. it's a loser no matter how many times you try it..
fzquifs says: "Without capitalism, where do you get the incentive for the production of wealth?"
Your echoing the received truth of the corporate media and pundits. Overall, after the inevitable family arguments, are you proposing that we compete in our families to try to overwhelm each other economically, or do you cooperate? Remember, institutions that pushed socialism have largely been smashed, so the discussion comparing histories is tilted.
The argument always goes: Socialism is or leads to dictatorship pure and simple. So socialism is bad. We can see all the different countries that had socialism and they all pretty much suck. I say:
Socialism means the workers (the 99%) rule. Did that ever happen?
Marx and co knew that you couldn't build socialism in a poor, illiterate, or backwards country, but that didn't stop the people in those countries from trying and and electing or backing Marxists or Socialists. Milton smacks straw men.
@jeffmoore9487 You have to build socialism in a poor, backwards country. Without capitalism, where do you get the incentive for the production of wealth? That might just be how Milton smacks down your straw man.
@jeffmoore9487 not really. Socialism only works very small scales because the much less power to some head. In large societies socialism was take form of feudalism because there is too much power and goes to leaders heads. Every system must have way reduce evil. only way reduce evil actions through check and balances.
@jeffmoore9487 socialism does not mean the workers rule, it means the exact opposite, socialism means that the government, instead of the market (the workers) runs commerce and sets prices. in a fascist government such as the one we have now, you are allowed to own property, but have no commercial rights. in communist government you have no right to own property, but in both forms of socialism,the government rules.
I don't need to mess up this country. The banksters and industries have either left us in masse and created a stupid debt based economy from which only they will profit. A bipartisan elite will keep bombing multiple countries until the people of the Middle East throw us out, or we throw our own brutes out of power.
5,000,000 foreclosures later, nothing has been done to reign in corruption. The "job creators" aren't creating jobs and hide their money in the Cayman Islands.
Extraordinary. So you want to fuck up a country that became prosperous because of a liberal economy, because you immediately assume that socialism is going to become so inefficient and wasteful, that it has no chance of empowering a developing country's economy
There is nothing wrong with a class gap. In a liberal economy, all people have to do is get off their asses and compete. But for westerners now that's just too hard, they prefer to demand it through the state
The irony of Milton Friedman is that he promoted a free market system, but it was based on a fractional reserve banking system and that subsequently had to be bailed out by the taxpayer to avoid a total collapse. So much for freedom.
@astro7894 The problem isn't freedom...Freedom works. The problem is that our monetary system is not a free market one,but a system where the money is a fiat currency issued by a government created monopoly.
@sleedolfine15 and the worst thing they force other to use their money. You can't sell oil for gold, i mean you can try but you will and up like Kadaffi.
Post enlightenment governments create a system of the onwers and workers through land control. It displaces the majority and favors the elite inherently who alrady posses the capital. "You have to have money to make money" is not a mere euphemism, it's literally the inherent problem post-monarchist democraties. Marx recognized this and communism was his attempt to transcend the class divide through radical leftisms primary focus on human welfare and equality over the nation-state.
Some of you might be scratching your head over that because we view communism in a post-war world as totalitarian. Communist split at the bolshevic revolution in two distinct groups. Anarcho-socialists and state-socialists. We only associate communism with state socialism today. That was the divide between the menshevics and bolshevics after WWI. The statist bolshevics had the might and won the war. That is why we associate communism with totalitarianism today.
Fascism sought to transcend class through nationalism. That proved extremely hard and inefficient to do because it relies fundmentally on propaganda to ensure collusion to, usually, a dictator. Fascism considered democracy itself, western democracy in particular, fundementally socialist in nature and socialism was "slave morality" and led to degridation of society over time. "We the people" is classic french leftism.
US democracy attempts to transcend class through capitalism, nationalist-propaganda mechanisms and socialist progressive taxation. Our society by any objective measure has created the least class divides of any nation and has turned out to be the greatest of all through its mediocrity of parliamentarian philosphy. Socialism is theft, but so is capitalism. It's a balancing act and it works. Look at our country, literally all western democracies emulate us now.
Friedman abandons his own principle when he starts talking about the military. He quite explicitly advocated the use of other people's money to do good for the nation through the military. It's the difference between minarchism and anarchism. Milton actually comes out and says he doesn't go to that extreme, because he believes there is a place for government (force). This betrays what he is saying here.
@hallavast Yep. It's kind of like either you have full government control or you have voluntarism. I'm working for the latter, sounds better. What are you working for?
@hallavast It is only a betrayal of what he is saying if you misunderstand what he is saying. Milton Friedman's role of Government is to serve as protector from external enemies and as a referee between citizens. If you feel betrayed that is entirely your business, but his principles stand tall
@YaHuWaHservant He didn't betray ME. I never met him. I feel like my statement stands for itself, but I'll clarify. His principle is not "Government is only necessary for what I want it to be used for". That's not a principle. A socialist could say the same. That they want the government to be the arbiter between citizens. The distinction is that he's not arguing philosophy or morals, but rather details and degree. I prefer minarchism to socialism, but it's not really a principled approach.
@hallavast I understand your point, but what I am trying to clarify is Milton's stance does not betray his principles. He accepts that the role of Government is to do what cannot be achieved through private enterprise. This is in the role of the military, which I have spent hours trying to figure out how could be done without government lol, and to act as referee when citizens have disputes. Contractual or otherwise. Hence government is to be limited to these set functions. cont.
@hallavast Everything else can/should be handled by the free market. The free market is the best and most efficient way for everything else to get done. HE does not betray his principles, his principles are merely the unconventional one's with the label he is assigned I guess. In point of fact if Government could do everything it tries to do the best and most efficiently then we would all switch labels. However, it is this very failure of government that causes us to take issue.
@YaHuWaHservant Military, Courts, and Police (and most people say roads). Based on free market principles, an anarchist would argue that govt is not necessary for these. In fact, Friedman uses the same argument for these things that socialists use for their programs. He's accepting the use of force for the things he thinks are best for the nation. He's ignoring the fact that he's using other people's money by force. This is his entire argument in this video. It arbitrarily contradictory.
@hallavast Actually it is not...... You are misunderstanding the difference between need and desire. See the Government needs to do Military/Courts because there is no other way to do it. Literally every other aspect of government can be done better in the free market. All Government is at it's heart is force. That is all they are capable of being. Military, the force against threats from outside, is the primary thing only Government can do. Secondly, Courts are force. cont.
@YaHuWaHservant "Government needs to do Military/Courts because there is no other way to do it." This is not true. Militaries and courts both predate states. Conversely, liberals/socialists argue that their programs are also needed. Like universal healthcare and environmental laws. If the anarchist is right, and you don't NEED government, then any government program you come up with is arbitrary, and thus, an unnecessary use of force. cont.
@hallavast "Militaries and courts both predate states." Yes, but they weren't done as well in terms of the protection of the individual. For example, take the United States Military and Black-waters military. Black-water is more cost efficient, however like the pre state things you allude to it's duty is not to the individual. With regards to the Liberals/Socialists no one says they are entirely wrong cont.
@hallavast They are a force used to settle disputes between individuals. The difference between Milton and Socialists is the need/want. Milton accepts that Government has a role that cannot be done in the free market. Socialists have a want which is to use the force of government to impose their ideas/will upon the masses. Milton's role for Government is the role that serves the individual as an actual dependency. Socialists serve the collective out of desire.
@YaHuWaHservant This really is the hinge here. There is no proper role for government. Foreign and domestic security and dispute resolution are all possible without government. I have a feeling you want to ask me how, but I don't think that's fair. I would encourage you to research that, yourself. Basically, Anarchy is the logical conclusion to the philosophy of freedom. Friedman deviates from that by putting in exceptions. If you accept that these exceptions are arbitrary, he's unprincipled.
@hallavast I do not accept this because it is simply untrue. Anarchism, like socialism, only has virtue form the ideas put behind it. It's fatal flaw however is it's inability to properly function. For instance, you wish to trade Government military adhering to laws for Blackwater. They would be more cost efficient and could only charge a use tax. However, what happens when Blackwater decides to use it's own force to enslave you after you become dependent to them?
@YaHuWaHservant I understand that you don't accept it. If your only objection is that you can not conceive of a practical use, then I encourage you to do three things: first, indulge in some research about the ideas behind voluntarism. Second, use anarchism as a philosophical tool to help determine what the role of government is and how it can be morally justified. Third, consider the political climate required for anarchy to occur. Most people are opposed to it on ignorant premises.
@hallavast I have done all of that in terms of anarchy. I liked anarchy until I realized that it was 90% solid with 10% fallacy. That 10% being the security of the individual. To explain. Suppose we overthrew all Government. In some part of the country the people with most capital/guns would in time enslave people. The majority with the guns would make the rules. This would not happen everywhere, but it would happen somewhere. cont
@hallavast Technological advance would be slower and scattered. Different parts of the country would develop at different rates. Those developing faster would be sought after through peaceful/non-peaceful methods. Then some imperialistic entity from another country, say Chinese or Russian, would show up and conquer us with ease. Then we do get a government only this Government could give a crap. If we are able to free ourselves we would then form a Government for our own security again.
@hallavast Technological advance would be slower and scattered. Different parts of the country would develop at different rates. Those developing faster would be sought after through peaceful/non-peaceful methods. Then some imperialistic entity from another country, say Chinese or Russian, would show up and conquer us with ease. Then we do get a government only this Government could give a crap. If we are able to free ourselves we would then form a Government for our own security again.
