Hasn't it been shown that when given more than two choises people can't choose rationally? Isn't the whole basis of free market economy based on the rational consumer idea which isn't actually a reality?
Everything is a system, including "natural interactions", and any human arguing for one or the other system is a human who perceives personal benefit in that system.
Some of the best, most succesfull countries in the world are socialist countries. The fact that USA seems to be open and free is a bullshit lie. After 9/11 you passed some laws that are so abusrd when it comes to private life and decision that it remainds me of Easth-Europe during the cold war. You have great amount of corruption, and your extream Capitalistic views just arent going to work.
As a Swede ,socialist, Atheist. Yes im an fundamentalist. Stupid things has to go. If people believe. Fine by me! keep it to yourself. It has no place in society. Moral Was way before religion. We manage with our own born-sense. And Sweden! yes! it's in a god direction. :-) The church has more or less nothing to say these days, as it should be. Love Sweden-
To have a "Free" market you can not so easily rule out coercion. If the market were truly free it could lie cheat and steal as it pleases, and considering that the "free market" often has money as its top priority, there is no reason to think that coersion will not be implemented. The free market, like anarchism, is implemented in smaller communities, coercion can be avoided and fairness enacted. But once the market becomes too big, those tiny flaws in the system grow exponentially.
I'll leave out all the negative effects of the current system as this doesn't seem to fit into your definition of free market (and rightly so).
But even a truly free market would be incredibly flawed, if not more so. Without direction what would stop monopolies in every expensive, hard to enter industries (such as banks)? Who would look out for the long term interests of society in order to prevent economic and environmental disasters? And how would any measure of equality be obtained?
JAMIE DIMON, CNBC, FOXBUSINESS AND CNN ANCHORS ARRESTED FOR ILLEGALLY ACCESSING AND MONITORING PRIVATE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.
THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 1-3 MONTHS.
I AM GOING TO JUMP OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE IN 1-3 MONTHS AND COMMIT SUICIDE TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERIOUS OF THIS MATTER. JAMIE DIMON AND THESE TELEPROMPTER READERS WILL GO TO JAIL.
Both the free market and biological evolution are demonstrations of bottom-up emergent spontaneous order. Both are beautiful. Socialists who embrace evolution are hypocrites.
There is no such thing as a "naturally forming system" when it comes to economics. Both socialism and a free market system require that we subscribe to them and participate in them. Free Market Anarchists are not out to impose the "free market" on us despite our will, but there is a tendency to idealize, in the same way socialists do, how a system could work given that the system matches the *perfect* conditions of a "free market." Problem is, exploitation would still be a result.
the market is simply an abstraction so long as there are no market asymmetries, but asymmetries are inevitable [see: wealth condensation]. and once these asymmetries exist, they produce a tiered society which is precisely what anarchism tries to eliminate.
This is why some individuals dont consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist philosophy.
@AcePilot2009 Almost all forms of Government replace God. Money replaces God too. Socialism is no worse in history than capitalism. Think Latin America, slavery, the Middle-east. When it comes to exploitation and intimidation, capitalism is the most common culprit.
When the lobbies have control we get banana republics and hence poverty. Today the middle class is so subdued with there cheap trinkets that they do not realize that they are a modern form of peasant. If we look at a country like
Sweden we see that they are very high on the human development index because of socialism. America is there to only because of the massive lobbies it has, and the trickle down concept for the distribution of wealth is bullshit.
I was just voicing my opinion, not meant as a attack. Judging by your other video i highly doubt you would support free market capitalism. Also it think that it is
necessary to continue the religion discussions because it is a form of education if the theist here it enough it will eventually sink in(not with the radicals) Society would never have evolved even to the small amount it has if it were not for people constantly voicing their opinions.
If a market is imposed against someone's will, then that's not a market system. Many on the left (which I belong to) don't recognize that most if not all of their arguements against market economics are actually against corporatism. -_-'
To put things in simple words the goal of free market capitalism is to produce more and more, earn more and more. This is the inherent flaw. There is a point where there is no more demand or raw material left. Hence it is unsustainable. It also bolsters greed with tax breaks etc.. good example being global recession. Bankers. It slows the development of humanity,i.e oil, the only reason we still use oil is because of massive lobbies, other technology is out there, but a few people make milions
Free market vs lazy faire... you see heres the problem. We have given corporations all the rights of the individual. This combined with the effects of the industrial revolution has given rise to plutocracy and monopoly on a massive scale. WIthout regulation corporations are free enact price controlls (the largest companies working together in order to put the competition out of buisness. So they may then charge through the throat). A good example of this is NAND flash memory...price fixing...
I've never heard a "socialist" say that libertarians are trying to impose the free market on others.
As for evolution: Sure, we really want to emulate nature where babies are eaten by other animals and entire populations are regularly wiped out by natural disasters!
The "spontaneous order" that's created by nature is extremely chaotic. That's just as true of markets, financial predators and the bubbles that truly free markets create, as it is of predators and natural disasters in nature. That's why we need knowledgeable, conscious, rational control over markets rather than giving them totally free reign.
@DRMartin789: The "spontaneous order" that's created by nature is extremely chaotic... That's why we need knowledgeable, conscious, rational control over markets rather than giving them totally free reign.
That's a good argument but I think you need to carry it a bit further. What do you suppose happens when we attempt to gain knowledgeable, conscious, rational control over ecological systems?
This argument is comparing two completely different things. Socialists aren't trying to describe how society behaves contrary to evidence. They acknowledge that we deliberate on the decisions we make, and that society is affected by our decisions.
A free market isn't any more spontaneous than libertarian socialism, since either way, conscious decisions are made with regard to an action. Protecting a piece of property is an action that takes place in a context; it's not just spontaneous.
It is also contradictory to deny that humans deliberately create the market and claim that it arises spontaneously, and yet at the same time promote the capitalist free market in opposition to other libertarian relations.
Your argument is a weak attempt to associate antirational loonies like creationists with leftist libertarians.
Where is the empirical evidence that "free market capitalism" works? Every time the concept of this laissez faire system is put into application it ends in great income disparity and collapse. All EVIDENCE points to its failure, yet you hold the theoretical model and proof of itself, just like "God done did it" and people who worship the Bible. The highest standard of living in the world is under democratic socialist system, you deny the evidence and call socialism like ID? LOL Laughable.
LOL OK, there has never been a free market example, lets take that stance. Then its hypothetical, your Bible is the Austrian School, Jesus is Mises. You have FAITH in that system but you lack evidence that it will work. Or, that every attempt that was CALLED "free market" policies, as in the difference between theory and application, ends in disaster but they can't be the REAL free market because they failed and your precondition is the free market won't fail. Exactly like the ID supporters.
The fact that draw parallel between claims made based on reasoning from first principles (Austrian economics) and claims made from thin air (religion) leads me to believe that our interacting will not be productive.
ID supporters have a reasoning, its just a faulty one. The theory of evolution was formed because that's where the evidence led. ID supporters have a theory and then look for evidence. That's exactly what you are doing, if you have NO EVIDENCE then you are exactly the same. Your whole video is not productive.
Perhaps a better title for the video should have been, "What Statists and ID have in Common." As he said in the video socialism and collectivism is fine under a free market which to me is any voluntary interaction between two or more indiviuals with low externalities.
The "externalities" you hold valid is that aggregation of wealth is property and that property is a right for the person to do with as he pleases regardless of the public will. In all capitalist systems that have been tried (defined as free market or not), wealth is aggregated into the hands of the few. So this idealism of property is YOUR precondition just like "God did it" is ID's precondition. The RIGHT of the "capital" over the majority of the people, that's why its called CAPITALism.
