the same hierarchies develop in Capitalist and Socialist systems... is it any wonder that every socialist country quickly reverted to a hierarchical structure that left the workers as the lowest class while political elites maintained control. Socialism would be a great system if people could be trusted to adhere to it but it is impossible to implement, it always degenerates into state capitalism with the state serving the political elite... a totalitarian state oppressing the people.
Areed, but not every contry, not every type of socialism. There are degrees of autoritariansim, class division, with more or less democracy, Chavez and Tito are not same as Stalin. Universal health care and education are socialist ideas. For example Spain, more precisly Catalonia and Zaragosa, between 1936-1939 is alternative type of socialism. Libertarian socialism, anarchism was from the beginig(First International and so on) in the opposition to state-socialism
Communism was Karl Marx's "solution" to Capitalism's monopolies, which had grown to become mini dictatorships around the labor and production of certain products available to the public. Unfortunately, these responses involved governmental dictatorship over the entire general public themselves, not just the employees of the specific products.
The monopoly problem was solved with antitrust laws that allowed room for competition and choice, which eliminated the product-specific "dictatorships".
Communism and Socialism were developed as a response to Capitalism's successes and far-reaching influence. They were developed by people such as Karl Marx, who didn't fully understand the mechanisms of the marketplace surrounding him.
Since Both are built on the fruits and foundation of Capitalism, they take the accumulated assets for granted, and don't understand that the foundation collapses and fruits disappear when they eliminate the incentive machine that produced those assets.
This economic language is unnecessary makeup, a coverup for a lack of substance, it only shows the weakness of the argument. Please, quote K. Marx where it shows his lack of understanding of markets and other claims, like his solutions to monopoly.
New technologies are invented because of profit motive. Nobody denied that. But many of this new technologies didn't do the job for us but just made us work faster. We have more, cheaper but we work more also.
@organdva Marx saw some of the excesses of the monopolies and blamed it on Capitalism, since at the time, the two were inseparable. He was correct that it needed fixing. But he didn't want to fix it because he was also unhappy about what he saw as "exploitation". He assumed that the profits were being extracted from the workers -like milk from cows-, rather than being produced from nothing as part of an enterprise, which is what was actually going on. He didn't know value is created
I asure you, Marx didn't want to fix capitalism in any way, monompolyes or anything. Capitalism was just a phase, mode of production, way of organising in human hystory that will end by a revolution. Marx come from philosophy and his "fetishism of comodities" is the central theory that is multyfielded, not just applied to economy, but to psyhology etc.
He did know! "Labour theory of value". Come on, don't talk out of your ass ;)
Idea of recourse based economy is taken from libertarian communism. Market is just a voting system where you vote with your money. Money as ballot is printed out of nothing yet they have value like nothing else. They have value of the whole system functioning. Most of social ills are because of bad organization. We need to replace this parliamentary democracy and market economy with direct-democratically planned economy.
@organdva money as a Ballot......direct Democracy......sounds nice, BUT
if a Doctor performed surgery on your body, would money be what determines the quality and safety of care you received or would science be that which determines the best possible survival of your livelihood? And, Democracy is MOB RULE! Only 51% of the people will get what they want, the other 49% loses out! Scientific Method should be what determines our Social/economic structure!
On the opposite, I'm for abolition of money; for direct face-to-face engagement, if it is on higher level, like city or region, I'm for delegates on imperative mandate. Sometimes you are in minority and sometimes you are in majority, and consensus is preferable but if not then 2/3 majority rule. Science is not ideologically free, and it serves establishment - look at epistemological anarchism. Technocracy is failure, watch Pandora Box documentary from A. Curtis
Capitalism and Democracy are bad, why? because they allow a certain group of people to have power and control of the resources of this earth from other people. Democracy is mob rule. Only 51% will be satisfied, but what about the 49% who lost the vote? Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, are all conducted by human opinion. What we need is a Resource Based Economy, where the Earth determines our livelihood!
Capitilism isn't the problem. The problem is the people running. Capitalism thrives when there is proper regulation and balance. It's also the fact we aren't using own our resources. We aren't recycling. We aren't producing new technology to cut down energy waste and pollution. Socialism and communism is a pipe dream that only leads to further suppression of freedom. You can take your government controling every aspect of life and shove it up your ass!
"We" who? Majority in capitalism don't have power to decide how and what to produce. So, there can be only "they". But "they", the ruling minority are - on one side: forced by market competition so they can't be concerned with the environment but only with staying in business - on the other side: they are on top because they are careless and they wish to stay on top. I don't need government(top-down decision making power) in libertarian communism.
Sounds a lot like a "socialist" dictatorship such as a Gaddafi or a Saddam Hussien. How all power goes through them, how they have secret police and a corrupt administration, how they pit their own people against each other to stay in power, how they act rich and noble, and how they pick on neighbor states.
2 and then, youre back to square-zero, proving once again, that the truest form of of Govern-Mental, is that some are 'more equal' than others. Caste and class systems. Empire
sorry crystal-huggers, hoping for a truely revolutionised socety, but there isnt really a such thing as 'rights'. rights cannot be taken away, by any amount of force. privelidges however, can and often are taken by force.
Long Live the Empire, because it will, weather we like it or not, and because its in our blood.
1 in the end, there is only one real form of government : feudalism. since the dawn of government, there has only been the rich and powerful, or the poor and de-powered, & up until about 1776, you could either be one or the other, no in-betweens.
now theres a 3rd option, a new idea on the block. If you dont like Rex, you can go to another place and make your own damn toys.... but then it ends up that you get to be the new rex, insidiously shifting the rules to consolidate power for yourself.
@Zoie3x8 Yeah pretty much. That's basically what the founders of this country did, founded a new empire and then screwed the people who served them out of what they were promised.
On one side you have capitalist economists who clam that: capitalism existed as the first exchange of goods; on the other side capitalist apologetic (mostly (neo)classical) who have most impossible criteria. The latter are ati-state as anarchists are but come to realization that state is needed to protect the private property and then they end up in classical liberal position defending the state necessity. Capitalists don't have a consensus on meaning of words, why should socialists?
The Fernegi are Exactly like the Jews in their greed and capitalistic ethics ! The only diffrence is that the Ferengi a lot "Better Looking" ha ha ha ha !! The Ferengi are Obiuosly the Jews of Outer Space !! In this case the Ferengi are the True Appearance of the Jewish Soul !
All social antagonisms of capitalism was projected into the "Jew", in the same way the Ferengi are personification of free market philosophy. Contradictory, the "Jew" is also blamed for communism by the Nazis.
@organdva I do Not blame the Jews for communism but most of the Zionist jews have the Ethics of a parasite when it comes to buisness and Capitalism , This last Wall Street breakdown that nearly ruined our ecconomy was due to most to GreedyZionist Jews and that is fact and even some of the Talmudic Jews where hurt by that those rotten bastards. My main grievance is NOT against the Jews in general but against the Zionist Jews who have made Money their New God .
Isn't this parasitic ethics the point of capitalism? Workers are alienated from the product of their labor and capitalist profit is non-labor income. Rent and interest is also non-labor income. Capitalism itself is parasitic and the capitalists that don't parasite enough become outcompeted. The whole economic system is pushing everyone to act immoral. Deregulation of finance capital, banks made the crash happen. If you don't act greedy you become unsuccessful in capitalism.
Money is just a bad way of voting for products - one dollar one vote. In decentralized planned economy from bottom up this voting for products is done direct democratically, so money become unnecessary. Money is some kind of mediation from one producer to another producer and in libertarian planed economy producers are directly and personally linked together so there is no need for any mediation, money.
Furthermore the Nazi's murdered and persecuted socialists..not conservatives.The left has a fine tradition of anti-fascism and when I have been on rallies against fascism it is the left that make up the vast majority of attendees.The American hard right don't seem to know whether to love fascism or blame it all on the socialists.The latter position is an insult to the brave left wing Germans who lost their lives fighting Nazism.Stop inventing the history that you prefer and accept it as it was.
Grandfunker please read some history books and stop listening to Glenn Beck.Adolf Hitler was not a socialist..as Russ Bellant proved Nazi emigree's gravitated to the Republican Party instead of the Dems by a ratio of 9 :1 ..as Daniel Goldhagen' observed in his brilliant "Hitler's Willing Executioner's" it was only amongst the socialist intelligensia and the communists that anti-semitism was not prevalent in Germany.GM Motor's,Ford and German capitalists were all partial to Nazism.
Funny you say that when in fact it is the Chinese "communist" system that most mirrors the Ferrengi Laws of Acquisition, especially #1 - Once you have their money, don't give it back.
I love how you start off this 'example of capitalism' with the teacher GIVING 'Rex' all the toys without earning them. How in God's name is that capitalism. That is the ESSENCE of socialism, a powerful authority (teacher here) giving all the wealth to their favorite student (constituency). All Rex has to do is be the teacher's friend or convince the teacher he 'NEEDS' the toys and he gets it. Starting a story that is supposed to critique capitalism with a socialist/communist premise = FAIL!!
We live today in global capitalism that is unable to provide for human needs like food and shelter for what economy should be all about. The fact, also, is that the wast majority of wealth is owned by small minority of people - the ruling class. Capitalism on one hand have minority who enjoy in luxury of villas, yachts, fast cars, expensive clothes etc. and on the other majority of people who struggle to survive.
angpetru talked about authoritarian socialism which is viewed as state-capitalism from libertarian perspective.
Rex(King) is the one who has -god-given- right to own everything, that system is called politically - monarchy and economically - feudalism. Feudalism is where property rights come from that capitalism inherited in which minority controls majority. I also explained down in comment section what is the difference between "needs" and "wants".
@organdva Name me one person who is wealthy, outside of those descended from European nobility, who has inherited their wealth from a person who claimed it due to some 'God-given right'. Did Donald Trump claim his fortune this way or did he achieve it through investment? Did Bill Gates get rich by claiming a 'God-given right' or did he EARN it by producing something of value? These people have no God given right to the wealth they earned any more than YOU have a right to THEIR wealth.
@airbender721 Donald Trump inherited billions, you idiot. The acquisition phase of capitalism largely predates capitalism, and continues during it. Imposed property, based around theft, is how the entire american continent was built. It's how the wealth of the most wealthy british people was built, etc. The idea that there was a clean break between feudalism and capitalism is utter bullshit. Between the mercantile HEIC and the capitalist Congo Free State, the differences are almost inexistent
@organdva Both systems are equally corrupable, only socialism in its tennants strip the rights of the individual, see Michael Badranik's consitution class. You think violent oppression only exists in capitalist nations? You've let the youtube community down sir.