@YaHuWaHservant Also, Blackwater is not a good analogy, because the united state's government is its exclusive customer by law. It's improper to presuppose the state either on the demand or supply side of the equation when considering a stateless society and the implications thereof.
@hallavast Blackwater is a great analogy actually. Blackwater exists and if you were to succeed in your anarchistic vision that restraint of law would be non-existent. You would suddenly have a military like entity ready to at best serve as protection and at worst conquer/secure whatever area they could. Unintended consequences need to always be considered.
@YaHuWaHservant Ok, you say Blackwater, but I don't like that label so I'll refer to what you're talking about as a PMC (private military company). What you advocate is a monopoly of the US military (which, on a different scale, could be called a PMC). You basically have 1 provider of a service that everyone needs. I shouldn't have to tell you what is inherently wrong with that.
@hallavast Nothing as it is a service which has to be provided by a singular Government. What you fail to understand is that Military, or PMC, will always in times end in Monopoly through agreement or occupation. Best case scenario if we overthrew all government in this country we would turn into Africa. That is the very short term best case.
@hallavast What really needs to be addressed here is your definition of betrayal. By your own standards a person is either for no Government or total Government. Anything else is a betrayal. This is simply not the case. The Government does have a role. Their role is to serve the individual in this country. Socialists want the majority to dictate policy unto the masses. That is Government force being wielded by a majority against the minority. Which is the force Milton is talking about.
@YaHuWaHservant When you use the initiation of force argument, it is implied that you abide by its principle: that the IoF is never acceptable (even when you do it to fund and control a military that supposedly helps people). When you make exceptions to this argument based on your opinions, you're no longer arguing from principle. You're simply dickering about degree/details.
@hallavast Correction I am not arguing from your principle, which I am entirely ok with, however my principle is entirely secure. Government has a role to secure the safety of it's citizens and to enforce laws through the Court system. Arbitration is a means in the free market for disputing parties to avoid court; however that is their personal decision. Lastly, I totally support anarchism so long as I am part of the majority with the guns.
@YaHuWaHservant I have a feeling the basic disconnect we may have on the issue of statelessness is that you feel violence is beyond the scope of supply and demand. It isn't. In fact, one of the core problems with all governments is their exclusive monopolies on violence (which tampers with the violence market).
@hallavast There is no disconnect. I accept that in anarchy instead of Government being the military and force for security; there would be many. However these many would fight each other. Best case scenerio we live our entire lives in a fractured former USA paying a use fee for the protection of private enterprises. Worst case one of the "Security Agencies" make a deal with a foreign military and our former USA get's conquered. Then we get government anyway
@YaHuWaHservant "We are having a multi-layered discussion so if you want an educated response you will have to be less vague" In my defense, the discussion is taking a turn where I would have to eventually explain how every facet of life would work within the society that would evolve once the immoral entity that I protest would dissolve. You say you already did the research/ thought exercises I've advocated and came to a different conclusion than me. I call this a disagreement. :)
@YaHuWaHservant If there's something you'd still like to discuss, I have to insist we change media slightly. Feel free to PM me, but I won't get back to you until tomorrow probably. Something I find funny and a little sad is that we're most probably political allies when it comes to American politics, as the majority of voters would find this debate negligible if not incomprehensible.
@hallavast Look at the founding fathers. They had one cause which was Liberty. Then they had a lot of internal disputes over what exactly to do. That is where we are. We both see that Freedom is diminishing and the Government is doing it through the ignorant populous. Our difference is about what the role of Government is. Very limited to what I have discovered to be essential or none which you have discovered is best.
@LibertyRealm Friedmans recommendations to Pinochet, required force to implement. As explained previously, the implementation of a free market will ALWAYS require force.
@LibertyRealm Free markets require force to implement. As said, NOBODY will voulantarily have their wages reduced, their pensions cut, and their unions illegalized. The ONLY way to do this is through FORCE.
Funny how Friedman neglects to mention how FORCE has always been used to uphold a free market as well. From Francisco Franco's Spanish Regime, to the Junta Govt of Argentina, to Post Soviet Russia under Yeltsin, to the US before the Progressive Era, to Augusto Pinochet's Chile. In Chile, Friedmans beloved Pinochet tortured, killed, maimed and terrorized anyone who went against his wishes to implement free market reforms.
@iCookie1 You say something stupid you get a stupid answer.
As Friedman said a million times, Capitalism is a necessary but insufficient condition for freedom. Reletively free markets can exist in horrible dictatorial regimes, although to say he defended those regimes is abominable. The economies of those countries, however, were not dominated by force and coercion; the force was in the political sphere.
@Oxonymous Pinochet had to use force to realize the free-market ideology, because he knew people would not accept it on their own. Nobody will voulantarily have their wages reduced, their pensions cut and the union they belong to illegalized. This is common sense. Thus the only other way to do it, is through force. Lastly, Friedman did willingly cooperate with Pinochet, thus he did support the regime.
There's a certain perverse irony in the fact that the far left consistently denounces PInochet (who no doubt was a truly evil man)- and yet continues to defend dictatorships that are just as brutal. Nobody will voluntarily live on rations of less than 700 calories, or eat "food substitutes" (tree bark) to survive, or live in an apartment without heat or electricity, in a country that borders Siberia. The only way to "convince" people to accept those conditions is through force.
@TheTollundWoman Please point to where I defended dictatorships that are equally brutal. Also please point to where I denied that socialism requires force.
The truth is that the "shock" (Naomi Klein... LOL) had happened 3 years ago when Allende's socialist policies destroyed the chilean economy, violated the constitution and polarized chilean society.
@LibertyRealm No, the shock happened when Friedman recommended privatization, which led the Chilean govt. to privatize over 212 enterprises. The following influx of foreign speculative capital, eventually caused the collapse of the Chilean economy again in 1981. All the growth that Friedmans "monetarist" era caused, was purely speculative in nature and in reality it was just one big bubble. Even more amusing, the recession was fixed by dull old keynesian policies.
Do you know anything about chilean history? Please go study before talking bullshit.
Under Allende's regime the chilean economy was effectivelly destroyed, it experienced 3000% inflation, capitals fled the country, private property rights were violated by government officials and terrorist groups, businesses and land were seized by the state and production sunk to almost 0 which led to rationing and the creation of the black markets.
Chilean did experienced a reccession in 1981 but in reality the recession affected the entire Latin America and Chile recovered faster than its latin american neighboors.
@LibertyRealm The fact that you are defending a DICTATOR over a democratically elected president tells me all I need to know about you. You're claiming Alende violated property right and caused terrorist attacks, but what about the human rights abuses under Pinochet? They were 10 times worse than what Alende ever did. And claiming Alende was worse for the chilean economy than Pinochet is just laughable.
@LibertyRealm Pinochet was the one that polarized Chilean society. The real wages during Allende was much higher than under Pinochet. Also, unemployment during Pinochet was 300% above the mean. Investment-rates were below 1970-levels, and so on.
Again please go learn chilean history, there is no point in arguing with someone whith no clue about he is talking about.
Chilean society and politics begun to polarize very deeply since the middle of the 60's when the Chilean Socialist Party declared that class warfare was justified and socialists should take any action aimed to the destruction of "bourgueoise democracy", with Allende that became even acute when he declare that "Im not the president of all chileans".
Allende enacted laws to increase wages but that was a temporay fantasy, the real wages were lower and lower because all acquisitive power was gone because of the 3000% inflation in 1973.
Investment was none existant during Allende's regime mainly because of the marxist policy of mass statization and collectivization of property and land.
In fact constitutional reforms were created to stop the pillage by the state and Allende refused to signed them.
@LibertyRealm Furthermore, the Latin American recession of the 1980s was not the dominating factor in the Chilean crisis. The dominating factor was the speculative bubble caused by Friedmans monetarist experiment.
@LibertyRealm If you re-read my post, you'll see I never claimed investment or unemployment was good under Allende, I said they were below and above the mean, respectively, under Pinochet. As for polarization, the GINI coeffecient reached historical highs first under Pinochet. There was little or no polarization in the 1960s as you claim.
@LibertyRealm And you are confusing the idea of freedom with suppressing popular demand for priviligies granted by the state. The reality is a successfull economic liberalisation presupposes an active intervention by the state to carry out such reforms. This is common sense.
@iCookie1 But that active intervention by the state is initiation of force. The liberal position is, really to say that IoF is ok, because they get what they want out of it. This ignores the problems on supply and demand, however. The result is the current and coming depression.
"I never claimed investment or unemployment was good under Allende"
I know, you were focusing on Pinochet, I dont know why.
"There was little or no polarization in the 1960s as you claim."
You simply dont understand the concept of polarization, the idea of a society divided in two camps, a society where there arent political opponents, there are only enemies.
@Oxonymous No, what he said was absolutely true. I know some try and say that the shock policies eventually led to freedom but that association is tenuous at best. However, during the build up there were routine human rights abuses and the state murdered thousands of people
Its just common sense, a government is based on force, the power to tell people what to do, thats why a free market is incompatible with force, any regime that allows private enterprise and individual rights will see their power reduced.
None of your examples were free markets, the closest you mentioned was Chile and even then the government kept the economy regulated to a point, despite the recommendation by Friedman to ease the controls of the central bank.
Friedman recommend the new chilean government that in oder to fix the disaster left by Allende's socialist regime it had to respect private property and free the economy, apparently to some people that is equivalent to "support a dictatorship".