In fact overmind25, I guess I am just more anti-authoritarian then you are. Your "No Gods, No Authority" banner should have a asterisk on it that says "*except the power and authority of wealth as I am a true believer capitalist"
Erkd1, I hope you understand that the context and definition of "free-market" as used by overmind25 is entirely different than the right wing, republican "free-market" that is most commonly heard. I think it is safe to say that completely state ran economies typically have failed. Social Democracies are not completely controlled by the state and have a free enterprise system that satisfies consumer demands. I think you get the best of both worlds in that system it just needs to lose the state.
KruZer7, I've talked to overmind25 personally on a few occasions, I've been subscribed to him for almost 2 years now and I was just poking fun with the "more anti-authoritarian then you", like getting Anarchist served LOL It was a joke. The video above is a insult to socialists stating they are irrational. Lets reverse the argument and leave socialists out: "free market capitalism is just as sound a theory as evolution"...except for the actual evidence. Do you see the point I am making?
Hmm I didn't a response in my inbox for this comment. Anyway I think a better title would have been what do anti free market and ID have in common. I was more interested in what he said then the title, in that any voluntary formation of a worker owned factory would be part of a free market.
As for the anti authortarian comment, attaining wealth is fine as long as that wealth is not used to oppress another. The act of acquring wealth through voluntary trade is fine. It is the act of aggression that may or may not come that has to be dealt with. In terms of private poperty, it depends what you mean by that.
I'm not anti-free market, I am just not blind to its adverse effects. But here is the deal, since you do not have a shred of evidence to support your claim of a sustaining system then its not ANYTHING like evolution which is a scientific fact because of its of overwhelming evidence. ALL evidence so far gathered by so called "free market" principals end in disaster, so boo-hoo if you are a Austrian school zealot, where is the fucking evidence? Otherwise this vid is just for the lulz
Actually Communism is a form of Socialism. Hitler got his master race idea from Darwinism. Also, I don't know many Christians who want to impose their views on anyone, they just want the right to express them just as anyone else does.
But if you instituted a socialist society, wouldn't that be even worse: not even in agreement neccessarily, just pure coercion? How can your answer to contractual exploitation be pure coercion through the use of massive government power?
I do agree that some contractual agreements are coerced - in the way that drinking water is coerced, since if you don't do it you will perish. But the best way to deal with that is to simply abolish the property that is not legitimate.
Well, this is just a series of loaded questions; they presume a given answer, namely that we argue for the implementation of an economic system through pure coercion via government power. We advocate a cooperative society in which every person has a say in what is produced, how it is produced and when it is produced via direct democracy. And we argue that private property is illegitimate because it is acquired through the exploitation of wage labor; and we intend to abolish it.
Trade isn't necessarily coercive, but the free market which is advocated by anarchocapitalists is. This is because it is impossible for a trade to be completely mutually beneficial; one will always come away from a trade with more than another. The capitalist, owning much capital and money, has the upperhand in trade negotiations. If a worker does not like the wage he is making, then the capitalist can say, "Too bad! I'm sure someone else would like to work for less!"
Since the worker has no capital of his own, and must continually outproduce the value of his wage to survive, he has no choice but to accept the conditions of the capitalist. So not only are markets man made, but they are also overwhelmingly coercive. Even in selling the product of many laborers, he rips off the consumer, and sells it to them at a price marked up far beyond what he paid the worker. Why? Because most consumers are workers, and cannot afford to exploit wage labor.
Very limited understanding of business. Workers do not necessarily outproduce the value of their wage. Many businesses fail because workers do the opposite. Payroll does not even make anywhere close to 100% of the expenses of a company. And yet, a company like walmart keeps in profit about 3% of the money them make in revenue. Meaning for every dollar someone spends at walmart, 3 cents of profit is made.
I'm not saying that payroll comprises the totality of productive costs, but the exploitation of labor does in fact occur in most all of those productive costs. And yes; businesses can fail precisely because workers commit sabotage and slack off on the job. Since a worker only makes the wage, there is no incentive to work any harder than he can get away with. Just because the apparent rate of exploitation seems to be low doesn't mean that great amounts of wealth aren't being extracted therefrom.
The situation you refer to, wage slavery, is not a result of a free market (a free market has never existed). It is a result of 2 things: first, the monetary system (interest on money creates wage slavery), and second, the notion that resources are "public" property and can thus be sold to corporations to be developed. That is state capitalism, you see alot of it in the third world where desperate governments sell the resources to corporations which then have a tool to exploit the people.
Oh, fantastic! More anarchocapitalist griping about the nonexistence of exploitation in a "genuine" free market! It sounds as though you don't even know what wage slavery is. Wage slavery occurs when surplus value is extracted from unpaid labor; i.e., a capitalist pays workers an hourly rate to produce a good or service, and then sells that good or service for more than he paid the workers. This is exploitation because he appropriates this surplus without contributing to its creation.
It is a parasitical and oppressive productive relationship, not to mention a hierarchical one. I'm sure you'll bitch that labor is worthless and the capitalist pays for overhead and all kinds of costs of production. The problem with this argument is that these things were acquired through the exploitation of wage labor. The production of all things in capitalist society is conducted through the exploitation of wage labor, so capitalists exploit workers they don't even employ on a systemic basis.
And wage slavery would still exist in the so-called "free market anarchist society" you advocate. This is because you argue that all things should be governed by the market, without a "state" or "government" to intervene. Thus, not only would wage slavery still exist, because labor would still be available on the market, since the market is the sole governing force in society, and thus anything would be salable therein, but it would be much worse, because capitalists could pay workers even less.
And worst of all, it wouldn't be an anarchist society, because the creation of inequality and hierarchical relationships is an inherent consequence of free market economics. Capitalists would be the sole governing force, and they would hire police squads and security details to protect their property, since there's no limits to what one could buy on the market, and they would fire upon striking or rebellious workers. The state would reproduce itself through the free market; it is not anarchism.
"One will always come away from a trade with more than the other." This assumes that things have an objective value. They do not - what's valuable to me may be less valuable to you. Trade can absolutely be mutually beneficial. To think it cannot be presumes that things have an inherent and universal value, which is laughably easy to disprove.
You're misunderstanding me; it's obvious to anyone that trade can be mutually beneficial, I do not deny this. I'm talking about monetary value, here; one will always come out from a trade in a better position than the other from an economic standpoint: the real question is to what degree. And one with the cunning and the resources can exploit the ignorance and dispossession of others for personal economic gain, and the market is primarily based upon this fact.
Alright a few questions, first, to get to your intended system of communism, do you acknowledge that first socialism, which Marx even said meant very strong government, must be instituted? Secondly, what if the democracy decides that what is produced, how it is produced, and when it is produced should be decided by a free market? And third, if private property is not legitimate, what about the result of your own labor? Say you build a house, must you be forced to share it with everybody?
Marx never used the term socialism in this manner; he used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. He referred to the transitional phase as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, or lower communism. He never meant strong government, either. By proletarian dictatorship he meant the unchallenged class rule of the working class. He theorized that this rule would be exacted by that class directly, and would therefore be antithetical to the autocratic rule of individuals.
Why would proletarians hand the reigns of the productive relations back to the exploiting classes? This has never happened any time the proletariat has gotten the upper hand. It is foolish to suppose that working people would decide to allow their hard won liberty to be put up for sale upon the open market yet again, especially when the historical preponderance of working class rule demonstrates otherwise.