@organdva Capitalism is unable to provide for human needs? I don't think you're really considering the alternatives. It doesn't provide for human needs compared to what system and to what period of time are we comparing. You will be hard pressed to find a time when people are better off I'm sorry to say. I honestly think you underestimate just how much people have suffered over the years, not having a car is not equal to suffering.
@organdva Not true, when there are monopolies, there is no longer capitalism. If the antitrust rules are enforced, capitalism works. Take banks that were supposedly too big to fail. They made them merge and eliminated their competition while buying them pennies on the dollar. This happened during the great depression as well. Eliminate the federal reserve stops preferential zero percent loans and outright gifts of cash to banks and businesses. Then and only then capitalism works.
@angpetru giving the toys to Rex was not a display socialism, but was merely an expedient way to get to the point trying to be made--it was meant as a way of skipping the acquisition stage or capitalism.
capitalism enables the consolidation of wealth *toys* within the minority *Rex*, so there was nothing wrong with the start of the scenario ^^
@kaishininjou Yet again you glaze over the MOST IMPORTANT PART. The acquisition phase is where the person EARNS what they 'consolidate'. It is the difference between whether 'Rex' got the toys by giving the other kids something else in exchange that they wanted more than their toys (Capitalism and Free Trade), or if he stole them or had the teacher steal for him (Tyranny/Theft/Socialism). If he got the toys by convincing the other children to WILLINGLY part with them why shouldn't he get them?
@airbender721 yeah, i, uhh...didnt glaze over ANYTHING. i SAID the acquisition phase was skipped to expedite getting to the point of the video. that way, they could just go from the scenario of what Rex DOES once he has the toys. it really doesnt matter HOW they were acquired, because its irrelevant to the scenario being presented, since its focusing on what occurs after that.
also, are you trying to justify consolidation? how the FUCK is consolidation EVER a good thing? please elaborate ^^
@kaishininjou Indeed, the capitalist phase in Europe merely consolidated the wealth of the feudal phase, while letting in the wealthy merchants. The post-colonial phase in the americas saw the expansion of established wealth into the land stolen by the american republics, largely to the benefit of the upper class.
@angpetru Well, take a look at how many major (even respected) companies have gotten so off of government (i.e. your tax dollar and mine) contracts. Also, consider mining, logging, and oil companies who extract resources from the commons while paying (if anything) pennies on the dollar. Now look at the growing monopolies in virtually all industries. That's capitalism in practice, not theory.
@bmillerbiop That is not capitalism, that is corporatism. What you are describing did not occur as a result of private property rights and profit seeking. That is the result of government, through taxation and the use of force, granting special privileges to companies. If private property rights are respected under law then there can be no such thing as monopolies. The root problem is that 'common people' have allowed government agents to do this, so companies take advantage of what is offered.
@angpetru But why do you think “government” does this? They just wake up one day and decide to screw the many for the benefit of the few? No, they do it at the behest of their corporate patrons and handlers. “Government” is now just the enforcement arm. Corporatism is simply the end stage of Capitalism. There’s no homeostatic mechanism in Capitalism to ensure things stay in balance. It’s the reverse: the more wealth&power an entity has, the easier it becomes to skew things further in their favor
@bmillerbiop Well then what is your alternative. If by definition the government just becomes a puppet for people who wish to take advantage on its ability to force others, wouldn't the rational solution be to not let government get too much power? To allow the power of choice to remain with the individual? That would mean LESS government regulation. What is the magical alternative to 'fix' this problem?
@angpetru There are a number of little fixes along the way like no private money in politics or progressive taxation or closing tax loopholes, but the ultimate source of most socio-economic evil is the debt-and-interest-base monetary system that forces unsustainable growth, eternal debt-expansion, an inevitable wealth disparity. I cite the Brandeis quote: You can have great concentrations of wealth or you can have democracy, but you can't have both.
@bmillerbiop Also, I don't see the possibility of transitioning from Capitalism to Corporatism as an attack on Capitalism. Capitalism does not necessarily turn into corporatism unless people allow more power to be allocated to government. Capitalism and government are like a campfire, very good and useful, but if you don't watch it and let government run amok you WILL end up with a forest fire, but that does not mean fire is evil.
@angpetru Capitalism turns into Corporatism as its own natural evolution. And it has more to do with increasing CORPORATE power and its resulting ability to corrupt government - making the latter LESS effectual. Government is ideally supposed to be the protector of the little guy. When it has been co-opted and "drowned in a bathtub", then it's just you versus Monsanto and Blue Cross and BP - and whatever outrages they want to impose on you.
@bmillerbiop Socialism and Communism on the other hand is BASED on the initiation of force and the imposing on the 'will of the people' (i.e. mob rule) on everyone. Here is the basic difference: Capitalism is the most free system you can have IF you KEEP government out of influencing it. Socialism/Communism is an UNFREE system that CAN'T WORK without government force.
@angpetru Where are corporations in your equation of evil? Do you think the largest corps try to take over the world and kill competition because of the government? Govt is just supposed to be people doing collectively what they can’t do individually-like protect ourselves from corporate and other marauders. It’s just been corrupted by special interest $. Further, corporations also strive to kill your freedom (by ideally limiting you to once choice - theirs) EgNote the few# of cellular providers
@angpetru Wrong, Socialism in it's Purest form is not bad and only becomes corrupted when the greedy elements of Capitalism are allowed to enter and INFEST IT ! Same with communism. But Pass laws agains the basic principles of Greed and It will keep all corruption on the outside . Such laws would range in degrees. Anyone convicted of a 3rd degree crime ( of greed) would face the death penalty! Combine this with an economic system based on Resources available and you got a Perfect Government !
@angpetru Yes , so Who is basis of analogy of the teacher in this world? They are called Reptilians and "Rex" is the Powerfull Few. who have now become " the New World Order" .
@angpetru I disagree with both of you. Rex defines present day banks and the federal reserve. Study both banks and the fed outside a college atmosphere. It's a monopoly.
@angpetru lol maybe this is the part that explains "needs to devise strategies for keeping the other kids 'divided' amongst themselves." Don't you think if one brings up socialism vs capitalism the big picture gets lost because there's squabbling among more minor, less important issues. Rex having all the toys is symbolic of the small powerful elite in this country who retain almost absolutely all the wealth.
Market Capitalism is rightly FALLEN. Consider THAT a Gift from this world's ruling Oligarchy.
Capitalism is NOTHING more than a system of organized EXPLOITATION, all to service CAPITAL.
Despite the pleasures – momentary, of consumption - Unfettered Consumption is NOT sustainable. WORSE, to 'work', Capitalism pits the Race Human against itself. It has RESULTED in the degradation of Earth's ENVIRONMENT and thusly the QUALITY of LIFE.
I'd get booted from youtube if I'd made a video showing the true face of socialism...theft of evrything of value...up to and including your soul...read history...capitalism has created a few bad apples...there is evil everywhere, but the truth is...EVERY time socialism is tried it not only fails, but it causes misery...death...Lennin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Il...Ho-Chi-Minh...all mass murderers all socialists of one stripe or another.
Learn how to use ellipses. Collect your thoughts and then write something readable. I'm for stateless socialism(i.e. anarchy) so this doesn't apply as criticism to me. I reject justification of one corrupt system by pointing to another one. Last time I saw someone used ''the great evil dictators argument'' was from a fascist YTuser(HokiesAndDawgs) in video ''Communism back in fashion'' - check it out if you don't believe me.
@GrandFunker adolf hitler was not a socialist, he was a nazist, which is as far from socialism as it gets. And socialism do cause problems, but so do capitalism. You really have to find some middleground to make the world work..
@Deniecu just a lil basic language tip...Nazi, translated means...you guessed it! NATIONAL SOCIALIST!! Not to mention how he took over healthcare...it's a means of control if you didn't know. Capitalism WORKS...socialism DOES NOT WORK. It's a historically proven failure, which relies upon theft and control. Capitalism has created problems, sure. It's like guns...they don't kill people, but they have been used by unscrupulous people to kill others. We need to be good people...people of principal.
@GrandFunker That's it.. Let me guess, you think highly of yourself, even though you'd never admit it, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be so bloody patronising to everyone on this forum. Your defenition of sheep is this "A person who does not, infact, can not think for himself, he obeys the "dogs" every bark without question, he can never ever ever ever learn to think outside the narrow and closeminded view he has been given by his "masters", because he is a mere sheep, below me" -.-
@GrandFunker since you throw terms around like an idiot, you try researching what shit your saying instead of throwing more shit into a shit pool of stupid un-truths.
Everything around you that you see, your nice living conditions, your nice wages have all been fought for by socialists, unionists, and forward thinkers. many have died.
and actually, the National Socialist Government of Nazi Germany has nothing to do with socialism, and what Glen Beck and Fox tells you are lies, pure and simple.
BTW, as an ametuer military historian, i find your general lack of knowledge about the events leading up to the second world war not only demeaning to all those who fought to defeat the Nazi's, but deeply troubling for the simple fact of "Those who forget history are forever doomed to repeat it"
for god sakes, some one tell Palin she needs to learn geography and grammer / spelling skills
BTW GrandFunker, Socialism has never failed. go look up Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and understand the fundamental differences between socialism and communism, and while your at it fascism too, since you don't know the difference, then make a difficult connection between that and your idol
@xile87 Yeah...I'm the idiot, and Glenn Beck is a liar...could you prove either statement> No...if Glenn were a liar, he wouldn't insist peeps do their own research. The translation says SOCIALIST, his activity says SOCIALIST, but I'm the idiot. The unions were...WERE a force for good. Now they are the seat of evil. They are the cause of much of the financial difficulty that's happening around the world. Forward thinkers? You mean "progressives"? I could go on all day about the damage done there
Nazi ideology stressed the failures of communism, liberalism, and democracy, and supported the "racial purity of the German people" and that of other Northwestern Europeans. The Nazis persecuted those they perceived as either race enemies or Lebensunwertes Leben, that is "life unworthy of living". This included Jews, Slavs, Roma, and so-called "Mischlinge" along with Communists, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, and others.