@LibertyRealm Yes, that's the magic of such ideologies. Because the fantasy world that it's based on, can never exist in real life, anyone who advocates it can always claim to be 100% correct. When reforms fail, just claim "LOL THATS NOT A TRUE FREE MARKET HURR DURR". It's pathetic really.
Socialism is force... forgetting that capitalism uses an essentially similar method. You don't really have a choice in either system, work or starve, that's what it reduces to.
@TheEmptyHunter Socialism is force, that means that under socialism YOU HAVE NO CHOICE: YOU HAVE TO WORK. I come from Poland, where we had "improved communism", which was called by then establishment "real socialsm". In those days you were FORBIDDEN TO BE UNEMPLOYED!!!! If you didn't work, THE POLICE CAME TO YOUR HOME AND TOOK YOU TO YOUR ASSIGNED WORKPLACE.
@acepl78 I'm not going to say Poland was great. You were forced into that crap. Look at the Prague spring and the Warsaw pact invasion. But, ultimately it results in being able to eat or starve. Poland was never socialist, if defined as a place where the workers rights are respected. There wouldn't have been a need for Solidarity if they were doing what they said they were. It's funny how the Polish nightmare came to an end through the efforts of the trade union movement.
@TheEmptyHunter Poland was never socialist, because, as Stalin said: " imposing Communism on Roman Catholic Poland was as absurd as putting a saddle on a cow". What it was was communist. But communism and socialism are essentially the same ECONOMICALLY. They differ POLITICALLY.
Also, Solidarity was fighting for "better socialism", not freedom. It was a useful myth for the West and pretext to help them. All good here IMO.
Either way, as you say as well: we were forced. Q.E.D?
@acepl78 Sorry: Stalin said: "imposing Socialism on Roman Catholic Poland..." It got distorted later in translation which I have stored, instead of translating directly myself.
There are two popular jokes here, which are not quite jokes really, rather anecdotes, to amplify my message:
1. Q: What differs communism and socialism? A: Communist shoots on sight, socialist tortures whole life.
2. Q: Is it possible to build socialism in Switzerland? A: Yes, but what wrong they did to you?
@acepl78 Communism and Socialism are not the same thing, if you actually knew about the theory behind it you would know that Socialism in marxist doctrine is a transitionary phase on the road to communism which is a stateless society. I'm just saying that the "socialist" states of europe were unequal just as the "capitalist" ones were, and both use force, it's just that one uses force directly and the other uses force indirectly. The result is similar.
@TheEmptyHunter OK. I see what you mean. Friedman says that every country in the world is capitalistic. Even North Korea. But what are the forms of capitalism is important. Socialist: state owned and controlled means of production. In short: total central planning, where people are literally serfs. On the other side of this wheel is free market.
But nothing works without rules and laws. Those work best (not necessarily cheapest), enforced by state. But this is not the same.
@acepl78 The concept of Socialism and equality in the eastern bloc was a giant sham, anyone who lived there would know it because the members of the communist party just became an elite that exploited the labor of others. I don't have a problem with capitalism, I think the market system has proven itself successful, but ultimately there must be checks and balances in place to ensure that people life a life that is fair
@acepl78 Well, I thought we had reached a point of agreement. Socialism doesn't always have to be state directed or controlled, it doesn't even require a state to exist. I find that too many right wingers like to equate socialism with what happened in eastern europe because it's a convenient way for them to brush their own problems under the rug without really being honest about the concept. People are serfs in a capitalist system, because of the hierarchy it creates. It's the same as in Social.
@acepl78 Force in a capitalist society comes in the form of a Hobson's choice: "If I don't work for $2 an hour for 10 hours I won't be able to eat and I will die." In a state socialist society the force is just direct: "If I don't do as i'm told the police will escort me to my work place to see that I do." They are similar mechanisms and the result is the same. People should work, but they should be given fair compensation for their labor.
@TheEmptyHunter Agreement? Sort of. ;-) I do not know from where are you, so I cannot show you on examples. But I hope if I use my own, it will help some. In Poland we have continuous unemployment around 20%. It does not go down, in spite of our continuous economic growth. We are 40% export economy, which helps much. But we have each year increase in minimum wage. You think there is no connection here? And this is Hobson's choice coming from GOVERNMENT. But there's more.
@TheEmptyHunter 2. minimum wage affects directly payments for social security for small business. Those payments are required even if business has a loss instead of profit. Min. wages affect also various extra earnings, mainly for unionized workers. See a pattern? We have no choice in regard of health service (unless you are willing to pay twice: tax and fee), no choice in regard of pension (one, state system, which pays pensions less than half of earning earlier)...
@TheEmptyHunter ... and older people do not have free health services. So they pay way more for medicine, often not having enough for living. Which is not suprising, because prices are higher than in Germany, which is much wealthier country. And when I say higher, i mean that literally. Only food is marginally cheaper and still better.
Do you know that average polish worker is taxed in excess of 80%? And the less he earns, the more he pays? No, this is not a joke.
@TheEmptyHunter Within free market taxation usually is no higher than 20% total (including, as with my 80% earlier, sales- VAT- tax). So when I go to restaurant (cheap), and I pay for twice whopper value meal for two 40PLN (which is around 11,5 USD or 9EUR), do I pay more or less than you in US, UK or France? I bet you that it's more. If it's free market, I do not pay over 75% of taxes in that dinner for two. Even for $2/hr i will afford it easily.
@TheEmptyHunter Right now minimum wage in Poland is $2,70/hr, and that is gross, not net. Problem is: it affects only 5% of workers (980k) on wage, but 94% of businesses (1,61 mil). See a pattern?
In free-market society you have right to starve. In socialism you do not. However, in free-market society work for $2/hr may be good, may be bad. But there will be competition for my work, so it's nearly certain that somebody will give me $4/hr. But if not, those $2/hr will be enough
@TheEmptyHunter ...for me to make a living until I will find something better.
In socialism it's much harder to make that living on $2/hr, completely overlooking the fact, that you are required to take that job for $2/hr
Remember: free market trade is not a zero-sum game. If one takes job for $2/hr he is RICHER by those $2/hr, while employer is richer for more work done for him. It is not a LOSS for worker of $2 at other employer for $4/hr.
@TheEmptyHunter I believe that you missing this point: in free market nobody losses on any transaction, because else it would not take place at all (of course absent someone's mistake). If you do not want to buy from me a whopper for $10, you will go elsewhere to by it for $1. Deeming extra mile of work worth $9. And I still have a whopper which is worth to me $10, not having to sell it to you for $1. Both of us HAVE NOT LOST $9. OTOH I risk not selling the whopper at all..
@TheEmptyHunter before it's gone bad, while you risk taking a hike and still having to pay $10 for same whopper elsewhere. In socialism I'm forced to sell it to you for $5.
Now, which scenario is always A LOSS FOR BOTH OF US?
So I'm staying with my point: you are mistaking INEVITABLE force in socialism with POSSIBLY bad choice in free market.
Hitler was, atleast ostensibly, trying to rid Germany of the bankers - they assassinated Lincoln and Kennedy and destroyed Andrew Jackson and other national leaders throughout the world for making the same attempt, so he's wrong about that .. Hitler's less savoury - as some see them - social policies were not an outgrowth of his economic policy, he got them from Britain, from the Fabian Society, same place he got his concentration camps from (Kitchener, Boer War)
In my view beeing libertarian means beeing against the initiation of force against people AND the environment we need to survive,under all circumstances,but you have the right to(and should) defend yourself.Its a way of beeing,it doesnt have anithyng to do with politics.A lot of people are libertarians without knowing it,some believe they are libertarians even if they are not.If your company pours chemical waste in a river you are not really a libertarian and people should stop you with force.
Milton Friedman somehow forgets that capitalism is completely "forced". People become commodities under capitalism, we can only live as long as we are able to find work, we are forced to accept subsistence wages(subsequently unions are formed, governments regulate etc.) we work for someone else, unless we become the capitalist, then we are exploiting the others below us. Friedman's argument is completely flawed.
@Sydwayman Man has always been forced to support his own survival. That is not a property of capitalism. It is a property of nature. Capitalism is simply the extension of barter -- the trading of value for value. If you are unhappy with your wages, the answer is to become more valuable, not to whine that Friedman's argument is flawed.
@fzqlcs Man in fact has always worked together in collectives that is just the way humans are, we are social creatures my friend. I agree that capitalism is the trading of value for value, but we don't trade things of equal value in capitalism, someone is getting the raw end of the deal unless we are trading use-value for use-value, if that was the case we wouldn't have classes, therefore it wouldn't be capitalism. Continued in next post
@fzqlcs No matter how useful an individual becomes in capitalism we will always have the working class and the capitalists. The problem with this is that the people who are creating value are the same people being viewed as commodities, so the capitalist needs to buy human labor for as little as possible in proportion to the value they create. Socialism is meant to get rid of this mode of production and institute the trading of use-value for use-value so that we aren't exploiting the laborer.
@MrSecondThoughts Well it's a good thing Marx's labor theory of value is more refined then previous LTVs. The fact is all NEW value comes from human labor, or else it's not a commodity. Please tell me why the LTV holds no credit.
Labour alone does not create value, as you admit already on this page. Technology, expertise and capital are at least as important. You will say that these are derived from labor, but thats a circular argument. And thats before we get started on marginal utility, subjective usefulness and prices, which are even less related to labour.