The whole point of communist society is to allow the producer to keep the product of his labor; one may build and keep their own house. Collectivizing personal property would be pointless unless it were conceivable that such property could be exploited economically. If I were to build a house for the designated purpose of sheltering myself alone, it would be of no use to society to collectivize it. Communism and communists make a distinction between personal property and capital.
Good video, but after listening to that, almost any educated socialist would invoke a hard determinist argument that argues that people get exploited in a 'free market.' Since there is no free will, they would say, a person's consent is irrelevant and the fact that they are exploited undermines their freedom even if they agreed to the expoitation.
You are obfuscating the socialist position; we don't deny the existence of free will. Free will is clearly established, and Marx sure as hell argue against free will as a philosophical concept. We do argue that exploitation exists in spite of contractual relations between exploiter and exploited, however. The reason being that contractual agreements do not necessarily occur in the absence of coercion, if ever.
No. Evolution is a naturally occuring process, while the market is a human creation. Accumulations of profit lead to imbalances of power which affects relationships between people. Your analysis lacks a class dimension.
Very strange analogy. Why not get away from abstract theory and look at how a market system actually operates in the real world. It always goes hand in hand with hierarchical domination. I say again, what about CLASS?
More childish sophistry. You can assert this until your fingers cramp. Genetics, evolution and nature will never be a suitable analogy for what you are trying to rationalize; apples and oranges. It fails to accurately describe human social behavior and economics. And once again; to state that the market is not only unintentional, but unconsciously created implies a distinct lack of free will. You have backed yourself into a corner on this one; it's one or the other: nature or free will.
In fact, your formulation seems rather explicit; DNA is but a molecule, and a human being has a highly functioning brain. To equate the two suggests a gross lack of understanding for each. If humans don't create the market, then who and what does? God? And if it is an involuntary social phenomenon, why don't we find free market economics practiced by other organisms with far less conscious social being and even in organisms approaching the aptitude of human social being?
Oh, and human beings individually do create the market. What he meant was entities comprised of human such as states, or capitalism do not create markets. Or at least I am pretty sure he meant this.
I think the premise with this is that markets are inherently created by human behavior, which involves free will. To the blogger, this phenomena is thrown under the umbrella of being "natural." Nowhere does he state markets occur "unconsciously," that is your assertion. All a market is, is a place where goods and services are exchanged. Markets, i.e. exchange, has occurred in every historic society. It is logically impossible to stop market formation and inhibiting it is obstructing free will.
"Saying that humans create the market is like saying that genes create evolution.
It ignores the important point that the market is not created purposefully by humans, any more than evolution is created purposefully by genes."
This is a rather explicit renunciation of deliberately conscious and rational decision making which free marketeers proclaim to be the foundations of their advocated economic system. He is bringing it upon himself when he likens this to genetic mutation and evolution.
It couldn't be more obvious to even the most uninitiated to human social behavior and economics that economic systems are enacted with purpose, intent and deliberance; this isn't natural, it is man made. If it wasn't, it would utterly lack free will, which would be counterproductive to the free market position. To give an example, it would be more like an ant colony; their social system is entirely dictated by instinct and hormonal cues, and lacks free will as ants have not the mental capacity.
This is a rather explicit renunciation of deliberately conscious and rational decision making which free marketeers proclaim to be the foundations of their advocated economic system. He is bringing it upon himself when he likens this to genetic mutation and evolution."
Again, he never explicitly denied conscious decision making by humans. You are asserting your perceived implications as his explications. What he means is humans have a desire to exchange. From exchanging comes the market.
He says several times in the video that the market is "naturally occurring." This isn't at all implicit; it is quite explicit. Wanting or desiring something can result from human nature, this is true. But the the choice to engage in trade is a deliberate act. There is no trading which is simply "naturally occurring." All economic systems are deliberately implemented by human beings. So all this nonsense about "naturally occurring economic systems" is just anarchocapitalist bullshit.
Moreover, arguing that economic systems are deliberately implemented by human beings is a far cry from arguing that the universe was created by a supreme deity. This is just an incredibly lame and feeble attempt to associate and equate socialists with creationists, and any type of correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
A manager or entrepreneur may plan to build something, but if that same thing will be built a year from not is up to mill of other people desiring that product and the efficiency of the firm delivering it. When that firm fails it is penalized via profit loss. The loss is a cost to the biz model just as fitness losses compromise certain organism in an ecological system. The market has profits/losses, biological optimality analysis uses fitness benefits/costs. Wasteful organisms/firms are purged.
"Markets, i.e. exchange, has occurred in every historic society. It is logically impossible to stop market formation and inhibiting it is obstructing free will."
This is old school capitalist rhetoric which has failed to stand up to both the anthropological record and the social sciences. Money has only been around for approximately four thousand years, and barter and social classes aren't much older.
From the time that man first began to evolve from Australopithecus approximately two million years ago until approximately twenty-five thousand years ago when human social classes first appeared, man has lived in bands of primitive communistic social arrangements. And there are still indigenous peoples and cultures around the globe which have lived in primitive communistic social arrangements from then until the present. All of which utterly lack "market formation" and are abundant in free will.
There is no large scale historic society that has ever existed that has been completely free from markets and or market elements. Prove me wrong.
"And there are still indigenous peoples and cultures around the globe which have lived in primitive communistic social arrangements from then until the present."
They have a terrible standard of living in my opinion and I never said they did not exist. Indigenous people did trade (markets.) Not all, but lots did.
First prove it right, then we'll talk. But moreover, I'm not denying that trade never occurred in prehistory. I'm merely saying that the overwhelming productive relations of man were communistic due to primitive technology; there did not exist at this time the ability to exploit labor through productive means. The things which man possessed were all readily available from nature, hence; HUNTER-GATHERING society: the overwhelming majority of things were hunted and gathered.
Things which were and are acquired by the peoples that practice/d these economic systems hunted and gathered their means of subsistence collectively, and the product was distributed collectively. Why? Primarily because it was hard to generate surplus with primitive means; without surplus, depriving others of the product of their labor could mean certain death for the producers, who were each valuable to one another in their abilities to hunt, gather and provide a means of subsistence.
The only time trade would ever occur in these societies would be if an imperishable good was scarce, or taken somewhere in which it was scarce. Obviously trade could be potentially vital to vagabonds who knew little about the lands they were in, but more important than trade was being educated by a foreign land's inhabitants in successfully habitating the region, so diplomatic relations between two tribes was imperative.
But more importantly, trade was impromptu in these societies; it happened out of necessity, and it was not a highly established or fundamental part of life therein. There were no markets and there was no marketplace. Trade is indeed a "market element," but it was by no stretch of the imagination a defining aspect of social relations. You exaggerate the role of trade in primitive and prehistoric society and gloss over the reality of social being therein to score points in debate; bravo, sire.
"You exaggerate the role of trade in primitive and prehistoric society and gloss over the reality of social being therein to score points in debate; bravo, sire."
I never said much about trade in primitive societies other than it existed. So this "exaggeration" is another fiat assertion.
Fair enough; I'll admit that I was hasty in that conclusion. But trade doesn't always occur due to scarcity, depending on the relative industrial development of the society in question. In modern industrial capitalist society, industry has made labor power more efficient and productive, and therefore allows surplus to be generated and extracted therefrom, and things are no longer traded for need due to scarcity, but for profit and trade in its own sake.