@GrandFunker was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]
In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximize use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximizing exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means
Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice, and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents, and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society
hows that for research? easy to find if you know what to look for
@xile87 No matter how you paint it, it's wrong. It relies on THEFT. If democratic socialism were a good idea, Europe wouldn't be going broke, and we wouldn't be seeing riots. You're what? about ten, maybe fifteen miles back on this track? Keep going kid, you just may get it someday.
@xile87 Where do socialists get their money? Is their a magic garden, where it grows on trees? The US is going broke, because we've had douchebag democrats pushing us into socialist policies, that are usually scams, designed to steal peoples money. Social security was a scam. Most folks did not live until retirement age when it was implemented. You obviously don't understand the argument. You are sad...i will pray for you.
scams, stealing, money... my god i never saw it that way....
oh wait, what about all that money bush spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, to find a man who needs daily kidney dialysis, and the recession caused by his policies on the economy?
and oh... you mean taxes for stealing. granted, Jesus called taxation stealing. i call it requirement. you like to have an amry not armed with muskets? love those 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers? what do you think paid for those?
also note that i'm against the 2 party political system, and i'm against non-proportional voting systems, as they devalue the vote of a person.
Please also note that i don't confuse POLITICAL SYSTEMS with ECONOMIC SYSTEMS.
and you're not going broke because of "Democrat Douchebags", you're going broke because of unregulated economics causing a failure of many business and a general lack of corporate ethics
@xile87 what is your point? Are you trying to win the "World's Biggest Douche Bag" contest? What you are telling me falls into two categories...one-it's a load of bullshit, and two-it's got nothing to do with the discussion. You're not against capitaism, and yet you spew socialist propaganda. Anyone with a brain is against the two party system. That said...when you get two choices, you take one...I'd take George W Bush over ANY democrat from the last 40-50 years...ANY democrat.
I never said that capitalism never works. you might be reading that from your head, but i never said that. what I've been trying to tell and show you are the differences between the thing that you should be scared of, Communism (!which is not socialism!) and the thing you are slandering.
@GrandFunker You want to talk about dictators? Sure, we can do that. We can bring up Suharto, Pinochet, Mobutu Sese Soko, Carlos Castillo Armas, Francois Duvalier, Ferdinand Marcos, Anastasio Somoza García, as well as several others. Not familiar with them? Go look them up. All good capitalists too.
@unclebanana I believe capitalism can NOT work under tyranny...but thats' a different argument. Let's say you're right. All these capitalist dictators...just a small minority really. Whereas you look at communism...always oppressive. Socialism arguably less so...but still so. Without controls of some sort...someone to take from...there is no socialism. While capitalism can be perverted into tyranny, socialism is by it's very nature tyrannical
@kitzlaihel Yeah. I saw this wannabe capitalists justifying child-prostitution, slavery just to make their system work. They wish to become capitalists so hard and taxation is in their way - unfortunately also the people who can't take care of themselves like disabled, children, elderly, sick and the environment. They go so far that they attack morality itself to justify themselves. So fucking transparent. Are they?
Accumulation of wealth is required for most large projects and the magnitude of State projects requires even more accumulation together with borrowing and taxation.
So you want something eco-friendly? Remove the State, the creators of wars, patriotism/nationalism and poverty.
The more the State grows the more it needs to spend. The more it spends the more it need to tax. The more it taxes the more wealth it can accumulate.
@asperin ''History'' was the key word - feudalism, colonialism, African slave trade, privatization - systems and practice you might not agree with but this is left out of the equation. Haiti didn't have colonies, Cuba don't block capitalists economy and USA didn't have ww2 to make ''The most wealthy country'' in proper context.
This ahistorical-mythological-capitalism is the consequence that seek its justification in some ''life-boat scenarios'' and ''paper-models''.
@asperin The division between capitalism and state is semantic one.
They are gone because of continuous strive in humanity to reach liberty, equality and brotherhood by struggling against the ruling class
You don't have any serious strategy to bring the state down. Everything that you(ancaps)have accomplish is promotion of politics and politicians who push ''market-liberation'' - that is the opposite of what historically and today anarchists have been fighting for. Detached form reality
@asperin We don't have another Planet. Resources aren't anyone property. Greed degrades human potential to become aware of responsibility towards greater things then ones short miserable life.
We could reduce it to that but private firms require police protection(state) and not to mention the whole set of mythology about human nature, history of accumulation of property, prosperity etc.
Private firms do not require the State, they can contract other private firms, security firms.
Accumulation of property is a trait that made humans triumph among other animals.
Like stocking up on food, wood and supplies to facilitate life in the future.
As we evolved we accumulated things we could exchange with others, then came the State and it told you what you can and cannot accumulate and that is what you want to do, prevent people from surviving their own way.
@asperin State is the original ''security firm''. Countries that didn't have labor movements, private and state security is indistinguishable - they crush violently formation of labor unions.
You can't avoid all the coercion involved in this accumulation and claim its fruits in your future ancap fantasy by legitimizing this property.
You live in a country that have rob the world and than brag how ''capitalism is successful'' but ''it is ''non-coercive'' if you look deeply in his eyes''-lol
You want capitalism to mean prosperity, all the good stuff, bla bla without empirical evidence just based on logic; or you use ''look at USA success and failure of USSR'' and then you say wait: ''USA didn't prosper on robbery of the world it is the corporatism''; but capitalism means prosperity look at the USA *LOL*
Capitalism is the private ownership of businesses. That in a free market economy is a natural occurrence. You can only stop it using the State and their regulations.
That the United States govt robbed to have more money is no secret yet you cannot use that as the sole cause of America's economic superiority without being wrong about your analysis.
Capitalism, a free market, corporatism and the State are all different things. Don't mix definitions up.
@asperin Yes, the authoritative, hierarchical businesses that needs to be protected by the police(security,dro's, whatever) force. Another ahistorical, nonempirical claim yet you call it ''natural'' - property rights didn't come from vacuum but from previous authoritative systems of ownership.
No, this is as you say corporatism and not capitalism.
Capitalism as you said, isn't happen just like socialism - you don't know what the hell are you talking about!
I meant that within a free market economy, Capitalism happens naturally because that is what humans have discovered to be most efficient, to divide the work.
Capitalism is a concept, whether is happening in its absoluteness or not we don't know yet(I believe it will you believe it wont).
It does happen today to some extend just like Socialism happens to some extend and people like me want the former to happen at full scale.
@asperin Corporatism happens naturally because that is what humans have discovered to be most efficient!''?!?''Just look at China's authoritative capitalism - fucking ''efficient''. Class struggle is ''natural''. Division of labor is not exclusive to capitalism! Educate yourself.
Just like I said before. You (ancaps) don't have any serious strategy to bring the state down. You just push for reforms of ''market-liberation'' - everything what anarchists are fighting against!
Yes, it happens by itself in a free market because in a free market anyone can open up a business, own it, take the risk of bankruptcy and workers can work for him or not.
Division of labor includes ownership of a company.
Some people can manage a company, others cannot.
What's wrong with that? Nothing really. Perhaps wrong for envious people who cannot manage a company and are destined for a lower paying job.
How we brought people of the various liberty movements in contact with Austrian Economics and the Mises Institute.
There has been a tremendous growth in people who dislike big govt and taxation. We support these people because they will shrink the govt and we will continue to work to achieve our goal.
BTW, in Anarchy there is no economic intrusion from the State, allowing me to own a business, thus be a Capitalist.
@asperin No typo - the same logic applied man. ''Opening a businesses'' is strictly legal therm that only make sense in a legal system. You can move to other country or not.
No it doesn't. It is refereed to the ''organizer'' and not the boss. Management doesn't apply owner. This is typical Bolshevist careerist tactic - you are just jealous because you don't have political power.
I answered your questions. No one will tolerate wage labor just like no one tolerates slavery. We don't accept people who seek position of authority. + I explained why ''anarcho''-capitalism is a oxymoron - because it is authoritative and hierarchical economic model - and how private businesses need police protection(state). What more do you need?
Let me rephrase your question: What if I want to keep slaves, wage wars etc. what ''central regulator'' stops me? Makes more sense?
If you want to keep slaves it will be up to the consumer to decide if what you're doing is cost efficient for you or not.
In today's world what would happen is that no one, or at least most, will not make business with you and you will have to change your policies to be able to make money.
Slavery requires you to purchase or capture slaves, those who helped you acquire these slaves will be evaded by people just as you're being evaded.
PEOPLE, the consumer decides. True complete democracy of the market has the last word. If you oppose this human choice-taking then you are for an specific group to deal with society, hierarchical, the opposite of Anarchy.
Comparing wage labor to slavery is a fallacy.
Play clean.
Now respond my question, directly.
Not with the assumption of "no one will tolerate wage labor". Who stops me from gathering money and setting up a business?
@asperin You nihilistic authoritarian piece of shit!!! I would not recommend you to repeat that in a real life in front of any serious anarchist or leftist in that regards.
You have shown that when everything fails, hostility(or violence, depending on the case), is your last resource, just like every authoritarian commie.
One thing you forgot to consider is how the toys got there. If they are all owned by one boy, it's because his father saved up and bought them all or he made them all by hand.
The other kids don't have any toys because their parents didn't save up to buy them or make any. Saying it's unfair doesn't make any sense. If that boy's father hadn't created his toys, then nobody would have any toys and they would all be equal. That's how a socialist utopia ends up.
@gilbet If one generation is bounded by the actions of the previous generation then this is considered to be the ''social contract'' - by which the slavery and other ''property rights'' can be justified.
If consequences of ''property rights'' are not obvious to you (e.g. wars, climate change, poverty etc.) then we have nothing to discuss.
@organdva If that boy's father hadn't created the toys, then nobody would have ANY toys.
[If one generation is bounded by the actions of the previous generation then this is considered to be the ''social contract'' - by which the slavery and other ''property rights'' can be justified]
Interesting point, but there is no contract. Only envy and wants from the "did nots" directed at the "dids" over what they accumulated. If you gather food for the winter you have power over a dummy who didn't
Capital is not accumulated for personal use(like toothbrush or bead). Capitalist have no use of capital beyond creating profit from it. Toys are metaphor for the means of production(real capital). No capitalist have ever build one factory by his own hands. The workers have build the world we see today. Capitalists have done work of allocating capital but allocation can be done democratically in planned economy. In the end, capitalists need workers but workers don't need them.