@MrSecondThoughts I'm saying the core of value is attributed to socially-necessary labor time, which takes into account technology and the average labor time for a certain society to create commodities. Prices gravitate around the initial cost of creating the commodity, but the product must also be useful or else your'e wasting your labor, therefore use-value e.g. how many uses and the amount of any commodity being produced, accounts for raising or lowering of prices around the cost of producing
@MrSecondThoughts No, as I said before, labor creates the core of all value and prices gravitate around that core, if the cost of the commodity goes under the cost of labor involved in producing, then you lose money. Get it?
Yes thanks I understand the theory, but i don't agree with it, for reasons I already gave. Labour does not determine value, it is just one variable among many others, and that means the theory is false.
@MrSecondThoughts Yes, everyone understands that there are variables in value, namely supply and demand/societal use-value, no one is arguing that. The argument is that labor is the absolute-value which the variables must exceed or match in order to be profitable or sustainable.
Right. And no firm can sell at a price below the cost of production or it will go bust. So the worker receives the value of his labour - whats the problem?
@MrSecondThoughts The problem with labor and value in relation to capitalism is that the capitalist is exploiting the laborer by: viewing human labor as a commodity thus driving wages to subsistence through competition, using capital to devalue the labor of individuals. Commodities are created and exchanged through societies collective labor, why should an individual profit from owning the means of production, including the labor of his employees?
This argument, that capitalism exploits workers, is still derived from the labour theory of value, which we showed above to be false - the worker receives a fair price for his labour, relative to the price of the product. So far from being exploited, he is involved in a free contract, exchanging his labour for a wage.
@MrSecondThoughts You agreed that the core value of a commodity is created by labor, that is Marx's LTV. With capitalism someone is always profiting or losing, the value of labor is dropped to subsistence and when earned capital is exchanged for goods the laborer is paying a percentage for the labor and subsequent variables, but a larger percentage for the capitalist who owns the means of production, including human labor. So the laborer never earns the value of his labor.
We agreed that the wage of the worker cannot be less than the core value of the product of his labour, or the firm would not make a profit and would not be able to operate. So the worker cannot be exploited. And rather than fall to this subsistence level, wages in fact rise under capitalism, which Marx said could not happen.
@MrSecondThoughts You just repeated what I've been saying in a way that seems contradictory. I agree that many people have increased their quality of life through capitalism, not because of capitalists or laissez-faire economics but due to government regulations, welfare states and worker unionization. All of these things are bad for capitalism but benefit the working-class. All of these regulations take their toll and in the end will appear socialism.
Workers have been able to bargain for higher wages due to the success of capitalism, of the market system. And, again contra Marx, a level of regulation and union organisation is good for capitalism, as are higher wages. Beyond a certain point however they overwhelm and undermine it, and decline sets in, which is what we're seeing now in the west. And who suffers the most in this process? The working class.
@MrSecondThoughts So, what is the proper balance between unions and industry, why haven't we been able to achieve that balance and why are unions so strong? Well, the first two questions are rhetorical, but the last question is an obvious one, the working class is tired of being exploited(in the Marxist sense) by capitalists. Why is it that wages have been stagnate, or decreased for the working class, yet capitalists are earning record profits and expanding markets?
@MrSecondThoughts Everyone knows what the capitalist does when wages start to rise in any given state, they move the means of production to an underdeveloped area where subsistence wages are a leap forward for the laborers. That is what hurts the working class, not fighting for equality in our time of prosperity and capitalist profit.
@MrSecondThoughts It was exactly like the capitalist system i.e. wages stagnated, quality of living increased slightly and a ruling class gained the benefits of societies labor. Lenin's death and Stalin's subsequent takeover of the party, destroyed all hope that the SU would follow it's socialist/Marxist roots.
Fair point. But no actually existing version of a centrally-planned/command economy has matched free market enterprise system either for generating the total amount of wealth or for the high level of wages for workers. The emerging BRIC economies and their working class are getting rich by following the policies of West Germany,not East Germany.
@MrSecondThoughts In terms of production and economic growth I have to disagree with you. The SU, although not socialist but a command/control economy was the third largest economy and productive force in the world. I don't believe the Stalinist Soviet model is the future of socialism. It isn't socialism until the government is democratic and the workers control production.
If its Socialism when the government is democratic, and the workers control production, then who controls the demand that fuels the need for production? The consumer or the government? Is it an artificial demand created by government & forced upon the citizenship or an organic one that is voluntary for the citizenship to participate in?
@kirindrinker The consumers of commodities create demand. Any economist can look at the rise/fall in demand of a certain commodity over a period of time, see the trend and aim to produce more than enough to meet the demand and trade the surplus. Socialism/communism should be supported by the majority, but it can't be a voluntary system if implemented, just like capitalism isn't voluntary in the USA.
@Sydwayman Yes the consumers create an ORGANIC demand. A socialist government creates an ARTIFICIAL demand through legislation (a.k.a Force) When laws are made to force the citizens of a state to purchase a product, why of coarse production will exist & this is what Milton was explaining "Socialism is Force"
@kirindrinker A thing such as "artificial" demand wouldn't/couldn't last past production. If it isn't in demand then you are wasting your labor, it doesn't make sense, it would lead to massive losses and has nothing to do with socialist economics.
Without some agreed definitions, you get mush for discussion.
Let's let Marx define socialism, Musollini define fascism, Adam Smith define capitalism, etc....
Democracy is an old Greek word for "rule of the people"
In any honest history (before its rewritten by the victors), those guys and those definitions were seen by the millions who struggled for those ideas as the creators or definers of them. So those are the definitions that mattered.
jeffmoore9487 15 hours ago
It's never been done and there will never be a worker run society (economic democracy) until its done in a country with enough resources to go around immediately. You can't have half starving and half (or just a few) rich or you get Stalinism.
True democracy would mean that we vote on policy. But have we ever voted on any big policy? - War? Healthcare? Transportation?
Mussolini (the 1st fascist) defined fascism: Merging Industry and State. After WWll, they've tried to change the def.
jeffmoore9487 15 hours ago
Socialism means workers rule. Certainly you don't believe that the millions who fought for socialist governments believed they were fighting for dictatorships?
You have to know what they thought it meant to understand the 20th century.
The fact that "Stalinism" (One party rule + worker benefits + political repression) took over in all the failed socialisms was just a follow on effect of attempting to build socialism in poor backwards countries. But real socialism has always meant worker rule.
jeffmoore9487 15 hours ago
Comment removed
ImAznnn 1 day ago
Comment removed
ImAznnn 1 day ago
Overall I agree that capitalism is better than socialism not only because force is immoral but also because it is inefficient. However, there might be a need for a small amount of socialism (taxes) and a safety net because: Consider this scenario: There is no public land anywhere, I don't own any land (let's assume i have nothing and no job at this moment). If I sleep on the grass inside your land and you don't want me there that is trespassing. Trespassing is force. (continued)
PaulBlartMallCop1 3 days ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 (continued part two:) Invariably we are back at the use of force, I use it not because i want to but because i have to (literally i have not other choice, and not just for sleeping but even for standing). Maybe i'm missing something but you tell me.
PaulBlartMallCop1 3 days ago
socialism/capitalism...
whatever system you pick, its fucked because the greedy people always get in power
LIVINGONTHEDOLE 4 days ago
@LIVINGONTHEDOLE But socialism is considerably more dangerous because those greedy people not only control the institutions of state, but they also control the economy. At least capitalism enables citizens to own their own private property, and so in some sense have some protection from the state.
richiemayne 4 days ago 4
@richiemayne
"But socialism is considerably more dangerous because those greedy people not only control the institutions of state"
What are you talking about? In socialism the power lies with the people.
Not like in capitalism where the power lies with the few extremely wealthy and greedy who not only control the government with their money, but also the economy (which they crashed in their greed by the way)
founoe 3 days ago
@founoe you have it backwards, socialism means that the government controls commerce, the people don't get anything, in capitalism every one has the right to own property and commercial rights.
halloranedward 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@halloranedward
" the people don't get anything"
Yes they do, because under socialism, the people IS the government.
"in capitalism every one has the right to own property and commercial rights"
The right, sure, but that is not a guarantee that they do, or will even have an opportunity to do it.
Some in america are getting so insanely rich there's no opportunity left for anybody else, as Marx predicted. The only thing holding USA together is the little socialism they have.
founoe 1 day ago
2:27 - 2:41 Personal responsibility and Individualism vs. Government absolute power getting out of control.
cragmac1000 5 days ago
@cragmac1000 And that Power corrupts (but can be regulated by local individuals) but absolute power (as in a democratic/socialist/communist etc,. government) corrupts absolutely.
cragmac1000 5 days ago
there is Liberty and there is Tyranny.. it's pretty obvious which one is better.. how this socialism crap is even an argument today is a joke.. it's a loser no matter how many times you try it..
MrMeanderthal 6 days ago 3
@MrMeanderthal im not bashing you here, but you could say the same about religion.
colinthomashoare 5 days ago
fzquifs says: "Without capitalism, where do you get the incentive for the production of wealth?"
Your echoing the received truth of the corporate media and pundits. Overall, after the inevitable family arguments, are you proposing that we compete in our families to try to overwhelm each other economically, or do you cooperate? Remember, institutions that pushed socialism have largely been smashed, so the discussion comparing histories is tilted.