Look up "Mesa Verde National Park." This park is one of the many, many places that North American Indian tribes gathered to trade. Fourth graders understand indigenous people traded. Seriously.
"overwhelming majority of things were hunted and gathered. "
This statement completely depends on time and location of what specific peoples you are referring to. I can produce plenty of evidence to show this is not always true. They did exchange (markets.)
This is old school capitalist rhetoric which has failed to stand up to both the anthropological record and the social sciences. Money has only been around for approximately four thousand years, and barter and social classes aren't much older."
Where did I say money has been around since history? I said exchange has existed since history has. The anthropological record proves that it has existed before history. I am sorry but trading was part of hunter gatherer societies.
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."Definition of Communism
No country at the moment has a laissez-faire capitalist economy, so how can you call it the "naturally forming system"? It is a utopia just like communism.
I don't see the problem. When we say laissez-faire we mean 'absent the State power structure', I.E., natural, since the State power structure is not natural. Laissez-faire is perfectly compatible with everything besides State power, including the existence of communes or worker-controlled factories.
Well, now that we're getting to the question of incidental phenomena vs. human agency, I was hoping to make a video in reply to this one, which could possibly be more effective, but since you've asked and I lack the means and the patience, I will get into it now. Before I do, however, I would like to first state an afterthought about state capitalism; it is a problem, in this context, because the arguments against socialism and communism presented hear are entirely based upon it.
As long as you aren't violating the non-aggression principle, I have no problem with you. As far as I'm concerned, you are free to try whatever world it is that you want to try, just as long as it isn't forced upon others. That means that if a bunch of people are paid to construct a building for someone, you shouldn't just run at him with guns and take his building. If workers want to own MoP then more power to them, as long as its done non-violently. Clearly we have situations now where
I don't necessarily believe in the use of violence to advance social revolution, but I do believe that we will inevitably clash with that class which possesses the social power of capital, heavily armed for the purpose of stopping such advancements. But moving on, the state. I advance the Marxist theory of the state as arbiter of class rule and preserver of the status quo; where social classes exist, so must the state, and where the state exists, classlessness does not. Your thoughts?
Now, without further adieu, I will answer to the preposterous notion that the market, or any human economic system besides, perhaps, a primitivist hunter-gatherer economy, is "natural." First, I must point out that there is a philosophical corner that a good deal of market anarchists, particularly the ones who've bought XOmniverse's philosophical tap-dancing, in which it is present, hook, line and sinker, have backed yourselves into.
The view put forth in this video is that the market is both naturally occurring and free of coercion; reasoning that since the market is a matrix of spontaneous exchanges which are freely, mutually agreed upon by the consent of two or more parties, XOmniverse concludes that it is both a totally natural phenomenon and entirely free of coercion. The problem with this notion is that truly natural phenomena don't happen consentually; they happen because of material causality alone.
By the understood premise that free-marketeers adhere to, i.e., that of freedom of choice, means that the free-market is the product of people consciously, deliberately making informed decisions with their own rationale and freewill; it is the product of human agency. You can cling to your fanciful, utopian delusion that the market is a product of nature all you want, but to do so would imply a complete lack of freedom or freewill of any kind. It's either one or the other; nature or freewill.
Yes, we in the socialist camp deny that the free-market is naturally occurring, but we do accept, as I believe "market anarchists" and other ideologically capitalist individuals do in the least, that the capitalist social system is a part of human social evolution. However, arguing that the market is the product of human agency; i.e., implemented by human beings, isn't the same as arguing that the universe and the earth was created by a deity some twelve thousand years ago.
But moving forward in my critique, even though the market is the product of human agency, even though choices and exchanges are arguably being made consentually and contractually, that doesn't mean that they occur in the absence of coercion. In fact, hardly ever does a completely, mutually "informed decision" take place in the market, if ever. The overwhelming majority, if not all, of these exchanges take place in deceit; a form of coercion.
If I were to offer you a penny for a dollar in your hand, you would call me crazy. If I were to succeed in convincing you to accept my offer, others would call it deceit; fraud; shenanigans. Yet capitalism operates exclusively upon this principle. Everyday, the capitalist pays the worker a meager wage for the commodities produced, takes them to market, and sells them for many time more than they paid the worker; defrauding the worker and the consumer in due course. Free of coercion my ass.
And the results attest to this fact; wealth couldn't possibly be amassed, accumulated and transferred from one class to the next in such quantities if this wasn't so. The very existence of profit means that the seller sells their commodities for more than the price they paid for it. To profit in this sense is to exploit and defraud the buyer; to take advantage of their relative position of ignorance and dispossession. Au contraire; the market is not free of coercion: it is coercion manifest.
this is a result of state capitalism (collective instead of no ownership of land), where the government makes agreements with businesses that allow for resources like water to become property. It's funny that you would invoke such an argument against individualists who believe that the only just property is acquired by labor or the exchange of property acquired by labor.
You're so far off the mark over there it's impossible to believe you'll ever understand anything. the rethoric that socialism is bad is something you've been incessantly told by the media, the corporations, the rich, the people in power, the government etc. Why do you think that is?
You're so far off the mark over there it's impossible to believe you'll ever understand anything. the rethoric that socialism is bad is something you've been incessantly told by the media, the corporations, the rich, the people in power, the government etc. Why do you think that is?
HA! Not programmed by the media, eh? This reply is a mere parrot of the very argument put forth by the dominant ideology of the ruling class via their privately owned media: the idea that socialism is nothing more than government economic activity! Your use of the word socialism has no substance; in your hands, it is nothing more than epithet! Government ownership of the means of production is not socialism; it is State Capitalism! Socialism is DIRECT worker-ownership of the means of production.
Undoubtedly you're thinking "But the Soviet Union was Socialist! It's name and constitution said so! And it was nothing but government ownership of the means of production!" Capitalism and socialism are social relations of production, no matter what anyone says. You can call an apple an orange, it doesn't change what it is. It's the same for socioeconomic systems. If relations of production are esoteric, if wages and prices are imposed, if surplus is still extracted, socialism it is NOT!
WHAT? We are brainwashed by the media? What media are you watching? The word socialism is almost entirely mentioned in a positive light EVERYWHERE. Try googling 'capitalism' on the other hand and see if you get a single positive result.
HA! You dumbass! When I say, "the media," I am of course referring to the privately owned, capitalist media. Do you see them talking bad about capitalism? NO. Do you see them talking positively about socialism? NEVER. They repeat the very same rhetoric about government-run capitalism, verbatim. If you google anything like said topics you're gonna get mixed results about 'em; it's the fucking INTERNET! Quit reading the shit you've loaded your colon with and pull your head out of your ass!
Well I'm sure I hate what you are calling government-run capitalism just as much as you do. The bailouts, the mere existence of corporations, corporate welfare and lobbying, war profiteering, etc.
But dude, enough with the ad hominems already. That kind of stuff doesn't help any of us.
Well said. I apologize, that was no way to talk to someone who was not responding in kind. You must forgive; I'm more accustomed to such exchanges, as you can imagine, I get more than my share. I guess I was affronted by your manner of total negation. Once more; I'm sorry, it wasn't fair to you, and is counterproductive to rational discussion.
No prob man, we're all guilty of it sometimes. This stuff can be frustrating. One of the worst things that happens is when people get caught up arguing about the meaning of words, instead of the ideas. For example, when I hear Communism and I'm thinking of a huge government dictating what everyone can/can't do, summary executions, etc or when others hear the words free market and think I'm referring to George W. Bush when that's not what I mean and it's not what you mean...frustrating.