1) Then what are you going to buy the toothbrush with, besides capital? 2) I use capital for everything including profiting. 3)Factory was designed by capitalist. Would not exist otherwise. 4)That's like saying the tools built my house. If they hadn't been directed, they would have been lying around doing nothing. (j/k) If America had democratically planned its economy from the start, we'd all still be farmers, tailors & shoemakers like Little House on the Prairie. (No incentive to develop.)
@gilbet Nothing has been designed by capitalists, in fact most architectural and technical schematics is the works of students and academics. The capitalists portrayed in most situation refers to the management, which usually only hold the money to fund.
Karl Marx did Not promote a removal of money as a means of wager, neither did he believe in a society of farmers, like you obviously have seen during communist regime Red khmer held Cambodia and Laos during the final days of the Vietnam war.
Do you really think that some "students & academics" set up the infrastructure of all the businesses run by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton (WalMart), Sergey Brin & Larry Page(Google) Mark Zuckerberg(Facebook), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Rupert Murdoch(Fox), Steven Spielberg and George Lucas?
And while these guys were designing businesses from the ground up, creating valuable products and millions of jobs.... What were socialists doing?
@gilbet People don't seem to understand that the opposite of a dictatorship is a dictatorship in this case. The middle ground doesn’t exist in the United States.
You have a communist dictatorship which claims sovereignty and suppressed individual rights on one side, and the same going on in a free market capitalist-type society by the implementation of an already powerful elite holding lesser business back and subjugating their own population by debt and hard-labour "slavery" on the other side.
You see, Socialists take all this stuff for granted and try to say yeah yeah the workers could have done all that on their own. And I suppose Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford could have done it on their own also.
Internet, computer, every high tech started as military state funded. You forget that SSSR sent first man into space. Don't forget all the tech from PRC China.
Every infrastructure, factory, the whole economy is but in time of dictatorial market-socialism(Yugoslavia), so I inherited and worked for everything I own. I'm not bounded by social contract to capitalism as capitalist didn't to every technological invention before like bow&arrow, mill, plow or vessel.
@organdva "Internet, computer, every high tech started as military state funded [by Capitalism on technology by Edison & Bell]
So, why did it require Capitalists- Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to make the computer useful?
If we define capitalists as people allowed to keep the fruit of their labor, then those items were all designed by capitalists. Homo Erectus would not design a spear just to turn it over to the state in exchange for "privileges". The same goes for every other invention.
Read David Ellerman(not a Marxist or Communist). Worker is entitled to the fruits of his labor, it is the employment contract that is violation of this principle that then allows capitalist to profit form workers labor. Most of today's socialists, even Marxists, are against state ownership. You are arguing against dead people and dead arguments. Intellectual property is privatization of common property, even liberal economist are against it. Nobody created anything from zero.
@organdva Actually, the worker receives 100% of the fruits of his labor, since he is able to trade and covert his time into the highest amount of money that the market will bear. If the owner/gambler profits also, it is from value created (out of nothing) from the enterprise, not value removed from the worker or customer. That's the magical ingredient that Socialists miss in their equation- that profit comes from nothing, it's extra- just like an extra tomato in your garden.
No theory of value or theory of property socialist, comunist, or other ever clamed that value is remuved form anyone. Value, property comes from the labour. Please, read actual socialist theories and arguments then come back. Don't invent stuf, it is becoming anoying.
@organdva I am referring to the isolated labor itself- the market value of it to other companies, while you are referring to the result of labor within the enterprise. So, our discussion has finally narrowed the difference between the ideologies down to this: Socialists believe that all the value created comes from the result of the labor within the enterprise. Capitalists believe that some value is created by worker, which is 100% paid for, rest of value is created by enterprise.
@organdva Okay, so Socialists believe that all the value created comes from the result of the labor, within the enterprise. But that doesn't address the degree of contribution. When two parties achieve something together, each can claim up to 99% of the credit. The Capitalist believes you can change the workers but you can't change the Capitalist, because he's only one who can design the machine. Socialist believes you can change the Capitalist, so it should be more like 50-50.
The next step of narrowing of ideologies that reveals the truth. Marxist actually believe that the wage is fair, you get payed the price of your labour power.Labour power is worker ability to perform work. But, capitalist would go broke if he doesn't gain more from this exchange. This "more" is surplus value. Capitalist do some administrative work. Inventions are done by engineers and inventors-enthusiasts. Admin. work can be done by workers themselves. Markets are another issue
@LucienLachance007, Doesn't the analogy break down when you ask the question who is the real world counterpart of the supervisor who has given all the toys to Rex? and What is the real world counter-event that reflects all the toys being given to Rex?
The toys have been stolen and unjustly allocated to the one kid. The others should jump the one kid and homestead the toys. Furthermore, in order to prevent such a thing from happening in the future, the teacher should be shot.
I don't understand from what position do you claim that ''neither the teacher or the child have no valid claim on the toys''? I assume that you think property is valid if acquired by homesteading.
So, I ask you to explain what do you mean by ''homesteading''? Why is that better and how does it solve the problem?
the same hierarchies develop in Capitalist and Socialist systems... is it any wonder that every socialist country quickly reverted to a hierarchical structure that left the workers as the lowest class while political elites maintained control. Socialism would be a great system if people could be trusted to adhere to it but it is impossible to implement, it always degenerates into state capitalism with the state serving the political elite... a totalitarian state oppressing the people.
penguinrawk69 1 week ago
@penguinrawk69
Areed, but not every contry, not every type of socialism. There are degrees of autoritariansim, class division, with more or less democracy, Chavez and Tito are not same as Stalin. Universal health care and education are socialist ideas. For example Spain, more precisly Catalonia and Zaragosa, between 1936-1939 is alternative type of socialism. Libertarian socialism, anarchism was from the beginig(First International and so on) in the opposition to state-socialism
organdva 1 week ago
Communism was Karl Marx's "solution" to Capitalism's monopolies, which had grown to become mini dictatorships around the labor and production of certain products available to the public. Unfortunately, these responses involved governmental dictatorship over the entire general public themselves, not just the employees of the specific products.
The monopoly problem was solved with antitrust laws that allowed room for competition and choice, which eliminated the product-specific "dictatorships".
gilbet 2 weeks ago
Communism and Socialism were developed as a response to Capitalism's successes and far-reaching influence. They were developed by people such as Karl Marx, who didn't fully understand the mechanisms of the marketplace surrounding him.
Since Both are built on the fruits and foundation of Capitalism, they take the accumulated assets for granted, and don't understand that the foundation collapses and fruits disappear when they eliminate the incentive machine that produced those assets.
gilbet 2 weeks ago
@gilbet
This economic language is unnecessary makeup, a coverup for a lack of substance, it only shows the weakness of the argument. Please, quote K. Marx where it shows his lack of understanding of markets and other claims, like his solutions to monopoly.
New technologies are invented because of profit motive. Nobody denied that. But many of this new technologies didn't do the job for us but just made us work faster. We have more, cheaper but we work more also.
organdva 1 week ago
@organdva Marx saw some of the excesses of the monopolies and blamed it on Capitalism, since at the time, the two were inseparable. He was correct that it needed fixing. But he didn't want to fix it because he was also unhappy about what he saw as "exploitation". He assumed that the profits were being extracted from the workers -like milk from cows-, rather than being produced from nothing as part of an enterprise, which is what was actually going on. He didn't know value is created
gilbet 1 week ago
@gilbet
I asure you, Marx didn't want to fix capitalism in any way, monompolyes or anything. Capitalism was just a phase, mode of production, way of organising in human hystory that will end by a revolution. Marx come from philosophy and his "fetishism of comodities" is the central theory that is multyfielded, not just applied to economy, but to psyhology etc.
He did know! "Labour theory of value". Come on, don't talk out of your ass ;)
organdva 1 week ago
Comment removed
EasternMerchant 1 month ago
Youtube:
Fractional Reserve Banking Fiat Currency Zeitgeist Addendum 1 of 6
Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 5)
ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD
This documentaries will give you the TRUTH as well as the SOLUTION to this WHOLE MESS!
EasternMerchant 1 month ago
@EasternMerchant
Idea of recourse based economy is taken from libertarian communism. Market is just a voting system where you vote with your money. Money as ballot is printed out of nothing yet they have value like nothing else. They have value of the whole system functioning. Most of social ills are because of bad organization. We need to replace this parliamentary democracy and market economy with direct-democratically planned economy.
organdva 1 month ago
Comment removed
EasternMerchant 1 month ago
Comment removed
EasternMerchant 1 month ago
@organdva money as a Ballot......direct Democracy......sounds nice, BUT
if a Doctor performed surgery on your body, would money be what determines the quality and safety of care you received or would science be that which determines the best possible survival of your livelihood? And, Democracy is MOB RULE! Only 51% of the people will get what they want, the other 49% loses out! Scientific Method should be what determines our Social/economic structure!
EasternMerchant 1 month ago
@EasternMerchant
On the opposite, I'm for abolition of money; for direct face-to-face engagement, if it is on higher level, like city or region, I'm for delegates on imperative mandate. Sometimes you are in minority and sometimes you are in majority, and consensus is preferable but if not then 2/3 majority rule. Science is not ideologically free, and it serves establishment - look at epistemological anarchism. Technocracy is failure, watch Pandora Box documentary from A. Curtis
organdva 1 month ago
Capitalism and Democracy are bad, why? because they allow a certain group of people to have power and control of the resources of this earth from other people. Democracy is mob rule. Only 51% will be satisfied, but what about the 49% who lost the vote? Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, are all conducted by human opinion. What we need is a Resource Based Economy, where the Earth determines our livelihood!