Your not supposed to think about some things.
jeffmoore9487 6 days ago
The argument always goes: Socialism is or leads to dictatorship pure and simple. So socialism is bad. We can see all the different countries that had socialism and they all pretty much suck. I say:
Socialism means the workers (the 99%) rule. Did that ever happen?
Marx and co knew that you couldn't build socialism in a poor, illiterate, or backwards country, but that didn't stop the people in those countries from trying and and electing or backing Marxists or Socialists. Milton smacks straw men.
jeffmoore9487 1 week ago
@jeffmoore9487 You have to build socialism in a poor, backwards country. Without capitalism, where do you get the incentive for the production of wealth? That might just be how Milton smacks down your straw man.
fzqlcs 1 week ago
@jeffmoore9487 not really. Socialism only works very small scales because the much less power to some head. In large societies socialism was take form of feudalism because there is too much power and goes to leaders heads. Every system must have way reduce evil. only way reduce evil actions through check and balances.
spark300c 2 days ago
@jeffmoore9487 socialism does not mean the workers rule, it means the exact opposite, socialism means that the government, instead of the market (the workers) runs commerce and sets prices. in a fascist government such as the one we have now, you are allowed to own property, but have no commercial rights. in communist government you have no right to own property, but in both forms of socialism,the government rules.
halloranedward 19 hours ago
CollectivePreference
I don't need to mess up this country. The banksters and industries have either left us in masse and created a stupid debt based economy from which only they will profit. A bipartisan elite will keep bombing multiple countries until the people of the Middle East throw us out, or we throw our own brutes out of power.
5,000,000 foreclosures later, nothing has been done to reign in corruption. The "job creators" aren't creating jobs and hide their money in the Cayman Islands.
jeffmoore9487 1 week ago
Ped200014, Appreciate your comment, yeah we've got reverse socialism of
sorts. Not sure I wanna take Hitlers word for much though. If you can't
imagine a socialist democracy that lifts everyone, then you're stuck
reliving the "socialism" = stalinism of all the "socialist" countries we
have been exposed to. You cannot begin a society of equals where there
isn't enough to go around. It must begin in a western country or Japan or
you'll get what we got, an ugly elite taking the cream. Not equal.
jeffmoore9487 1 week ago
@jeffmoore9487
Extraordinary. So you want to fuck up a country that became prosperous because of a liberal economy, because you immediately assume that socialism is going to become so inefficient and wasteful, that it has no chance of empowering a developing country's economy
There is nothing wrong with a class gap. In a liberal economy, all people have to do is get off their asses and compete. But for westerners now that's just too hard, they prefer to demand it through the state
CollectivePreference 1 week ago
@CollectivePreference Correction!!! You meant became prosperous of slave labor and genocide
BigDaddydigsdp 6 days ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
The irony of Milton Friedman is that he promoted a free market system, but it was based on a fractional reserve banking system and that subsequently had to be bailed out by the taxpayer to avoid a total collapse. So much for freedom.
astro7894 1 week ago
@astro7894 The problem isn't freedom...Freedom works. The problem is that our monetary system is not a free market one,but a system where the money is a fiat currency issued by a government created monopoly.
sleedolfine15 1 week ago
@sleedolfine15 and the worst thing they force other to use their money. You can't sell oil for gold, i mean you can try but you will and up like Kadaffi.
sebek23b 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Post enlightenment governments create a system of the onwers and workers through land control. It displaces the majority and favors the elite inherently who alrady posses the capital. "You have to have money to make money" is not a mere euphemism, it's literally the inherent problem post-monarchist democraties. Marx recognized this and communism was his attempt to transcend the class divide through radical leftisms primary focus on human welfare and equality over the nation-state.
ped200014 1 week ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
Some of you might be scratching your head over that because we view communism in a post-war world as totalitarian. Communist split at the bolshevic revolution in two distinct groups. Anarcho-socialists and state-socialists. We only associate communism with state socialism today. That was the divide between the menshevics and bolshevics after WWI. The statist bolshevics had the might and won the war. That is why we associate communism with totalitarianism today.
ped200014 1 week ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
Fascism sought to transcend class through nationalism. That proved extremely hard and inefficient to do because it relies fundmentally on propaganda to ensure collusion to, usually, a dictator. Fascism considered democracy itself, western democracy in particular, fundementally socialist in nature and socialism was "slave morality" and led to degridation of society over time. "We the people" is classic french leftism.
ped200014 1 week ago
US democracy attempts to transcend class through capitalism, nationalist-propaganda mechanisms and socialist progressive taxation. Our society by any objective measure has created the least class divides of any nation and has turned out to be the greatest of all through its mediocrity of parliamentarian philosphy. Socialism is theft, but so is capitalism. It's a balancing act and it works. Look at our country, literally all western democracies emulate us now.
ped200014 1 week ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 week ago
I imagine minarchists dislike talking to anarchists for reasons similar to why the other GOP candidates dislike talking to Ron Paul.
hallavast 1 week ago
Read David Stove on Benevolence.
henrycate 1 week ago
Friedman abandons his own principle when he starts talking about the military. He quite explicitly advocated the use of other people's money to do good for the nation through the military. It's the difference between minarchism and anarchism. Milton actually comes out and says he doesn't go to that extreme, because he believes there is a place for government (force). This betrays what he is saying here.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast Yep. It's kind of like either you have full government control or you have voluntarism. I'm working for the latter, sounds better. What are you working for?
slaughtz 1 week ago
@slaughtz I work for a fixture installer.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast Troll harder.
slaughtz 1 week ago
@hallavast It is only a betrayal of what he is saying if you misunderstand what he is saying. Milton Friedman's role of Government is to serve as protector from external enemies and as a referee between citizens. If you feel betrayed that is entirely your business, but his principles stand tall
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant He didn't betray ME. I never met him. I feel like my statement stands for itself, but I'll clarify. His principle is not "Government is only necessary for what I want it to be used for". That's not a principle. A socialist could say the same. That they want the government to be the arbiter between citizens. The distinction is that he's not arguing philosophy or morals, but rather details and degree. I prefer minarchism to socialism, but it's not really a principled approach.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast I understand your point, but what I am trying to clarify is Milton's stance does not betray his principles. He accepts that the role of Government is to do what cannot be achieved through private enterprise. This is in the role of the military, which I have spent hours trying to figure out how could be done without government lol, and to act as referee when citizens have disputes. Contractual or otherwise. Hence government is to be limited to these set functions. cont.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@hallavast Everything else can/should be handled by the free market. The free market is the best and most efficient way for everything else to get done. HE does not betray his principles, his principles are merely the unconventional one's with the label he is assigned I guess. In point of fact if Government could do everything it tries to do the best and most efficiently then we would all switch labels. However, it is this very failure of government that causes us to take issue.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant Military, Courts, and Police (and most people say roads). Based on free market principles, an anarchist would argue that govt is not necessary for these. In fact, Friedman uses the same argument for these things that socialists use for their programs. He's accepting the use of force for the things he thinks are best for the nation. He's ignoring the fact that he's using other people's money by force. This is his entire argument in this video. It arbitrarily contradictory.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast Actually it is not...... You are misunderstanding the difference between need and desire. See the Government needs to do Military/Courts because there is no other way to do it. Literally every other aspect of government can be done better in the free market. All Government is at it's heart is force. That is all they are capable of being. Military, the force against threats from outside, is the primary thing only Government can do. Secondly, Courts are force. cont.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant "Government needs to do Military/Courts because there is no other way to do it." This is not true. Militaries and courts both predate states. Conversely, liberals/socialists argue that their programs are also needed. Like universal healthcare and environmental laws. If the anarchist is right, and you don't NEED government, then any government program you come up with is arbitrary, and thus, an unnecessary use of force. cont.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast "Militaries and courts both predate states." Yes, but they weren't done as well in terms of the protection of the individual. For example, take the United States Military and Black-waters military. Black-water is more cost efficient, however like the pre state things you allude to it's duty is not to the individual. With regards to the Liberals/Socialists no one says they are entirely wrong cont.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@hallavast However they are wrong the moment they pass what a Government needs to do and what they personal think the Government should do.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@hallavast They are a force used to settle disputes between individuals. The difference between Milton and Socialists is the need/want. Milton accepts that Government has a role that cannot be done in the free market. Socialists have a want which is to use the force of government to impose their ideas/will upon the masses. Milton's role for Government is the role that serves the individual as an actual dependency. Socialists serve the collective out of desire.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant This really is the hinge here. There is no proper role for government. Foreign and domestic security and dispute resolution are all possible without government. I have a feeling you want to ask me how, but I don't think that's fair. I would encourage you to research that, yourself. Basically, Anarchy is the logical conclusion to the philosophy of freedom. Friedman deviates from that by putting in exceptions. If you accept that these exceptions are arbitrary, he's unprincipled.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast I do not accept this because it is simply untrue. Anarchism, like socialism, only has virtue form the ideas put behind it. It's fatal flaw however is it's inability to properly function. For instance, you wish to trade Government military adhering to laws for Blackwater. They would be more cost efficient and could only charge a use tax. However, what happens when Blackwater decides to use it's own force to enslave you after you become dependent to them?