Agreed. But let me assure you; when I refer to these things, they have very specific and explicit definitions, and I adhere to them exclusively. Communism and capitalism are socioeconomic systems, not people or governments. =P
Well, at least we are both agreed that the status quo is a serious problem. I would just say that I think the biggest issue with the market is the existence of the State to begin with. I do not think wealth is so unevenly divided if not for the power class of the State which creates 'corporations', controls the money supply, uses the general fund of taxes to squash out competition and help friends monopolize and control the market, etc.
Now, in the vein of rational discussion, when the government is the sole owner and operator of the means of production (MoP) conducting itself through a market with a means of exchange, this amounts to no more than capitalism of the state. It is more inefficient than, if not as inefficient as, free-market capitalism. Moreover, exploitation still exists and surplus is still extracted; it is not socialism: a society based upon social and economic equality via the common ownership of the MoP.
When I was talking about socialism, I meant that system of statism by which the elite hold power by promising to create an 'equal' society, when in fact they have all the power so they do no such thing. The kind of power wielded by the State is unnatural, dangerous and it corrupts everyone it touches. I would liken it to the ring in Lord of the Rings, you cannot use it for good, no matter how good your intentions are. The answer is not to take the ring but destroy it.
Yes, but since state capitalism, or whatever social arrangement which is insubstantively socialist, referring to it as such is a misnomer. Second, you are referring to The One Ring, not the series, and since it is entirely fictional, I advise against its use for this purpose. Lastly, before continuing, being aware of the importance of definition and context, you must define the state. It would seem the major disconnect, and, thus, the source of much controversy, is rooted in what it is exactly.
Chavez, Mao, the Norweigans, etc have all called themselves/their programs socialist or been called socialist by others. So, I'm calling what we've got here, in general, socialist. You are calling this state capitalism, and that's fine. I don't see why I can't call something socialist when so many others do. Words don't have inherent meaning.
I made an analogy between the One ring and the State. It was not supposed to be a definition.. it's an analogy.
The reason that I must insist upon the proper use of the word is because the discussion herein pertains to the normative term, and not the relative usage in relation to people and social systems. We must have a common understanding of what we are talking about if we are to succeed in actually discussing the subject. Yes, I understand that it's analogical, but we are being ANALYTICAL, and analogy is a poor candidate for pursuing this purpose. We are talking about REAL, CONCRETE SUBJECTS.
You can see here by your own admission that you aren't even referring to socialism. You are instead referring to a social arrangement in which, as Orwell observed, "These people (your aforementioned elite) will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organize society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. Private property rights will be abolished, but common ownership will not be established."
Adam Smith held that the market should consist of many small providers that competed on a level playingfield and create optimal competition. There is no such optimal market, there is no competition, there is no "free" market. it's an illusion. Regulation means rules _against_ monopoly. the US populace have been force fed the idea that "regulation" is somehow always inherently bad. As if playing the game of monopoly with ten huge corporations who can disregard all the rules is good for you.
great post. i liked the part about voluntary communes and syndicalist factories. i have been trying to convince people of this for a while, but there's a very hard shell to get through. in an actual free *market*, *free* people and communities would be *free* to organize themselves how they want to. a lot of socialist anarchists will use phrases like "voluntary exchange and association". chomsky does this all the time.
4. i can see a lot of people in the world being unhappy because the only have "themselves". i also see a lot of people sacrifying themselves for "the greater good" how do you explain that?
5. market economies only work in industrialised and highly organised societies. but here, markets don't organise themselves, but they need A LOT OF infrastructure, police, schools, laws, and so on... so your notion of "market by nature" is bull. please research, before you explain the world!
my god, there are so many flaws in the presented argument!
1. in nature creatures don't fight for their own interest, but in order to make their genetic material survive. so, in nature you can see a lot of sacrifice in order to protect the family AND the group
However the group no longer has meaning any more with the high degree of exit or defection options. In a tribal system you were stuck to the group, in a global extend order you can abandon it and see aid elsewhere. Thus we should naturally move more toward a mutuality ethos. Also group selection theory has been largely marginalized. One sacrifices to the group to ensure their cohesion in the group.
Is your suggestion that there was a time that people did not engage in some sort of natural exchange of goods and services? The only alternatives to this are:
(1) A situation in which each individual sustains himself without any sort of trade whatsoever. Basically, people not living socially at all.
(2) A situation in which some men take from other men in order to sustain themselves, and some men have to live to sustain themselves and those around them.
(1.) The social group (i.e. the "tribe") sustained itself without trade. Egalitarian. A small society, but a society none the less. There are also all the examples of successful communal living from the more recent past.
I find the comparison with intelligent design utterly ridiculous. People can decide, can choose to live without any trade at all, if they so wish. You cannot decide that God exists.
It appears that you have misunderstood the argument presented in the video (ironic considering that this sort of misunderstanding is a major point of the video). People choosing to engage in the "communal living" of which you speak, as long as they are in no way coerced into this lifestyle, are indeed acting in accordance with free market operation. A free market is NOTHING other than a society which LACKS coercive force of one individual or group over another individual or group.
"People choosing to engage in the "communal living" . . . are indeed acting in accordance with free market operation."
Wow. If there's one thing "anarcho"-capitalists are good at, its bending the definition of words in such a way as they become meaningless. A free market does need force, by the way. Ayn Rand was one of the people who realised this with her statism.
I'm thinking you might want to reread the last sentence of my post and make another attempt at a reply, but this time with more logic and less vitriol. Keep in mind that 'free' in this sense means 'lack of coercion' and 'market' means 'the arena in which exchanges between persons--be they of words, goods, services, ideas, etc--may possibly occur'.
"A free market is NOTHING other than a society which LACKS coercive force of one individual or group over another individual or group."
Utter nonsense.
Property ownership is based on the threat of force. As long as property exists, force would be necessary to impose it. For example, if a homeless man goes into an abandoned building for shelter force is necessary to evict him. How? Through a police force. Read Adam Smith: "Til there be property, there can be no government".
Corporations instantiate a high degree of intelligent design. Not only that, but successful corporations like Wal-Mart now engage in centralized planning that approaches the size of small national economies like Belgium's.
Hasn't it been shown that when given more than two choises people can't choose rationally? Isn't the whole basis of free market economy based on the rational consumer idea which isn't actually a reality?
rolandselene 8 months ago
lol slow witted moron is to dense to understand how wrong he is..... animal evolve = market evolve= retard logic.
superfish812 8 months ago
@superfish812 Are you talking about me?
XOmniverse 8 months ago
Everything is a system, including "natural interactions", and any human arguing for one or the other system is a human who perceives personal benefit in that system.
holyjesus 1 year ago
Some of the best, most succesfull countries in the world are socialist countries. The fact that USA seems to be open and free is a bullshit lie. After 9/11 you passed some laws that are so abusrd when it comes to private life and decision that it remainds me of Easth-Europe during the cold war. You have great amount of corruption, and your extream Capitalistic views just arent going to work.
gulbirk 1 year ago
Question; what is free market?
Does it really exist in reality?
kazearaki 1 year ago
As a Swede ,socialist, Atheist. Yes im an fundamentalist. Stupid things has to go. If people believe. Fine by me! keep it to yourself. It has no place in society. Moral Was way before religion. We manage with our own born-sense. And Sweden! yes! it's in a god direction. :-) The church has more or less nothing to say these days, as it should be. Love Sweden-
isak69 1 year ago
so Sweden, one of the most atheist countries in the world are fundamentalist?