EasternMerchant 1 month ago
Capitilism isn't the problem. The problem is the people running. Capitalism thrives when there is proper regulation and balance. It's also the fact we aren't using own our resources. We aren't recycling. We aren't producing new technology to cut down energy waste and pollution. Socialism and communism is a pipe dream that only leads to further suppression of freedom. You can take your government controling every aspect of life and shove it up your ass!
lastswordfighter 2 months ago
@lastswordfighter
"We" who? Majority in capitalism don't have power to decide how and what to produce. So, there can be only "they". But "they", the ruling minority are - on one side: forced by market competition so they can't be concerned with the environment but only with staying in business - on the other side: they are on top because they are careless and they wish to stay on top. I don't need government(top-down decision making power) in libertarian communism.
organdva 2 months ago
And often, kindergardeners hit each other, bite, cry and want anything to themselves...
diavarezable 4 months ago
That guy is pretty hot. Thumbs up if you read it.
doggbrown1 4 months ago
Sounds a lot like a "socialist" dictatorship such as a Gaddafi or a Saddam Hussien. How all power goes through them, how they have secret police and a corrupt administration, how they pit their own people against each other to stay in power, how they act rich and noble, and how they pick on neighbor states.
lisayos 4 months ago
technocrats win
FreeeeS 5 months ago
2 and then, youre back to square-zero, proving once again, that the truest form of of Govern-Mental, is that some are 'more equal' than others. Caste and class systems. Empire
sorry crystal-huggers, hoping for a truely revolutionised socety, but there isnt really a such thing as 'rights'. rights cannot be taken away, by any amount of force. privelidges however, can and often are taken by force.
Long Live the Empire, because it will, weather we like it or not, and because its in our blood.
Zoie3x8 5 months ago
1 in the end, there is only one real form of government : feudalism. since the dawn of government, there has only been the rich and powerful, or the poor and de-powered, & up until about 1776, you could either be one or the other, no in-betweens.
now theres a 3rd option, a new idea on the block. If you dont like Rex, you can go to another place and make your own damn toys.... but then it ends up that you get to be the new rex, insidiously shifting the rules to consolidate power for yourself.
Zoie3x8 5 months ago
@Zoie3x8 Yeah pretty much. That's basically what the founders of this country did, founded a new empire and then screwed the people who served them out of what they were promised.
Homer177 4 months ago
@12DONE13
On one side you have capitalist economists who clam that: capitalism existed as the first exchange of goods; on the other side capitalist apologetic (mostly (neo)classical) who have most impossible criteria. The latter are ati-state as anarchists are but come to realization that state is needed to protect the private property and then they end up in classical liberal position defending the state necessity. Capitalists don't have a consensus on meaning of words, why should socialists?
organdva 5 months ago
The Fernegi are Exactly like the Jews in their greed and capitalistic ethics ! The only diffrence is that the Ferengi a lot "Better Looking" ha ha ha ha !! The Ferengi are Obiuosly the Jews of Outer Space !! In this case the Ferengi are the True Appearance of the Jewish Soul !
nicktesla45 8 months ago
@nicktesla45
All social antagonisms of capitalism was projected into the "Jew", in the same way the Ferengi are personification of free market philosophy. Contradictory, the "Jew" is also blamed for communism by the Nazis.
organdva 5 months ago
@organdva I do Not blame the Jews for communism but most of the Zionist jews have the Ethics of a parasite when it comes to buisness and Capitalism , This last Wall Street breakdown that nearly ruined our ecconomy was due to most to GreedyZionist Jews and that is fact and even some of the Talmudic Jews where hurt by that those rotten bastards. My main grievance is NOT against the Jews in general but against the Zionist Jews who have made Money their New God .
nicktesla45 5 months ago
@nicktesla45
Isn't this parasitic ethics the point of capitalism? Workers are alienated from the product of their labor and capitalist profit is non-labor income. Rent and interest is also non-labor income. Capitalism itself is parasitic and the capitalists that don't parasite enough become outcompeted. The whole economic system is pushing everyone to act immoral. Deregulation of finance capital, banks made the crash happen. If you don't act greedy you become unsuccessful in capitalism.
organdva 5 months ago
@organdva
Yeah.
Money is the root of all evil.
Nonterastor 3 months ago
@Nonterastor
Money is just a bad way of voting for products - one dollar one vote. In decentralized planned economy from bottom up this voting for products is done direct democratically, so money become unnecessary. Money is some kind of mediation from one producer to another producer and in libertarian planed economy producers are directly and personally linked together so there is no need for any mediation, money.
organdva 3 months ago
Furthermore the Nazi's murdered and persecuted socialists..not conservatives.The left has a fine tradition of anti-fascism and when I have been on rallies against fascism it is the left that make up the vast majority of attendees.The American hard right don't seem to know whether to love fascism or blame it all on the socialists.The latter position is an insult to the brave left wing Germans who lost their lives fighting Nazism.Stop inventing the history that you prefer and accept it as it was.
BLUEHIPPO47 8 months ago
Grandfunker please read some history books and stop listening to Glenn Beck.Adolf Hitler was not a socialist..as Russ Bellant proved Nazi emigree's gravitated to the Republican Party instead of the Dems by a ratio of 9 :1 ..as Daniel Goldhagen' observed in his brilliant "Hitler's Willing Executioner's" it was only amongst the socialist intelligensia and the communists that anti-semitism was not prevalent in Germany.GM Motor's,Ford and German capitalists were all partial to Nazism.
BLUEHIPPO47 8 months ago
Rex is the fucking government! Not a rich business man in this example.
Hoyreliberal 8 months ago
The power of words. cool.
lordzac12255 9 months ago
has anyone ever realized how much of a hater odo is?
Roklan2000 10 months ago
where were the teachers while all this was bloody happening :S
lootwarmeggz 11 months ago
Funny you say that when in fact it is the Chinese "communist" system that most mirrors the Ferrengi Laws of Acquisition, especially #1 - Once you have their money, don't give it back.
reivenlocke 1 year ago
I love how you start off this 'example of capitalism' with the teacher GIVING 'Rex' all the toys without earning them. How in God's name is that capitalism. That is the ESSENCE of socialism, a powerful authority (teacher here) giving all the wealth to their favorite student (constituency). All Rex has to do is be the teacher's friend or convince the teacher he 'NEEDS' the toys and he gets it. Starting a story that is supposed to critique capitalism with a socialist/communist premise = FAIL!!
angpetru 1 year ago
@angpetru
We live today in global capitalism that is unable to provide for human needs like food and shelter for what economy should be all about. The fact, also, is that the wast majority of wealth is owned by small minority of people - the ruling class. Capitalism on one hand have minority who enjoy in luxury of villas, yachts, fast cars, expensive clothes etc. and on the other majority of people who struggle to survive.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva Your response to angpetru in no way addresses his objection to your analogy.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith
angpetru talked about authoritarian socialism which is viewed as state-capitalism from libertarian perspective.
Rex(King) is the one who has -god-given- right to own everything, that system is called politically - monarchy and economically - feudalism. Feudalism is where property rights come from that capitalism inherited in which minority controls majority. I also explained down in comment section what is the difference between "needs" and "wants".
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva Name me one person who is wealthy, outside of those descended from European nobility, who has inherited their wealth from a person who claimed it due to some 'God-given right'. Did Donald Trump claim his fortune this way or did he achieve it through investment? Did Bill Gates get rich by claiming a 'God-given right' or did he EARN it by producing something of value? These people have no God given right to the wealth they earned any more than YOU have a right to THEIR wealth.
airbender721 11 months ago
@airbender721 Donald Trump inherited billions, you idiot. The acquisition phase of capitalism largely predates capitalism, and continues during it. Imposed property, based around theft, is how the entire american continent was built. It's how the wealth of the most wealthy british people was built, etc. The idea that there was a clean break between feudalism and capitalism is utter bullshit. Between the mercantile HEIC and the capitalist Congo Free State, the differences are almost inexistent
GoldRainGirl 9 months ago
@organdva Both systems are equally corrupable, only socialism in its tennants strip the rights of the individual, see Michael Badranik's consitution class. You think violent oppression only exists in capitalist nations? You've let the youtube community down sir.
temporaldisplacement 8 months ago
@organdva Capitalism is unable to provide for human needs? I don't think you're really considering the alternatives. It doesn't provide for human needs compared to what system and to what period of time are we comparing. You will be hard pressed to find a time when people are better off I'm sorry to say. I honestly think you underestimate just how much people have suffered over the years, not having a car is not equal to suffering.
theclewis 7 months ago
@organdva Not true, when there are monopolies, there is no longer capitalism. If the antitrust rules are enforced, capitalism works. Take banks that were supposedly too big to fail. They made them merge and eliminated their competition while buying them pennies on the dollar. This happened during the great depression as well. Eliminate the federal reserve stops preferential zero percent loans and outright gifts of cash to banks and businesses. Then and only then capitalism works.
MadeByEduNotLaziness 7 months ago
@angpetru giving the toys to Rex was not a display socialism, but was merely an expedient way to get to the point trying to be made--it was meant as a way of skipping the acquisition stage or capitalism.
capitalism enables the consolidation of wealth *toys* within the minority *Rex*, so there was nothing wrong with the start of the scenario ^^
kaishininjou 11 months ago
@kaishininjou Yet again you glaze over the MOST IMPORTANT PART. The acquisition phase is where the person EARNS what they 'consolidate'. It is the difference between whether 'Rex' got the toys by giving the other kids something else in exchange that they wanted more than their toys (Capitalism and Free Trade), or if he stole them or had the teacher steal for him (Tyranny/Theft/Socialism). If he got the toys by convincing the other children to WILLINGLY part with them why shouldn't he get them?
airbender721 11 months ago
@airbender721 yeah, i, uhh...didnt glaze over ANYTHING. i SAID the acquisition phase was skipped to expedite getting to the point of the video. that way, they could just go from the scenario of what Rex DOES once he has the toys. it really doesnt matter HOW they were acquired, because its irrelevant to the scenario being presented, since its focusing on what occurs after that.
also, are you trying to justify consolidation? how the FUCK is consolidation EVER a good thing? please elaborate ^^
kaishininjou 11 months ago
@kaishininjou Indeed, the capitalist phase in Europe merely consolidated the wealth of the feudal phase, while letting in the wealthy merchants. The post-colonial phase in the americas saw the expansion of established wealth into the land stolen by the american republics, largely to the benefit of the upper class.