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant I understand that you don't accept it. If your only objection is that you can not conceive of a practical use, then I encourage you to do three things: first, indulge in some research about the ideas behind voluntarism. Second, use anarchism as a philosophical tool to help determine what the role of government is and how it can be morally justified. Third, consider the political climate required for anarchy to occur. Most people are opposed to it on ignorant premises.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast I have done all of that in terms of anarchy. I liked anarchy until I realized that it was 90% solid with 10% fallacy. That 10% being the security of the individual. To explain. Suppose we overthrew all Government. In some part of the country the people with most capital/guns would in time enslave people. The majority with the guns would make the rules. This would not happen everywhere, but it would happen somewhere. cont
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant This, in fact, happens in the presence of governments.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast We are having a multi-layered discussion so if you want an educated response you will have to be less vague
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@hallavast Technological advance would be slower and scattered. Different parts of the country would develop at different rates. Those developing faster would be sought after through peaceful/non-peaceful methods. Then some imperialistic entity from another country, say Chinese or Russian, would show up and conquer us with ease. Then we do get a government only this Government could give a crap. If we are able to free ourselves we would then form a Government for our own security again.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hallavast Technological advance would be slower and scattered. Different parts of the country would develop at different rates. Those developing faster would be sought after through peaceful/non-peaceful methods. Then some imperialistic entity from another country, say Chinese or Russian, would show up and conquer us with ease. Then we do get a government only this Government could give a crap. If we are able to free ourselves we would then form a Government for our own security again.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant Also, Blackwater is not a good analogy, because the united state's government is its exclusive customer by law. It's improper to presuppose the state either on the demand or supply side of the equation when considering a stateless society and the implications thereof.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast Blackwater is a great analogy actually. Blackwater exists and if you were to succeed in your anarchistic vision that restraint of law would be non-existent. You would suddenly have a military like entity ready to at best serve as protection and at worst conquer/secure whatever area they could. Unintended consequences need to always be considered.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant Ok, you say Blackwater, but I don't like that label so I'll refer to what you're talking about as a PMC (private military company). What you advocate is a monopoly of the US military (which, on a different scale, could be called a PMC). You basically have 1 provider of a service that everyone needs. I shouldn't have to tell you what is inherently wrong with that.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast Nothing as it is a service which has to be provided by a singular Government. What you fail to understand is that Military, or PMC, will always in times end in Monopoly through agreement or occupation. Best case scenario if we overthrew all government in this country we would turn into Africa. That is the very short term best case.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@hallavast What really needs to be addressed here is your definition of betrayal. By your own standards a person is either for no Government or total Government. Anything else is a betrayal. This is simply not the case. The Government does have a role. Their role is to serve the individual in this country. Socialists want the majority to dictate policy unto the masses. That is Government force being wielded by a majority against the minority. Which is the force Milton is talking about.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant When you use the initiation of force argument, it is implied that you abide by its principle: that the IoF is never acceptable (even when you do it to fund and control a military that supposedly helps people). When you make exceptions to this argument based on your opinions, you're no longer arguing from principle. You're simply dickering about degree/details.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast Correction I am not arguing from your principle, which I am entirely ok with, however my principle is entirely secure. Government has a role to secure the safety of it's citizens and to enforce laws through the Court system. Arbitration is a means in the free market for disputing parties to avoid court; however that is their personal decision. Lastly, I totally support anarchism so long as I am part of the majority with the guns.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant I have a feeling the basic disconnect we may have on the issue of statelessness is that you feel violence is beyond the scope of supply and demand. It isn't. In fact, one of the core problems with all governments is their exclusive monopolies on violence (which tampers with the violence market).
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast There is no disconnect. I accept that in anarchy instead of Government being the military and force for security; there would be many. However these many would fight each other. Best case scenerio we live our entire lives in a fractured former USA paying a use fee for the protection of private enterprises. Worst case one of the "Security Agencies" make a deal with a foreign military and our former USA get's conquered. Then we get government anyway
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YaHuWaHservant "We are having a multi-layered discussion so if you want an educated response you will have to be less vague" In my defense, the discussion is taking a turn where I would have to eventually explain how every facet of life would work within the society that would evolve once the immoral entity that I protest would dissolve. You say you already did the research/ thought exercises I've advocated and came to a different conclusion than me. I call this a disagreement. :)
hallavast 1 week ago
@YaHuWaHservant If there's something you'd still like to discuss, I have to insist we change media slightly. Feel free to PM me, but I won't get back to you until tomorrow probably. Something I find funny and a little sad is that we're most probably political allies when it comes to American politics, as the majority of voters would find this debate negligible if not incomprehensible.
hallavast 1 week ago
@hallavast Look at the founding fathers. They had one cause which was Liberty. Then they had a lot of internal disputes over what exactly to do. That is where we are. We both see that Freedom is diminishing and the Government is doing it through the ignorant populous. Our difference is about what the role of Government is. Very limited to what I have discovered to be essential or none which you have discovered is best.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm Friedmans recommendations to Pinochet, required force to implement. As explained previously, the implementation of a free market will ALWAYS require force.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1
A free market doesnt require force because voluntary cooperation is natural between humans that seek to increase their well being.
Socialism on the other hand, requires control and that requires force.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm Free markets require force to implement. As said, NOBODY will voulantarily have their wages reduced, their pensions cut, and their unions illegalized. The ONLY way to do this is through FORCE.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1
You are confusing the idea of ecnomic and political freedom with the desire to maintain political priviligies granted by the state.
Free markets dont require legislation, the state must implement legislation to "control" the free market.
And by the way in a free market wages tend to raise with the mprovement of the production process.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
Comment removed
iCookie1 1 week ago
Funny how Friedman neglects to mention how FORCE has always been used to uphold a free market as well. From Francisco Franco's Spanish Regime, to the Junta Govt of Argentina, to Post Soviet Russia under Yeltsin, to the US before the Progressive Era, to Augusto Pinochet's Chile. In Chile, Friedmans beloved Pinochet tortured, killed, maimed and terrorized anyone who went against his wishes to implement free market reforms.
iCookie1 2 weeks ago
@iCookie1 Idiot. Be quiet.
Oxonymous 2 weeks ago
@Oxonymous What an intelligent and well-thought out response, in true libertarian spirit.
iCookie1 2 weeks ago
@iCookie1 You say something stupid you get a stupid answer.
As Friedman said a million times, Capitalism is a necessary but insufficient condition for freedom. Reletively free markets can exist in horrible dictatorial regimes, although to say he defended those regimes is abominable. The economies of those countries, however, were not dominated by force and coercion; the force was in the political sphere.
Oxonymous 2 weeks ago
@Oxonymous Pinochet had to use force to realize the free-market ideology, because he knew people would not accept it on their own. Nobody will voulantarily have their wages reduced, their pensions cut and the union they belong to illegalized. This is common sense. Thus the only other way to do it, is through force. Lastly, Friedman did willingly cooperate with Pinochet, thus he did support the regime.
iCookie1 2 weeks ago
@iCookie1
There's a certain perverse irony in the fact that the far left consistently denounces PInochet (who no doubt was a truly evil man)- and yet continues to defend dictatorships that are just as brutal. Nobody will voluntarily live on rations of less than 700 calories, or eat "food substitutes" (tree bark) to survive, or live in an apartment without heat or electricity, in a country that borders Siberia. The only way to "convince" people to accept those conditions is through force.
TheTollundWoman 1 week ago
@TheTollundWoman Please point to where I defended dictatorships that are equally brutal. Also please point to where I denied that socialism requires force.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1
The truth is that the "shock" (Naomi Klein... LOL) had happened 3 years ago when Allende's socialist policies destroyed the chilean economy, violated the constitution and polarized chilean society.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm No, the shock happened when Friedman recommended privatization, which led the Chilean govt. to privatize over 212 enterprises. The following influx of foreign speculative capital, eventually caused the collapse of the Chilean economy again in 1981. All the growth that Friedmans "monetarist" era caused, was purely speculative in nature and in reality it was just one big bubble. Even more amusing, the recession was fixed by dull old keynesian policies.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1
Do you know anything about chilean history? Please go study before talking bullshit.
Under Allende's regime the chilean economy was effectivelly destroyed, it experienced 3000% inflation, capitals fled the country, private property rights were violated by government officials and terrorist groups, businesses and land were seized by the state and production sunk to almost 0 which led to rationing and the creation of the black markets.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@iCookie1
Chilean did experienced a reccession in 1981 but in reality the recession affected the entire Latin America and Chile recovered faster than its latin american neighboors.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm The fact that you are defending a DICTATOR over a democratically elected president tells me all I need to know about you. You're claiming Alende violated property right and caused terrorist attacks, but what about the human rights abuses under Pinochet? They were 10 times worse than what Alende ever did. And claiming Alende was worse for the chilean economy than Pinochet is just laughable.
iCookie1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iCookie1
"you are defending a DICTATOR over a democratically elected president"
I never did that, learn to read
"They were 10 times worse than what Alende ever did"
Making comparinsons like that is laughable.
"And claiming Alende was worse for the chilean economy than Pinochet is just laughable."
Again, simple historical statistics.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm Pinochet was the one that polarized Chilean society. The real wages during Allende was much higher than under Pinochet. Also, unemployment during Pinochet was 300% above the mean. Investment-rates were below 1970-levels, and so on.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1
Again please go learn chilean history, there is no point in arguing with someone whith no clue about he is talking about.
Chilean society and politics begun to polarize very deeply since the middle of the 60's when the Chilean Socialist Party declared that class warfare was justified and socialists should take any action aimed to the destruction of "bourgueoise democracy", with Allende that became even acute when he declare that "Im not the president of all chileans".
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@iCookie1
Allende enacted laws to increase wages but that was a temporay fantasy, the real wages were lower and lower because all acquisitive power was gone because of the 3000% inflation in 1973.