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago
@KarinMikazuki Not Christian fundamentalist, but certainly the Church of the State is pervasive.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse
The church of the state? you mean the christian church?
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago
To have a "Free" market you can not so easily rule out coercion. If the market were truly free it could lie cheat and steal as it pleases, and considering that the "free market" often has money as its top priority, there is no reason to think that coersion will not be implemented. The free market, like anarchism, is implemented in smaller communities, coercion can be avoided and fairness enacted. But once the market becomes too big, those tiny flaws in the system grow exponentially.
mooseutoo 1 year ago
I'll leave out all the negative effects of the current system as this doesn't seem to fit into your definition of free market (and rightly so).
But even a truly free market would be incredibly flawed, if not more so. Without direction what would stop monopolies in every expensive, hard to enter industries (such as banks)? Who would look out for the long term interests of society in order to prevent economic and environmental disasters? And how would any measure of equality be obtained?
elco9791 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BREAKING NEWS:
JAMIE DIMON, CNBC, FOXBUSINESS AND CNN ANCHORS ARRESTED FOR ILLEGALLY ACCESSING AND MONITORING PRIVATE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.
THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 1-3 MONTHS.
I AM GOING TO JUMP OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE IN 1-3 MONTHS AND COMMIT SUICIDE TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERIOUS OF THIS MATTER. JAMIE DIMON AND THESE TELEPROMPTER READERS WILL GO TO JAIL.
111WLee 1 year ago
Isn't seeking to remove coercion a manipulation of a naturally forming system?
basedrop 1 year ago
Both the free market and biological evolution are demonstrations of bottom-up emergent spontaneous order. Both are beautiful. Socialists who embrace evolution are hypocrites.
libertyplayground 1 year ago
There is no such thing as a "naturally forming system" when it comes to economics. Both socialism and a free market system require that we subscribe to them and participate in them. Free Market Anarchists are not out to impose the "free market" on us despite our will, but there is a tendency to idealize, in the same way socialists do, how a system could work given that the system matches the *perfect* conditions of a "free market." Problem is, exploitation would still be a result.
s8ist420 1 year ago
the market is simply an abstraction so long as there are no market asymmetries, but asymmetries are inevitable [see: wealth condensation]. and once these asymmetries exist, they produce a tiered society which is precisely what anarchism tries to eliminate.
This is why some individuals dont consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist philosophy.
aSheeple 1 year ago
animals also at as groups though but that makes your point even stronger (because they do this to survive)
MirageScience 1 year ago
Socialism replaces God with government.
That's why they worship Obama, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
@AcePilot2009 Almost all forms of Government replace God. Money replaces God too. Socialism is no worse in history than capitalism. Think Latin America, slavery, the Middle-east. When it comes to exploitation and intimidation, capitalism is the most common culprit.
mooseutoo 1 year ago
Just seeing the number of down votes seems to be an indication of the anarcho-syndicalists' dogmatism in their economic preference.
MeHimself 1 year ago
When the lobbies have control we get banana republics and hence poverty. Today the middle class is so subdued with there cheap trinkets that they do not realize that they are a modern form of peasant. If we look at a country like
Sweden we see that they are very high on the human development index because of socialism. America is there to only because of the massive lobbies it has, and the trickle down concept for the distribution of wealth is bullshit.
thomasdaveluy 2 years ago
By all means keep attacking state capitalism. It's not something I advocate and support, so it's not an attack on me.
XOmniverse 2 years ago 3
@XOmniverse
I was just voicing my opinion, not meant as a attack. Judging by your other video i highly doubt you would support free market capitalism. Also it think that it is
necessary to continue the religion discussions because it is a form of education if the theist here it enough it will eventually sink in(not with the radicals) Society would never have evolved even to the small amount it has if it were not for people constantly voicing their opinions.
thomasdaveluy 2 years ago
0:08 - 0:18
If a market is imposed against someone's will, then that's not a market system. Many on the left (which I belong to) don't recognize that most if not all of their arguements against market economics are actually against corporatism. -_-'
okayillgonow 2 years ago
To put things in simple words the goal of free market capitalism is to produce more and more, earn more and more. This is the inherent flaw. There is a point where there is no more demand or raw material left. Hence it is unsustainable. It also bolsters greed with tax breaks etc.. good example being global recession. Bankers. It slows the development of humanity,i.e oil, the only reason we still use oil is because of massive lobbies, other technology is out there, but a few people make milions
thomasdaveluy 2 years ago
It's a "straw man"
pmnichols10 2 years ago
if something is conditioned is it natural?
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
Comment removed
r22k10 2 years ago
Libertarians provide plenty of evidence. You're just trolling.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Free market vs lazy faire... you see heres the problem. We have given corporations all the rights of the individual. This combined with the effects of the industrial revolution has given rise to plutocracy and monopoly on a massive scale. WIthout regulation corporations are free enact price controlls (the largest companies working together in order to put the competition out of buisness. So they may then charge through the throat). A good example of this is NAND flash memory...price fixing...
beefygoblin 2 years ago
I agree that corporate personhood is bad, but this is in and of itself a form of regulation that inhibits free market activity.
It is exactly the state that enables monopoly behavior to begin with.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
But how could corporations exist in an agorist society?
SuperWillHatch 2 years ago
I've never heard a "socialist" say that libertarians are trying to impose the free market on others.
As for evolution: Sure, we really want to emulate nature where babies are eaten by other animals and entire populations are regularly wiped out by natural disasters!
DRMartin789 2 years ago
This video was about how evolution and the functions of the market share one fundamental component (spontaneous order, to be exact),
How exactly did you draw the conclusion you did in the 2nd half of this comment from that?
XOmniverse 2 years ago
The "spontaneous order" that's created by nature is extremely chaotic. That's just as true of markets, financial predators and the bubbles that truly free markets create, as it is of predators and natural disasters in nature. That's why we need knowledgeable, conscious, rational control over markets rather than giving them totally free reign.
DRMartin789 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DRMartin789: The "spontaneous order" that's created by nature is extremely chaotic... That's why we need knowledgeable, conscious, rational control over markets rather than giving them totally free reign.
That's a good argument but I think you need to carry it a bit further. What do you suppose happens when we attempt to gain knowledgeable, conscious, rational control over ecological systems?
studentofsmith 2 years ago
I've heard it a few times.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
This argument is comparing two completely different things. Socialists aren't trying to describe how society behaves contrary to evidence. They acknowledge that we deliberate on the decisions we make, and that society is affected by our decisions.
A free market isn't any more spontaneous than libertarian socialism, since either way, conscious decisions are made with regard to an action. Protecting a piece of property is an action that takes place in a context; it's not just spontaneous.
jortylbro 2 years ago
It is also contradictory to deny that humans deliberately create the market and claim that it arises spontaneously, and yet at the same time promote the capitalist free market in opposition to other libertarian relations.
Your argument is a weak attempt to associate antirational loonies like creationists with leftist libertarians.
jortylbro 2 years ago 3
I don't oppose the right of people to engage in libertarian socialism, so your whole case here falls apart.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Basically, replace "socialism" with "state planned economy" in this video and it might seem more on base.