GoldRainGirl 9 months ago
@angpetru Well, take a look at how many major (even respected) companies have gotten so off of government (i.e. your tax dollar and mine) contracts. Also, consider mining, logging, and oil companies who extract resources from the commons while paying (if anything) pennies on the dollar. Now look at the growing monopolies in virtually all industries. That's capitalism in practice, not theory.
bmillerbiop 8 months ago
@bmillerbiop That is not capitalism, that is corporatism. What you are describing did not occur as a result of private property rights and profit seeking. That is the result of government, through taxation and the use of force, granting special privileges to companies. If private property rights are respected under law then there can be no such thing as monopolies. The root problem is that 'common people' have allowed government agents to do this, so companies take advantage of what is offered.
angpetru 8 months ago
Comment removed
bmillerbiop 8 months ago
@angpetru But why do you think “government” does this? They just wake up one day and decide to screw the many for the benefit of the few? No, they do it at the behest of their corporate patrons and handlers. “Government” is now just the enforcement arm. Corporatism is simply the end stage of Capitalism. There’s no homeostatic mechanism in Capitalism to ensure things stay in balance. It’s the reverse: the more wealth&power an entity has, the easier it becomes to skew things further in their favor
bmillerbiop 8 months ago
@bmillerbiop Well then what is your alternative. If by definition the government just becomes a puppet for people who wish to take advantage on its ability to force others, wouldn't the rational solution be to not let government get too much power? To allow the power of choice to remain with the individual? That would mean LESS government regulation. What is the magical alternative to 'fix' this problem?
angpetru 8 months ago
@angpetru There are a number of little fixes along the way like no private money in politics or progressive taxation or closing tax loopholes, but the ultimate source of most socio-economic evil is the debt-and-interest-base monetary system that forces unsustainable growth, eternal debt-expansion, an inevitable wealth disparity. I cite the Brandeis quote: You can have great concentrations of wealth or you can have democracy, but you can't have both.
bmillerbiop 8 months ago
@bmillerbiop Also, I don't see the possibility of transitioning from Capitalism to Corporatism as an attack on Capitalism. Capitalism does not necessarily turn into corporatism unless people allow more power to be allocated to government. Capitalism and government are like a campfire, very good and useful, but if you don't watch it and let government run amok you WILL end up with a forest fire, but that does not mean fire is evil.
angpetru 8 months ago
@angpetru Capitalism turns into Corporatism as its own natural evolution. And it has more to do with increasing CORPORATE power and its resulting ability to corrupt government - making the latter LESS effectual. Government is ideally supposed to be the protector of the little guy. When it has been co-opted and "drowned in a bathtub", then it's just you versus Monsanto and Blue Cross and BP - and whatever outrages they want to impose on you.
bmillerbiop 8 months ago
@bmillerbiop Socialism and Communism on the other hand is BASED on the initiation of force and the imposing on the 'will of the people' (i.e. mob rule) on everyone. Here is the basic difference: Capitalism is the most free system you can have IF you KEEP government out of influencing it. Socialism/Communism is an UNFREE system that CAN'T WORK without government force.
angpetru 8 months ago
@angpetru Where are corporations in your equation of evil? Do you think the largest corps try to take over the world and kill competition because of the government? Govt is just supposed to be people doing collectively what they can’t do individually-like protect ourselves from corporate and other marauders. It’s just been corrupted by special interest $. Further, corporations also strive to kill your freedom (by ideally limiting you to once choice - theirs) EgNote the few# of cellular providers
bmillerbiop 8 months ago
@angpetru Wrong, Socialism in it's Purest form is not bad and only becomes corrupted when the greedy elements of Capitalism are allowed to enter and INFEST IT ! Same with communism. But Pass laws agains the basic principles of Greed and It will keep all corruption on the outside . Such laws would range in degrees. Anyone convicted of a 3rd degree crime ( of greed) would face the death penalty! Combine this with an economic system based on Resources available and you got a Perfect Government !
nicktesla45 8 months ago
@angpetru Yes , so Who is basis of analogy of the teacher in this world? They are called Reptilians and "Rex" is the Powerfull Few. who have now become " the New World Order" .
nicktesla45 8 months ago
@angpetru I disagree with both of you. Rex defines present day banks and the federal reserve. Study both banks and the fed outside a college atmosphere. It's a monopoly.
MadeByEduNotLaziness 8 months ago
@angpetru Thank you.
theclewis 7 months ago
@angpetru lol maybe this is the part that explains "needs to devise strategies for keeping the other kids 'divided' amongst themselves." Don't you think if one brings up socialism vs capitalism the big picture gets lost because there's squabbling among more minor, less important issues. Rex having all the toys is symbolic of the small powerful elite in this country who retain almost absolutely all the wealth.
Do you think I"m on to something?
MrFoot1980 7 months ago
@MrFoot1980 i think you're only "on" the right path. Well written. Keep the real education up!
MadeByEduNotLaziness 7 months ago
Americans can and may cling to the viability of Capitalism. Tidal Energy (TE) makes that possible.
Maybe it's ME but I can't 'stand', clingy men:-).
It's not something, to 'lie' about :-).
Tidal Energy (TE) is the new foundation for Earth.
It is the new energy paradigm. One that allows Earth to replicate Star Trek's Risa.
Free sex though – one has to prove, one is worthy :-).
One World
sDarius99 1 year ago
Market Capitalism is rightly FALLEN. Consider THAT a Gift from this world's ruling Oligarchy.
Capitalism is NOTHING more than a system of organized EXPLOITATION, all to service CAPITAL.
Despite the pleasures – momentary, of consumption - Unfettered Consumption is NOT sustainable. WORSE, to 'work', Capitalism pits the Race Human against itself. It has RESULTED in the degradation of Earth's ENVIRONMENT and thusly the QUALITY of LIFE.
One World
sDarius99 1 year ago
I'd get booted from youtube if I'd made a video showing the true face of socialism...theft of evrything of value...up to and including your soul...read history...capitalism has created a few bad apples...there is evil everywhere, but the truth is...EVERY time socialism is tried it not only fails, but it causes misery...death...Lennin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Il...Ho-Chi-Minh...all mass murderers all socialists of one stripe or another.
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
Learn how to use ellipses. Collect your thoughts and then write something readable. I'm for stateless socialism(i.e. anarchy) so this doesn't apply as criticism to me. I reject justification of one corrupt system by pointing to another one. Last time I saw someone used ''the great evil dictators argument'' was from a fascist YTuser(HokiesAndDawgs) in video ''Communism back in fashion'' - check it out if you don't believe me.
This is false dichotomy and oversimplification.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva I'll try that, if you try putting the crack pipe down ya frikkin loon
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker adolf hitler was not a socialist, he was a nazist, which is as far from socialism as it gets. And socialism do cause problems, but so do capitalism. You really have to find some middleground to make the world work..
Deniecu 1 year ago
@Deniecu just a lil basic language tip...Nazi, translated means...you guessed it! NATIONAL SOCIALIST!! Not to mention how he took over healthcare...it's a means of control if you didn't know. Capitalism WORKS...socialism DOES NOT WORK. It's a historically proven failure, which relies upon theft and control. Capitalism has created problems, sure. It's like guns...they don't kill people, but they have been used by unscrupulous people to kill others. We need to be good people...people of principal.
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker Sigh.. sorry for thinking you were an open mind, go back to whatever crazy shit you do on a daily basis..
Deniecu 1 year ago
@Deniecu Typical sheep...sigh
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker That's it.. Let me guess, you think highly of yourself, even though you'd never admit it, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be so bloody patronising to everyone on this forum. Your defenition of sheep is this "A person who does not, infact, can not think for himself, he obeys the "dogs" every bark without question, he can never ever ever ever learn to think outside the narrow and closeminded view he has been given by his "masters", because he is a mere sheep, below me" -.-
Deniecu 1 year ago
@GrandFunker since you throw terms around like an idiot, you try researching what shit your saying instead of throwing more shit into a shit pool of stupid un-truths.
Everything around you that you see, your nice living conditions, your nice wages have all been fought for by socialists, unionists, and forward thinkers. many have died.
and actually, the National Socialist Government of Nazi Germany has nothing to do with socialism, and what Glen Beck and Fox tells you are lies, pure and simple.
xile87 1 year ago
@xile87
BTW, as an ametuer military historian, i find your general lack of knowledge about the events leading up to the second world war not only demeaning to all those who fought to defeat the Nazi's, but deeply troubling for the simple fact of "Those who forget history are forever doomed to repeat it"
for god sakes, some one tell Palin she needs to learn geography and grammer / spelling skills
xile87 1 year ago
BTW GrandFunker, Socialism has never failed. go look up Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and understand the fundamental differences between socialism and communism, and while your at it fascism too, since you don't know the difference, then make a difficult connection between that and your idol
xile87 1 year ago
@xile87 Yeah...I'm the idiot, and Glenn Beck is a liar...could you prove either statement> No...if Glenn were a liar, he wouldn't insist peeps do their own research. The translation says SOCIALIST, his activity says SOCIALIST, but I'm the idiot. The unions were...WERE a force for good. Now they are the seat of evil. They are the cause of much of the financial difficulty that's happening around the world. Forward thinkers? You mean "progressives"? I could go on all day about the damage done there
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
Nazi ideology stressed the failures of communism, liberalism, and democracy, and supported the "racial purity of the German people" and that of other Northwestern Europeans. The Nazis persecuted those they perceived as either race enemies or Lebensunwertes Leben, that is "life unworthy of living". This included Jews, Slavs, Roma, and so-called "Mischlinge" along with Communists, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, and others.
xile87 1 year ago
@GrandFunker was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]
xile87 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]
In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximize use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximizing exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means
xile87 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice, and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents, and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society
hows that for research? easy to find if you know what to look for
xile87 1 year ago
@xile87 No matter how you paint it, it's wrong. It relies on THEFT. If democratic socialism were a good idea, Europe wouldn't be going broke, and we wouldn't be seeing riots. You're what? about ten, maybe fifteen miles back on this track? Keep going kid, you just may get it someday.
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
i don't see THEFT any where in there. stop going for straws and pull you head out of your ass
if capitalism was a good idea, the US wouldn't be going broke
pretty empty statement huh? try looking at the countries i mentioned, the actual democratic socialism states.
xile87 1 year ago
@xile87 Where do socialists get their money? Is their a magic garden, where it grows on trees? The US is going broke, because we've had douchebag democrats pushing us into socialist policies, that are usually scams, designed to steal peoples money. Social security was a scam. Most folks did not live until retirement age when it was implemented. You obviously don't understand the argument. You are sad...i will pray for you.