Investment was none existant during Allende's regime mainly because of the marxist policy of mass statization and collectivization of property and land.
In fact constitutional reforms were created to stop the pillage by the state and Allende refused to signed them.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm Furthermore, the Latin American recession of the 1980s was not the dominating factor in the Chilean crisis. The dominating factor was the speculative bubble caused by Friedmans monetarist experiment.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm If you re-read my post, you'll see I never claimed investment or unemployment was good under Allende, I said they were below and above the mean, respectively, under Pinochet. As for polarization, the GINI coeffecient reached historical highs first under Pinochet. There was little or no polarization in the 1960s as you claim.
iCookie1 1 week ago
Comment removed
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm And you are confusing the idea of freedom with suppressing popular demand for priviligies granted by the state. The reality is a successfull economic liberalisation presupposes an active intervention by the state to carry out such reforms. This is common sense.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1 But that active intervention by the state is initiation of force. The liberal position is, really to say that IoF is ok, because they get what they want out of it. This ignores the problems on supply and demand, however. The result is the current and coming depression.
hallavast 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iCookie1
"I never claimed investment or unemployment was good under Allende"
I know, you were focusing on Pinochet, I dont know why.
"There was little or no polarization in the 1960s as you claim."
You simply dont understand the concept of polarization, the idea of a society divided in two camps, a society where there arent political opponents, there are only enemies.
That begun long before Pinochet
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
Comment removed
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@Oxonymous No, what he said was absolutely true. I know some try and say that the shock policies eventually led to freedom but that association is tenuous at best. However, during the build up there were routine human rights abuses and the state murdered thousands of people
TheEmptyHunter 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter
Its just common sense, a government is based on force, the power to tell people what to do, thats why a free market is incompatible with force, any regime that allows private enterprise and individual rights will see their power reduced.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
Comment removed
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1
None of your examples were free markets, the closest you mentioned was Chile and even then the government kept the economy regulated to a point, despite the recommendation by Friedman to ease the controls of the central bank.
Friedman recommend the new chilean government that in oder to fix the disaster left by Allende's socialist regime it had to respect private property and free the economy, apparently to some people that is equivalent to "support a dictatorship".
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm Yes, that's the magic of such ideologies. Because the fantasy world that it's based on, can never exist in real life, anyone who advocates it can always claim to be 100% correct. When reforms fail, just claim "LOL THATS NOT A TRUE FREE MARKET HURR DURR". It's pathetic really.
iCookie1 1 week ago
@iCookie1
I think its pathetic you dont understand what a free market is.
Social cooperation is not a fantasy, its the foundation of civilizes society.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
Fuck big government. Fuck socialism.
xtrmsprts 2 weeks ago 2
Socialism is force... forgetting that capitalism uses an essentially similar method. You don't really have a choice in either system, work or starve, that's what it reduces to.
TheEmptyHunter 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter Socialism is force, that means that under socialism YOU HAVE NO CHOICE: YOU HAVE TO WORK. I come from Poland, where we had "improved communism", which was called by then establishment "real socialsm". In those days you were FORBIDDEN TO BE UNEMPLOYED!!!! If you didn't work, THE POLICE CAME TO YOUR HOME AND TOOK YOU TO YOUR ASSIGNED WORKPLACE.
It was same with schools, by the way.
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@acepl78 I'm not going to say Poland was great. You were forced into that crap. Look at the Prague spring and the Warsaw pact invasion. But, ultimately it results in being able to eat or starve. Poland was never socialist, if defined as a place where the workers rights are respected. There wouldn't have been a need for Solidarity if they were doing what they said they were. It's funny how the Polish nightmare came to an end through the efforts of the trade union movement.
TheEmptyHunter 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter Poland was never socialist, because, as Stalin said: " imposing Communism on Roman Catholic Poland was as absurd as putting a saddle on a cow". What it was was communist. But communism and socialism are essentially the same ECONOMICALLY. They differ POLITICALLY.
Also, Solidarity was fighting for "better socialism", not freedom. It was a useful myth for the West and pretext to help them. All good here IMO.
Either way, as you say as well: we were forced. Q.E.D?
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@acepl78 Sorry: Stalin said: "imposing Socialism on Roman Catholic Poland..." It got distorted later in translation which I have stored, instead of translating directly myself.
There are two popular jokes here, which are not quite jokes really, rather anecdotes, to amplify my message:
1. Q: What differs communism and socialism? A: Communist shoots on sight, socialist tortures whole life.
2. Q: Is it possible to build socialism in Switzerland? A: Yes, but what wrong they did to you?
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@acepl78 Communism and Socialism are not the same thing, if you actually knew about the theory behind it you would know that Socialism in marxist doctrine is a transitionary phase on the road to communism which is a stateless society. I'm just saying that the "socialist" states of europe were unequal just as the "capitalist" ones were, and both use force, it's just that one uses force directly and the other uses force indirectly. The result is similar.
TheEmptyHunter 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter OK. I see what you mean. Friedman says that every country in the world is capitalistic. Even North Korea. But what are the forms of capitalism is important. Socialist: state owned and controlled means of production. In short: total central planning, where people are literally serfs. On the other side of this wheel is free market.
But nothing works without rules and laws. Those work best (not necessarily cheapest), enforced by state. But this is not the same.
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@acepl78 The concept of Socialism and equality in the eastern bloc was a giant sham, anyone who lived there would know it because the members of the communist party just became an elite that exploited the labor of others. I don't have a problem with capitalism, I think the market system has proven itself successful, but ultimately there must be checks and balances in place to ensure that people life a life that is fair
TheEmptyHunter 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter Yes, but how it goes in the direction of force in socialism and capitalism (free market)? Because we kinda drifted from that. :-)
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@acepl78 Well, I thought we had reached a point of agreement. Socialism doesn't always have to be state directed or controlled, it doesn't even require a state to exist. I find that too many right wingers like to equate socialism with what happened in eastern europe because it's a convenient way for them to brush their own problems under the rug without really being honest about the concept. People are serfs in a capitalist system, because of the hierarchy it creates. It's the same as in Social.
TheEmptyHunter 2 weeks ago
@acepl78 Force in a capitalist society comes in the form of a Hobson's choice: "If I don't work for $2 an hour for 10 hours I won't be able to eat and I will die." In a state socialist society the force is just direct: "If I don't do as i'm told the police will escort me to my work place to see that I do." They are similar mechanisms and the result is the same. People should work, but they should be given fair compensation for their labor.
TheEmptyHunter 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter Agreement? Sort of. ;-) I do not know from where are you, so I cannot show you on examples. But I hope if I use my own, it will help some. In Poland we have continuous unemployment around 20%. It does not go down, in spite of our continuous economic growth. We are 40% export economy, which helps much. But we have each year increase in minimum wage. You think there is no connection here? And this is Hobson's choice coming from GOVERNMENT. But there's more.
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter 2. minimum wage affects directly payments for social security for small business. Those payments are required even if business has a loss instead of profit. Min. wages affect also various extra earnings, mainly for unionized workers. See a pattern? We have no choice in regard of health service (unless you are willing to pay twice: tax and fee), no choice in regard of pension (one, state system, which pays pensions less than half of earning earlier)...
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter ... and older people do not have free health services. So they pay way more for medicine, often not having enough for living. Which is not suprising, because prices are higher than in Germany, which is much wealthier country. And when I say higher, i mean that literally. Only food is marginally cheaper and still better.
Do you know that average polish worker is taxed in excess of 80%? And the less he earns, the more he pays? No, this is not a joke.
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter Within free market taxation usually is no higher than 20% total (including, as with my 80% earlier, sales- VAT- tax). So when I go to restaurant (cheap), and I pay for twice whopper value meal for two 40PLN (which is around 11,5 USD or 9EUR), do I pay more or less than you in US, UK or France? I bet you that it's more. If it's free market, I do not pay over 75% of taxes in that dinner for two. Even for $2/hr i will afford it easily.
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter Right now minimum wage in Poland is $2,70/hr, and that is gross, not net. Problem is: it affects only 5% of workers (980k) on wage, but 94% of businesses (1,61 mil). See a pattern?
In free-market society you have right to starve. In socialism you do not. However, in free-market society work for $2/hr may be good, may be bad. But there will be competition for my work, so it's nearly certain that somebody will give me $4/hr. But if not, those $2/hr will be enough
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter ...for me to make a living until I will find something better.
In socialism it's much harder to make that living on $2/hr, completely overlooking the fact, that you are required to take that job for $2/hr
Remember: free market trade is not a zero-sum game. If one takes job for $2/hr he is RICHER by those $2/hr, while employer is richer for more work done for him. It is not a LOSS for worker of $2 at other employer for $4/hr.
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter I believe that you missing this point: in free market nobody losses on any transaction, because else it would not take place at all (of course absent someone's mistake). If you do not want to buy from me a whopper for $10, you will go elsewhere to by it for $1. Deeming extra mile of work worth $9. And I still have a whopper which is worth to me $10, not having to sell it to you for $1. Both of us HAVE NOT LOST $9. OTOH I risk not selling the whopper at all..
acepl78 2 weeks ago
@TheEmptyHunter before it's gone bad, while you risk taking a hike and still having to pay $10 for same whopper elsewhere. In socialism I'm forced to sell it to you for $5.
Now, which scenario is always A LOSS FOR BOTH OF US?