At the time I made this video, I equated the two.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Where is the empirical evidence that "free market capitalism" works? Every time the concept of this laissez faire system is put into application it ends in great income disparity and collapse. All EVIDENCE points to its failure, yet you hold the theoretical model and proof of itself, just like "God done did it" and people who worship the Bible. The highest standard of living in the world is under democratic socialist system, you deny the evidence and call socialism like ID? LOL Laughable.
erkd1 2 years ago
Give me an example of a free market, in the real world, today, or even in the past.
I assume that you, like most people, confuse (either deliberately or out of ignorance) a free market with a corporate state.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
LOL OK, there has never been a free market example, lets take that stance. Then its hypothetical, your Bible is the Austrian School, Jesus is Mises. You have FAITH in that system but you lack evidence that it will work. Or, that every attempt that was CALLED "free market" policies, as in the difference between theory and application, ends in disaster but they can't be the REAL free market because they failed and your precondition is the free market won't fail. Exactly like the ID supporters.
erkd1 2 years ago
The fact that draw parallel between claims made based on reasoning from first principles (Austrian economics) and claims made from thin air (religion) leads me to believe that our interacting will not be productive.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
ID supporters have a reasoning, its just a faulty one. The theory of evolution was formed because that's where the evidence led. ID supporters have a theory and then look for evidence. That's exactly what you are doing, if you have NO EVIDENCE then you are exactly the same. Your whole video is not productive.
erkd1 2 years ago
Perhaps a better title for the video should have been, "What Statists and ID have in Common." As he said in the video socialism and collectivism is fine under a free market which to me is any voluntary interaction between two or more indiviuals with low externalities.
overmind25 2 years ago
The "externalities" you hold valid is that aggregation of wealth is property and that property is a right for the person to do with as he pleases regardless of the public will. In all capitalist systems that have been tried (defined as free market or not), wealth is aggregated into the hands of the few. So this idealism of property is YOUR precondition just like "God did it" is ID's precondition. The RIGHT of the "capital" over the majority of the people, that's why its called CAPITALism.
erkd1 2 years ago
In fact overmind25, I guess I am just more anti-authoritarian then you are. Your "No Gods, No Authority" banner should have a asterisk on it that says "*except the power and authority of wealth as I am a true believer capitalist"
erkd1 2 years ago
Erkd1, I hope you understand that the context and definition of "free-market" as used by overmind25 is entirely different than the right wing, republican "free-market" that is most commonly heard. I think it is safe to say that completely state ran economies typically have failed. Social Democracies are not completely controlled by the state and have a free enterprise system that satisfies consumer demands. I think you get the best of both worlds in that system it just needs to lose the state.
KruZer7 2 years ago
KruZer7, I've talked to overmind25 personally on a few occasions, I've been subscribed to him for almost 2 years now and I was just poking fun with the "more anti-authoritarian then you", like getting Anarchist served LOL It was a joke. The video above is a insult to socialists stating they are irrational. Lets reverse the argument and leave socialists out: "free market capitalism is just as sound a theory as evolution"...except for the actual evidence. Do you see the point I am making?
erkd1 2 years ago
Oh I see, and yes I do.
KruZer7 2 years ago
Hmm I didn't a response in my inbox for this comment. Anyway I think a better title would have been what do anti free market and ID have in common. I was more interested in what he said then the title, in that any voluntary formation of a worker owned factory would be part of a free market.
overmind25 2 years ago
As for the anti authortarian comment, attaining wealth is fine as long as that wealth is not used to oppress another. The act of acquring wealth through voluntary trade is fine. It is the act of aggression that may or may not come that has to be dealt with. In terms of private poperty, it depends what you mean by that.
overmind25 2 years ago
I'm not anti-free market, I am just not blind to its adverse effects. But here is the deal, since you do not have a shred of evidence to support your claim of a sustaining system then its not ANYTHING like evolution which is a scientific fact because of its of overwhelming evidence. ALL evidence so far gathered by so called "free market" principals end in disaster, so boo-hoo if you are a Austrian school zealot, where is the fucking evidence? Otherwise this vid is just for the lulz
erkd1 2 years ago
Actually Communism is a form of Socialism. Hitler got his master race idea from Darwinism. Also, I don't know many Christians who want to impose their views on anyone, they just want the right to express them just as anyone else does.
glramer2007 2 years ago
But if you instituted a socialist society, wouldn't that be even worse: not even in agreement neccessarily, just pure coercion? How can your answer to contractual exploitation be pure coercion through the use of massive government power?
I do agree that some contractual agreements are coerced - in the way that drinking water is coerced, since if you don't do it you will perish. But the best way to deal with that is to simply abolish the property that is not legitimate.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
Well, this is just a series of loaded questions; they presume a given answer, namely that we argue for the implementation of an economic system through pure coercion via government power. We advocate a cooperative society in which every person has a say in what is produced, how it is produced and when it is produced via direct democracy. And we argue that private property is illegitimate because it is acquired through the exploitation of wage labor; and we intend to abolish it.
Communitis 2 years ago
Trade isn't necessarily coercive, but the free market which is advocated by anarchocapitalists is. This is because it is impossible for a trade to be completely mutually beneficial; one will always come away from a trade with more than another. The capitalist, owning much capital and money, has the upperhand in trade negotiations. If a worker does not like the wage he is making, then the capitalist can say, "Too bad! I'm sure someone else would like to work for less!"
Communitis 2 years ago
Since the worker has no capital of his own, and must continually outproduce the value of his wage to survive, he has no choice but to accept the conditions of the capitalist. So not only are markets man made, but they are also overwhelmingly coercive. Even in selling the product of many laborers, he rips off the consumer, and sells it to them at a price marked up far beyond what he paid the worker. Why? Because most consumers are workers, and cannot afford to exploit wage labor.
Communitis 2 years ago
Very limited understanding of business. Workers do not necessarily outproduce the value of their wage. Many businesses fail because workers do the opposite. Payroll does not even make anywhere close to 100% of the expenses of a company. And yet, a company like walmart keeps in profit about 3% of the money them make in revenue. Meaning for every dollar someone spends at walmart, 3 cents of profit is made.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
I'm not saying that payroll comprises the totality of productive costs, but the exploitation of labor does in fact occur in most all of those productive costs. And yes; businesses can fail precisely because workers commit sabotage and slack off on the job. Since a worker only makes the wage, there is no incentive to work any harder than he can get away with. Just because the apparent rate of exploitation seems to be low doesn't mean that great amounts of wealth aren't being extracted therefrom.
Communitis 2 years ago
The situation you refer to, wage slavery, is not a result of a free market (a free market has never existed). It is a result of 2 things: first, the monetary system (interest on money creates wage slavery), and second, the notion that resources are "public" property and can thus be sold to corporations to be developed. That is state capitalism, you see alot of it in the third world where desperate governments sell the resources to corporations which then have a tool to exploit the people.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
Oh, fantastic! More anarchocapitalist griping about the nonexistence of exploitation in a "genuine" free market! It sounds as though you don't even know what wage slavery is. Wage slavery occurs when surplus value is extracted from unpaid labor; i.e., a capitalist pays workers an hourly rate to produce a good or service, and then sells that good or service for more than he paid the workers. This is exploitation because he appropriates this surplus without contributing to its creation.
Communitis 2 years ago 2
It is a parasitical and oppressive productive relationship, not to mention a hierarchical one. I'm sure you'll bitch that labor is worthless and the capitalist pays for overhead and all kinds of costs of production. The problem with this argument is that these things were acquired through the exploitation of wage labor. The production of all things in capitalist society is conducted through the exploitation of wage labor, so capitalists exploit workers they don't even employ on a systemic basis.