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
scams, stealing, money... my god i never saw it that way....
oh wait, what about all that money bush spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, to find a man who needs daily kidney dialysis, and the recession caused by his policies on the economy?
and oh... you mean taxes for stealing. granted, Jesus called taxation stealing. i call it requirement. you like to have an amry not armed with muskets? love those 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers? what do you think paid for those?
xile87 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
also please note I'm not against capitalism.
also note that i'm against the 2 party political system, and i'm against non-proportional voting systems, as they devalue the vote of a person.
Please also note that i don't confuse POLITICAL SYSTEMS with ECONOMIC SYSTEMS.
and you're not going broke because of "Democrat Douchebags", you're going broke because of unregulated economics causing a failure of many business and a general lack of corporate ethics
xile87 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
and finally, there is a big difference between socialism and communism.
first of all look at the USSR during the Stalinist years.
then look at Canada during that time up till now.
compare them.
you should find a noticeable difference between the two.
okay... that enough of you.
xile87 1 year ago
@xile87 what is your point? Are you trying to win the "World's Biggest Douche Bag" contest? What you are telling me falls into two categories...one-it's a load of bullshit, and two-it's got nothing to do with the discussion. You're not against capitaism, and yet you spew socialist propaganda. Anyone with a brain is against the two party system. That said...when you get two choices, you take one...I'd take George W Bush over ANY democrat from the last 40-50 years...ANY democrat.
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
oh yes.. i'm the one spewing propoganda....
whatever have fun yelling at the wall. but please stop missidentifying Political and economic systems, you look like an idiot to anyone with a brain
xile87 1 year ago
@xile87 You write paragraph after paragraph...about how capitalism doesn't work and socialism is wonderful...you're pathetic...
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker
I never said that capitalism never works. you might be reading that from your head, but i never said that. what I've been trying to tell and show you are the differences between the thing that you should be scared of, Communism (!which is not socialism!) and the thing you are slandering.
dammit thats not so damn hard to understand.
I'm done with you.
xile87 1 year ago
@GrandFunker Hitler was right-wing
JayEey 1 year ago
@JayEey No he was left-wing...he was a socialist. ,,Hitler was all about big government and control...both are left-wing ideas.
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker You want to talk about dictators? Sure, we can do that. We can bring up Suharto, Pinochet, Mobutu Sese Soko, Carlos Castillo Armas, Francois Duvalier, Ferdinand Marcos, Anastasio Somoza García, as well as several others. Not familiar with them? Go look them up. All good capitalists too.
unclebanana 1 year ago
Comment removed
GrandFunker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unclebanana I believe capitalism can NOT work under tyranny...but thats' a different argument. Let's say you're right. All these capitalist dictators...just a small minority really. Whereas you look at communism...always oppressive. Socialism arguably less so...but still so. Without controls of some sort...someone to take from...there is no socialism. While capitalism can be perverted into tyranny, socialism is by it's very nature tyrannical
GrandFunker 1 year ago
Amazing how people change when the topic is power.
kitzlaihel 1 year ago
@kitzlaihel Yeah. I saw this wannabe capitalists justifying child-prostitution, slavery just to make their system work. They wish to become capitalists so hard and taxation is in their way - unfortunately also the people who can't take care of themselves like disabled, children, elderly, sick and the environment. They go so far that they attack morality itself to justify themselves. So fucking transparent. Are they?
organdva 1 year ago
It is funny how a Socialist government has a monopoly! Capitalism = WIN and Socialism = FAIL!
thundersnake1 1 year ago
Ferengi are so cool! I like Free Market Capitalism! Down with SOCIALISM!
thundersnake1 1 year ago
Accumulation of wealth is required for most large projects and the magnitude of State projects requires even more accumulation together with borrowing and taxation.
So you want something eco-friendly? Remove the State, the creators of wars, patriotism/nationalism and poverty.
The more the State grows the more it needs to spend. The more it spends the more it need to tax. The more it taxes the more wealth it can accumulate.
[Smarter] crooks are attracted by this system.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin ''History'' was the key word - feudalism, colonialism, African slave trade, privatization - systems and practice you might not agree with but this is left out of the equation. Haiti didn't have colonies, Cuba don't block capitalists economy and USA didn't have ww2 to make ''The most wealthy country'' in proper context.
This ahistorical-mythological-capitalism is the consequence that seek its justification in some ''life-boat scenarios'' and ''paper-models''.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
@organdva
All those terms you used there either need a State to make it possible or are gone thanks to our social evolution.
A free market economy is a concept to reason upon.
Saying "it hasn't happened" is an attempt to ignore the arguments for it.
Yet, hypocritically enough, Socialism never happened but that is supported by you guys.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin The division between capitalism and state is semantic one.
They are gone because of continuous strive in humanity to reach liberty, equality and brotherhood by struggling against the ruling class
You don't have any serious strategy to bring the state down. Everything that you(ancaps)have accomplish is promotion of politics and politicians who push ''market-liberation'' - that is the opposite of what historically and today anarchists have been fighting for. Detached form reality
organdva 1 year ago
Greed as long as it is satisfied without infringing the liberty of others is NOT my business.
Capitalism = Private ownership of businesses. That's all.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin We don't have another Planet. Resources aren't anyone property. Greed degrades human potential to become aware of responsibility towards greater things then ones short miserable life.
We could reduce it to that but private firms require police protection(state) and not to mention the whole set of mythology about human nature, history of accumulation of property, prosperity etc.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
Private firms do not require the State, they can contract other private firms, security firms.
Accumulation of property is a trait that made humans triumph among other animals.
Like stocking up on food, wood and supplies to facilitate life in the future.
As we evolved we accumulated things we could exchange with others, then came the State and it told you what you can and cannot accumulate and that is what you want to do, prevent people from surviving their own way.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin State is the original ''security firm''. Countries that didn't have labor movements, private and state security is indistinguishable - they crush violently formation of labor unions.
You can't avoid all the coercion involved in this accumulation and claim its fruits in your future ancap fantasy by legitimizing this property.
You live in a country that have rob the world and than brag how ''capitalism is successful'' but ''it is ''non-coercive'' if you look deeply in his eyes''-lol
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
Again, you confuse free market capitalism with State corporatism.
You haven't even grasped the concept a anarcho-capitalism because you don't know what capitalism is and what is not.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin wtf?
You want capitalism to mean prosperity, all the good stuff, bla bla without empirical evidence just based on logic; or you use ''look at USA success and failure of USSR'' and then you say wait: ''USA didn't prosper on robbery of the world it is the corporatism''; but capitalism means prosperity look at the USA *LOL*
Check your logic man.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
Capitalism is the private ownership of businesses. That in a free market economy is a natural occurrence. You can only stop it using the State and their regulations.
That the United States govt robbed to have more money is no secret yet you cannot use that as the sole cause of America's economic superiority without being wrong about your analysis.
Capitalism, a free market, corporatism and the State are all different things. Don't mix definitions up.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin Yes, the authoritative, hierarchical businesses that needs to be protected by the police(security,dro's, whatever) force. Another ahistorical, nonempirical claim yet you call it ''natural'' - property rights didn't come from vacuum but from previous authoritative systems of ownership.
No, this is as you say corporatism and not capitalism.
Capitalism as you said, isn't happen just like socialism - you don't know what the hell are you talking about!
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
I meant that within a free market economy, Capitalism happens naturally because that is what humans have discovered to be most efficient, to divide the work.
Capitalism is a concept, whether is happening in its absoluteness or not we don't know yet(I believe it will you believe it wont).
It does happen today to some extend just like Socialism happens to some extend and people like me want the former to happen at full scale.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin Corporatism happens naturally because that is what humans have discovered to be most efficient!''?!?''Just look at China's authoritative capitalism - fucking ''efficient''. Class struggle is ''natural''. Division of labor is not exclusive to capitalism! Educate yourself.
Just like I said before. You (ancaps) don't have any serious strategy to bring the state down. You just push for reforms of ''market-liberation'' - everything what anarchists are fighting against!
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
Look at your typo. Capitalism not corporatism.
Yes, it happens by itself in a free market because in a free market anyone can open up a business, own it, take the risk of bankruptcy and workers can work for him or not.
Division of labor includes ownership of a company.
Some people can manage a company, others cannot.
What's wrong with that? Nothing really. Perhaps wrong for envious people who cannot manage a company and are destined for a lower paying job.
_Continues_
asperin 1 year ago
Ancaps have no way to bring the State down?
Haven't you seen our recent growth?
How we brought people of the various liberty movements in contact with Austrian Economics and the Mises Institute.
There has been a tremendous growth in people who dislike big govt and taxation. We support these people because they will shrink the govt and we will continue to work to achieve our goal.
BTW, in Anarchy there is no economic intrusion from the State, allowing me to own a business, thus be a Capitalist.
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin Just like I said.
''anrcho''-capitalism is a oxymoron just like ''anarcho''-nationalism or any ''anarcho''-authoritarianism.
Quick playing the role of rejected misunderstood child - it is pathetic.
organdva 1 year ago
@asperin No typo - the same logic applied man. ''Opening a businesses'' is strictly legal therm that only make sense in a legal system. You can move to other country or not.
No it doesn't. It is refereed to the ''organizer'' and not the boss. Management doesn't apply owner. This is typical Bolshevist careerist tactic - you are just jealous because you don't have political power.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
I don't want political power for me nor for you people. No one should have it
Management applies ownership, unless you're managing other person's property.
BUT, lets start from scratch.
Questions.
In a stateless society, is there a central agency regulating the market?
If there is one, name it, if not then answer this other question.
Having no central regulator in this stateless society, I can invest, buy land, machinery and hire workers, thus becoming a Capitalist. Who stops me?
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin
Police protection, i.e. the state, is needed to protect the private property.
Capitalism is authoritative and hierarchical, that is the opposite of anarchism.
Worker self management(socialism) - libertarian
Wage-labor ends just like slavery ended.
No one ''tolerates'' slave ownership just like wage-labor - it is immoral.
Anyone who doesn't seek the authority is welcome - no boss, priest, politician
Understand first 2 points before moving on!
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
Yeah you did not answer my questions.
You are not debating, you keep repeating the same outdated nonsense. I'm done with this, unless you want to answer my questions and we can go on.
asperin 1 year ago
I answered your questions. No one will tolerate wage labor just like no one tolerates slavery. We don't accept people who seek position of authority. + I explained why ''anarcho''-capitalism is a oxymoron - because it is authoritative and hierarchical economic model - and how private businesses need police protection(state). What more do you need?