So I'm staying with my point: you are mistaking INEVITABLE force in socialism with POSSIBLY bad choice in free market.
acepl78 2 weeks ago
Humanity suffered a great lost the day Milton Friedman passed away......mo doubt!
stevegoff420 2 weeks ago
Hitler was, atleast ostensibly, trying to rid Germany of the bankers - they assassinated Lincoln and Kennedy and destroyed Andrew Jackson and other national leaders throughout the world for making the same attempt, so he's wrong about that .. Hitler's less savoury - as some see them - social policies were not an outgrowth of his economic policy, he got them from Britain, from the Fabian Society, same place he got his concentration camps from (Kitchener, Boer War)
AlanWattParrot 3 weeks ago
@AlanWattParrot
Just say what you mean you pussy - you like Hitler because he tried to get rid of the Jews
MrSecondThoughts 3 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts scanning ppl's comments n rattling off flippant replies to get a rise out of them
are you really that desperate for attention? lol
AlanWattParrot 3 weeks ago
@AlanWattParrot
I think your reply is what psychotherapists call 'projection'
MrSecondThoughts 2 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts i think not. I think my reply is what i wd call accurate.
AlanWattParrot 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my view beeing libertarian means beeing against the initiation of force against people AND the environment we need to survive,under all circumstances,but you have the right to(and should) defend yourself.Its a way of beeing,it doesnt have anithyng to do with politics.A lot of people are libertarians without knowing it,some believe they are libertarians even if they are not.If your company pours chemical waste in a river you are not really a libertarian and people should stop you with force.
affilinet 1 month ago
Milton Friedman somehow forgets that capitalism is completely "forced". People become commodities under capitalism, we can only live as long as we are able to find work, we are forced to accept subsistence wages(subsequently unions are formed, governments regulate etc.) we work for someone else, unless we become the capitalist, then we are exploiting the others below us. Friedman's argument is completely flawed.
Sydwayman 1 month ago
@Sydwayman Man has always been forced to support his own survival. That is not a property of capitalism. It is a property of nature. Capitalism is simply the extension of barter -- the trading of value for value. If you are unhappy with your wages, the answer is to become more valuable, not to whine that Friedman's argument is flawed.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Man in fact has always worked together in collectives that is just the way humans are, we are social creatures my friend. I agree that capitalism is the trading of value for value, but we don't trade things of equal value in capitalism, someone is getting the raw end of the deal unless we are trading use-value for use-value, if that was the case we wouldn't have classes, therefore it wouldn't be capitalism. Continued in next post
Sydwayman 1 month ago
@fzqlcs No matter how useful an individual becomes in capitalism we will always have the working class and the capitalists. The problem with this is that the people who are creating value are the same people being viewed as commodities, so the capitalist needs to buy human labor for as little as possible in proportion to the value they create. Socialism is meant to get rid of this mode of production and institute the trading of use-value for use-value so that we aren't exploiting the laborer.
Sydwayman 1 month ago
@Sydwayman
Labour theories of value have been discredited since even before Marx.
MrSecondThoughts 1 month ago
@MrSecondThoughts Well it's a good thing Marx's labor theory of value is more refined then previous LTVs. The fact is all NEW value comes from human labor, or else it's not a commodity. Please tell me why the LTV holds no credit.
Sydwayman 1 month ago
@Sydwayman
Labour alone does not create value, as you admit already on this page. Technology, expertise and capital are at least as important. You will say that these are derived from labor, but thats a circular argument. And thats before we get started on marginal utility, subjective usefulness and prices, which are even less related to labour.
MrSecondThoughts 4 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts I'm saying the core of value is attributed to socially-necessary labor time, which takes into account technology and the average labor time for a certain society to create commodities. Prices gravitate around the initial cost of creating the commodity, but the product must also be useful or else your'e wasting your labor, therefore use-value e.g. how many uses and the amount of any commodity being produced, accounts for raising or lowering of prices around the cost of producing
Sydwayman 4 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
To say that labour is part of the value of a commodity is a truism, and trivial. LTV says that labour DETERMINES value, and you agree that is false.
MrSecondThoughts 4 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts No, as I said before, labor creates the core of all value and prices gravitate around that core, if the cost of the commodity goes under the cost of labor involved in producing, then you lose money. Get it?
Sydwayman 4 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
Yes thanks I understand the theory, but i don't agree with it, for reasons I already gave. Labour does not determine value, it is just one variable among many others, and that means the theory is false.
MrSecondThoughts 4 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts Yes, everyone understands that there are variables in value, namely supply and demand/societal use-value, no one is arguing that. The argument is that labor is the absolute-value which the variables must exceed or match in order to be profitable or sustainable.
Sydwayman 4 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
Right. And no firm can sell at a price below the cost of production or it will go bust. So the worker receives the value of his labour - whats the problem?
MrSecondThoughts 4 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts The problem with labor and value in relation to capitalism is that the capitalist is exploiting the laborer by: viewing human labor as a commodity thus driving wages to subsistence through competition, using capital to devalue the labor of individuals. Commodities are created and exchanged through societies collective labor, why should an individual profit from owning the means of production, including the labor of his employees?
Sydwayman 4 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
This argument, that capitalism exploits workers, is still derived from the labour theory of value, which we showed above to be false - the worker receives a fair price for his labour, relative to the price of the product. So far from being exploited, he is involved in a free contract, exchanging his labour for a wage.
MrSecondThoughts 4 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts You agreed that the core value of a commodity is created by labor, that is Marx's LTV. With capitalism someone is always profiting or losing, the value of labor is dropped to subsistence and when earned capital is exchanged for goods the laborer is paying a percentage for the labor and subsequent variables, but a larger percentage for the capitalist who owns the means of production, including human labor. So the laborer never earns the value of his labor.
Sydwayman 4 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
We agreed that the wage of the worker cannot be less than the core value of the product of his labour, or the firm would not make a profit and would not be able to operate. So the worker cannot be exploited. And rather than fall to this subsistence level, wages in fact rise under capitalism, which Marx said could not happen.
MrSecondThoughts 4 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts You just repeated what I've been saying in a way that seems contradictory. I agree that many people have increased their quality of life through capitalism, not because of capitalists or laissez-faire economics but due to government regulations, welfare states and worker unionization. All of these things are bad for capitalism but benefit the working-class. All of these regulations take their toll and in the end will appear socialism.
Sydwayman 4 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
Workers have been able to bargain for higher wages due to the success of capitalism, of the market system. And, again contra Marx, a level of regulation and union organisation is good for capitalism, as are higher wages. Beyond a certain point however they overwhelm and undermine it, and decline sets in, which is what we're seeing now in the west. And who suffers the most in this process? The working class.
MrSecondThoughts 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Sydwayman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSecondThoughts So, what is the proper balance between unions and industry, why haven't we been able to achieve that balance and why are unions so strong? Well, the first two questions are rhetorical, but the last question is an obvious one, the working class is tired of being exploited(in the Marxist sense) by capitalists. Why is it that wages have been stagnate, or decreased for the working class, yet capitalists are earning record profits and expanding markets?
Sydwayman 3 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts Everyone knows what the capitalist does when wages start to rise in any given state, they move the means of production to an underdeveloped area where subsistence wages are a leap forward for the laborers. That is what hurts the working class, not fighting for equality in our time of prosperity and capitalist profit.
Sydwayman 3 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
And what happened to wages in the socialist Soviet Union?
MrSecondThoughts 3 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts It was exactly like the capitalist system i.e. wages stagnated, quality of living increased slightly and a ruling class gained the benefits of societies labor. Lenin's death and Stalin's subsequent takeover of the party, destroyed all hope that the SU would follow it's socialist/Marxist roots.
Sydwayman 3 weeks ago
@Sydwayman
Fair point. But no actually existing version of a centrally-planned/command economy has matched free market enterprise system either for generating the total amount of wealth or for the high level of wages for workers. The emerging BRIC economies and their working class are getting rich by following the policies of West Germany,not East Germany.
MrSecondThoughts 3 weeks ago
@MrSecondThoughts In terms of production and economic growth I have to disagree with you. The SU, although not socialist but a command/control economy was the third largest economy and productive force in the world. I don't believe the Stalinist Soviet model is the future of socialism. It isn't socialism until the government is democratic and the workers control production.
Sydwayman 3 weeks ago
If its Socialism when the government is democratic, and the workers control production, then who controls the demand that fuels the need for production? The consumer or the government? Is it an artificial demand created by government & forced upon the citizenship or an organic one that is voluntary for the citizenship to participate in?
kirindrinker 3 weeks ago
@kirindrinker The consumers of commodities create demand. Any economist can look at the rise/fall in demand of a certain commodity over a period of time, see the trend and aim to produce more than enough to meet the demand and trade the surplus. Socialism/communism should be supported by the majority, but it can't be a voluntary system if implemented, just like capitalism isn't voluntary in the USA.
Sydwayman 3 weeks ago
@Sydwayman Yes the consumers create an ORGANIC demand. A socialist government creates an ARTIFICIAL demand through legislation (a.k.a Force) When laws are made to force the citizens of a state to purchase a product, why of coarse production will exist & this is what Milton was explaining "Socialism is Force"
kirindrinker 3 weeks ago
@kirindrinker A thing such as "artificial" demand wouldn't/couldn't last past production. If it isn't in demand then you are wasting your labor, it doesn't make sense, it would lead to massive losses and has nothing to do with socialist economics.
Sydwayman 3 weeks ago