Let me rephrase your question: What if I want to keep slaves, wage wars etc. what ''central regulator'' stops me? Makes more sense?
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
If you want to keep slaves it will be up to the consumer to decide if what you're doing is cost efficient for you or not.
In today's world what would happen is that no one, or at least most, will not make business with you and you will have to change your policies to be able to make money.
Slavery requires you to purchase or capture slaves, those who helped you acquire these slaves will be evaded by people just as you're being evaded.
_Continues_
asperin 1 year ago
@organdva
PEOPLE, the consumer decides. True complete democracy of the market has the last word. If you oppose this human choice-taking then you are for an specific group to deal with society, hierarchical, the opposite of Anarchy.
Comparing wage labor to slavery is a fallacy.
Play clean.
Now respond my question, directly.
Not with the assumption of "no one will tolerate wage labor". Who stops me from gathering money and setting up a business?
asperin 1 year ago
@asperin You nihilistic authoritarian piece of shit!!! I would not recommend you to repeat that in a real life in front of any serious anarchist or leftist in that regards.
Now fuck off!!!
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva
You have shown that when everything fails, hostility(or violence, depending on the case), is your last resource, just like every authoritarian commie.
Peace out
asperin 1 year ago
Retarded video is retarded.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
One thing you forgot to consider is how the toys got there. If they are all owned by one boy, it's because his father saved up and bought them all or he made them all by hand.
The other kids don't have any toys because their parents didn't save up to buy them or make any. Saying it's unfair doesn't make any sense. If that boy's father hadn't created his toys, then nobody would have any toys and they would all be equal. That's how a socialist utopia ends up.
gilbet 1 year ago
@gilbet If one generation is bounded by the actions of the previous generation then this is considered to be the ''social contract'' - by which the slavery and other ''property rights'' can be justified.
If consequences of ''property rights'' are not obvious to you (e.g. wars, climate change, poverty etc.) then we have nothing to discuss.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva If that boy's father hadn't created the toys, then nobody would have ANY toys.
[If one generation is bounded by the actions of the previous generation then this is considered to be the ''social contract'' - by which the slavery and other ''property rights'' can be justified]
Interesting point, but there is no contract. Only envy and wants from the "did nots" directed at the "dids" over what they accumulated. If you gather food for the winter you have power over a dummy who didn't
gilbet 2 months ago
Capital is not accumulated for personal use(like toothbrush or bead). Capitalist have no use of capital beyond creating profit from it. Toys are metaphor for the means of production(real capital). No capitalist have ever build one factory by his own hands. The workers have build the world we see today. Capitalists have done work of allocating capital but allocation can be done democratically in planned economy. In the end, capitalists need workers but workers don't need them.
organdva 2 months ago
1) Then what are you going to buy the toothbrush with, besides capital? 2) I use capital for everything including profiting. 3)Factory was designed by capitalist. Would not exist otherwise. 4)That's like saying the tools built my house. If they hadn't been directed, they would have been lying around doing nothing. (j/k) If America had democratically planned its economy from the start, we'd all still be farmers, tailors & shoemakers like Little House on the Prairie. (No incentive to develop.)
gilbet 2 months ago
@gilbet Nothing has been designed by capitalists, in fact most architectural and technical schematics is the works of students and academics. The capitalists portrayed in most situation refers to the management, which usually only hold the money to fund.
Karl Marx did Not promote a removal of money as a means of wager, neither did he believe in a society of farmers, like you obviously have seen during communist regime Red khmer held Cambodia and Laos during the final days of the Vietnam war.
Ulrna 2 months ago
@Ulrna "Nothing has been designed by capitalists"
Do you really think that some "students & academics" set up the infrastructure of all the businesses run by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton (WalMart), Sergey Brin & Larry Page(Google) Mark Zuckerberg(Facebook), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Rupert Murdoch(Fox), Steven Spielberg and George Lucas?
And while these guys were designing businesses from the ground up, creating valuable products and millions of jobs.... What were socialists doing?
gilbet 3 weeks ago
@gilbet People don't seem to understand that the opposite of a dictatorship is a dictatorship in this case. The middle ground doesn’t exist in the United States.
You have a communist dictatorship which claims sovereignty and suppressed individual rights on one side, and the same going on in a free market capitalist-type society by the implementation of an already powerful elite holding lesser business back and subjugating their own population by debt and hard-labour "slavery" on the other side.
Ulrna 2 months ago
@gilbet Of the two, I would purpose it's the Capitalist society which grants no incentive to develop, a corporation does not subsidise culture.
Stately funded culture and historical buildings is common, and so is stately funded education.
There is a social net in order to help people develop within most socialist-based governments, like social-democracy.
Currently there is no non-profit organizations which identifies as capitalist which help in the same way, at least without expecting anything.
Ulrna 2 months ago
@organdva Okay, can you name any innovations developed by a "planned economy"?
On the capitalism side, we have...well actually- it's EVERYTHING YOU OWN.
Light Bulb, Telephone, Cell Phone, Radio, TV, Computer, Internet browser, Refrigerator, Washing Machine, Microwave
You see, Socialists take all this stuff for granted and try to say yeah yeah the workers could have done all that on their own. And I suppose Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford could have done it on their own also.
gilbet 3 weeks ago
@gilbet
Internet, computer, every high tech started as military state funded. You forget that SSSR sent first man into space. Don't forget all the tech from PRC China.
Every infrastructure, factory, the whole economy is but in time of dictatorial market-socialism(Yugoslavia), so I inherited and worked for everything I own. I'm not bounded by social contract to capitalism as capitalist didn't to every technological invention before like bow&arrow, mill, plow or vessel.
organdva 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gilbet 2 weeks ago
@organdva "Internet, computer, every high tech started as military state funded [by Capitalism on technology by Edison & Bell]
So, why did it require Capitalists- Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to make the computer useful?
If we define capitalists as people allowed to keep the fruit of their labor, then those items were all designed by capitalists. Homo Erectus would not design a spear just to turn it over to the state in exchange for "privileges". The same goes for every other invention.
gilbet 2 weeks ago
@gilbet
Read David Ellerman(not a Marxist or Communist). Worker is entitled to the fruits of his labor, it is the employment contract that is violation of this principle that then allows capitalist to profit form workers labor. Most of today's socialists, even Marxists, are against state ownership. You are arguing against dead people and dead arguments. Intellectual property is privatization of common property, even liberal economist are against it. Nobody created anything from zero.
organdva 1 week ago
@organdva Actually, the worker receives 100% of the fruits of his labor, since he is able to trade and covert his time into the highest amount of money that the market will bear. If the owner/gambler profits also, it is from value created (out of nothing) from the enterprise, not value removed from the worker or customer. That's the magical ingredient that Socialists miss in their equation- that profit comes from nothing, it's extra- just like an extra tomato in your garden.
gilbet 1 week ago
@gilbet
No theory of value or theory of property socialist, comunist, or other ever clamed that value is remuved form anyone. Value, property comes from the labour. Please, read actual socialist theories and arguments then come back. Don't invent stuf, it is becoming anoying.
organdva 1 week ago
@organdva I am referring to the isolated labor itself- the market value of it to other companies, while you are referring to the result of labor within the enterprise. So, our discussion has finally narrowed the difference between the ideologies down to this: Socialists believe that all the value created comes from the result of the labor within the enterprise. Capitalists believe that some value is created by worker, which is 100% paid for, rest of value is created by enterprise.
gilbet 1 week ago
@organdva Okay, so Socialists believe that all the value created comes from the result of the labor, within the enterprise. But that doesn't address the degree of contribution. When two parties achieve something together, each can claim up to 99% of the credit. The Capitalist believes you can change the workers but you can't change the Capitalist, because he's only one who can design the machine. Socialist believes you can change the Capitalist, so it should be more like 50-50.
gilbet 1 week ago
@gilbet
The next step of narrowing of ideologies that reveals the truth. Marxist actually believe that the wage is fair, you get payed the price of your labour power.Labour power is worker ability to perform work. But, capitalist would go broke if he doesn't gain more from this exchange. This "more" is surplus value. Capitalist do some administrative work. Inventions are done by engineers and inventors-enthusiasts. Admin. work can be done by workers themselves. Markets are another issue
organdva 1 week ago
The Ferengi are dickheads -- LITERALLY! ;)
destronia123 1 year ago
More reinforcing of the dominant pre-economic views of the world.
"The planner didn't lift a single log. He must have done nothing! AAARGH!"
fringeelements 1 year ago
This is a brilliant analogy, though, I think you could have gone further into the imperialism at the end.
LucienLachance007 1 year ago
Thanks. You can watch the whole video linked in the sidebar. I got 11 minutes limit and I even speed it up :)
organdva 1 year ago
Didn't notice that, :P
LucienLachance007 1 year ago
@LucienLachance007, Doesn't the analogy break down when you ask the question who is the real world counterpart of the supervisor who has given all the toys to Rex? and What is the real world counter-event that reflects all the toys being given to Rex?
Decentralism 1 year ago
The toys have been stolen and unjustly allocated to the one kid. The others should jump the one kid and homestead the toys. Furthermore, in order to prevent such a thing from happening in the future, the teacher should be shot.
problem solved.
DeraJa 1 year ago
Do you mind explaining what you mean by ''homesteading''.
organdva 1 year ago
To claim as your property. Neither the teacher or the child have no valid claim on the toys.
DeraJa 1 year ago
I don't understand from what position do you claim that ''neither the teacher or the child have no valid claim on the toys''? I assume that you think property is valid if acquired by homesteading.
So, I ask you to explain what do you mean by ''homesteading''? Why is that better and how does it solve the problem?
organdva 1 year ago
because the the property is no longer in the theives posession.
DeraJa 1 year ago
If it is not in the thieves possession that doesn't meant it is in the hands of ''rightful'' owner.
organdva 1 year ago
true.
DeraJa 1 year ago
I use the word homesteading because I treat the stolen property as in an unclaimed state of nature.
DeraJa 1 year ago
I treat the ''stolen'' property the same but it can mean different things depending on how we define ''stolen'', ''property'' and so on.
What is the right way to acquire property?
organdva 1 year ago
I'd imagine we would differ greatly on these things.
DeraJa 1 year ago
Why can't you define or explain how homesteading relates to property and why this theory should be accepted?
organdva 1 year ago