Communitis 2 years ago 2
And wage slavery would still exist in the so-called "free market anarchist society" you advocate. This is because you argue that all things should be governed by the market, without a "state" or "government" to intervene. Thus, not only would wage slavery still exist, because labor would still be available on the market, since the market is the sole governing force in society, and thus anything would be salable therein, but it would be much worse, because capitalists could pay workers even less.
Communitis 2 years ago 2
And worst of all, it wouldn't be an anarchist society, because the creation of inequality and hierarchical relationships is an inherent consequence of free market economics. Capitalists would be the sole governing force, and they would hire police squads and security details to protect their property, since there's no limits to what one could buy on the market, and they would fire upon striking or rebellious workers. The state would reproduce itself through the free market; it is not anarchism.
Communitis 2 years ago 2
Word
Wishchrono 2 years ago
"One will always come away from a trade with more than the other." This assumes that things have an objective value. They do not - what's valuable to me may be less valuable to you. Trade can absolutely be mutually beneficial. To think it cannot be presumes that things have an inherent and universal value, which is laughably easy to disprove.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
You're misunderstanding me; it's obvious to anyone that trade can be mutually beneficial, I do not deny this. I'm talking about monetary value, here; one will always come out from a trade in a better position than the other from an economic standpoint: the real question is to what degree. And one with the cunning and the resources can exploit the ignorance and dispossession of others for personal economic gain, and the market is primarily based upon this fact.
Communitis 2 years ago
Alright a few questions, first, to get to your intended system of communism, do you acknowledge that first socialism, which Marx even said meant very strong government, must be instituted? Secondly, what if the democracy decides that what is produced, how it is produced, and when it is produced should be decided by a free market? And third, if private property is not legitimate, what about the result of your own labor? Say you build a house, must you be forced to share it with everybody?
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
Marx never used the term socialism in this manner; he used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. He referred to the transitional phase as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, or lower communism. He never meant strong government, either. By proletarian dictatorship he meant the unchallenged class rule of the working class. He theorized that this rule would be exacted by that class directly, and would therefore be antithetical to the autocratic rule of individuals.
Communitis 2 years ago
Why would proletarians hand the reigns of the productive relations back to the exploiting classes? This has never happened any time the proletariat has gotten the upper hand. It is foolish to suppose that working people would decide to allow their hard won liberty to be put up for sale upon the open market yet again, especially when the historical preponderance of working class rule demonstrates otherwise.
Communitis 2 years ago
The whole point of communist society is to allow the producer to keep the product of his labor; one may build and keep their own house. Collectivizing personal property would be pointless unless it were conceivable that such property could be exploited economically. If I were to build a house for the designated purpose of sheltering myself alone, it would be of no use to society to collectivize it. Communism and communists make a distinction between personal property and capital.
Communitis 2 years ago
Good video, but after listening to that, almost any educated socialist would invoke a hard determinist argument that argues that people get exploited in a 'free market.' Since there is no free will, they would say, a person's consent is irrelevant and the fact that they are exploited undermines their freedom even if they agreed to the expoitation.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
You are obfuscating the socialist position; we don't deny the existence of free will. Free will is clearly established, and Marx sure as hell argue against free will as a philosophical concept. We do argue that exploitation exists in spite of contractual relations between exploiter and exploited, however. The reason being that contractual agreements do not necessarily occur in the absence of coercion, if ever.
Communitis 2 years ago
No. Evolution is a naturally occuring process, while the market is a human creation. Accumulations of profit lead to imbalances of power which affects relationships between people. Your analysis lacks a class dimension.
dadaphone 2 years ago
Saying that humans create the market is like saying that genes create evolution.
It ignores the important point that the market is not created purposefully by humans, any more than evolution is created purposefully by genes.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Very strange analogy. Why not get away from abstract theory and look at how a market system actually operates in the real world. It always goes hand in hand with hierarchical domination. I say again, what about CLASS?
dadaphone 2 years ago
More childish sophistry. You can assert this until your fingers cramp. Genetics, evolution and nature will never be a suitable analogy for what you are trying to rationalize; apples and oranges. It fails to accurately describe human social behavior and economics. And once again; to state that the market is not only unintentional, but unconsciously created implies a distinct lack of free will. You have backed yourself into a corner on this one; it's one or the other: nature or free will.
Communitis 2 years ago
In fact, your formulation seems rather explicit; DNA is but a molecule, and a human being has a highly functioning brain. To equate the two suggests a gross lack of understanding for each. If humans don't create the market, then who and what does? God? And if it is an involuntary social phenomenon, why don't we find free market economics practiced by other organisms with far less conscious social being and even in organisms approaching the aptitude of human social being?
Communitis 2 years ago
Oh, and human beings individually do create the market. What he meant was entities comprised of human such as states, or capitalism do not create markets. Or at least I am pretty sure he meant this.
KruZer7 2 years ago
I think the premise with this is that markets are inherently created by human behavior, which involves free will. To the blogger, this phenomena is thrown under the umbrella of being "natural." Nowhere does he state markets occur "unconsciously," that is your assertion. All a market is, is a place where goods and services are exchanged. Markets, i.e. exchange, has occurred in every historic society. It is logically impossible to stop market formation and inhibiting it is obstructing free will.
KruZer7 2 years ago
"Saying that humans create the market is like saying that genes create evolution.
It ignores the important point that the market is not created purposefully by humans, any more than evolution is created purposefully by genes."
This is a rather explicit renunciation of deliberately conscious and rational decision making which free marketeers proclaim to be the foundations of their advocated economic system. He is bringing it upon himself when he likens this to genetic mutation and evolution.
Communitis 2 years ago
It couldn't be more obvious to even the most uninitiated to human social behavior and economics that economic systems are enacted with purpose, intent and deliberance; this isn't natural, it is man made. If it wasn't, it would utterly lack free will, which would be counterproductive to the free market position. To give an example, it would be more like an ant colony; their social system is entirely dictated by instinct and hormonal cues, and lacks free will as ants have not the mental capacity.
Communitis 2 years ago
"
This is a rather explicit renunciation of deliberately conscious and rational decision making which free marketeers proclaim to be the foundations of their advocated economic system. He is bringing it upon himself when he likens this to genetic mutation and evolution."
Again, he never explicitly denied conscious decision making by humans. You are asserting your perceived implications as his explications. What he means is humans have a desire to exchange. From exchanging comes the market.
KruZer7 2 years ago
He says several times in the video that the market is "naturally occurring." This isn't at all implicit; it is quite explicit. Wanting or desiring something can result from human nature, this is true. But the the choice to engage in trade is a deliberate act. There is no trading which is simply "naturally occurring." All economic systems are deliberately implemented by human beings. So all this nonsense about "naturally occurring economic systems" is just anarchocapitalist bullshit.
Communitis 2 years ago
Moreover, arguing that economic systems are deliberately implemented by human beings is a far cry from arguing that the universe was created by a supreme deity. This is just an incredibly lame and feeble attempt to associate and equate socialists with creationists, and any type of correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Communitis 2 years ago
A manager or entrepreneur may plan to build something, but if that same thing will be built a year from not is up to mill of other people desiring that product and the efficiency of the firm delivering it. When that firm fails it is penalized via profit loss. The loss is a cost to the biz model just as fitness losses compromise certain organism in an ecological system. The market has profits/losses, biological optimality analysis uses fitness benefits/costs. Wasteful organisms/firms are purged.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"Markets, i.e. exchange, has occurred in every historic society. It is logically impossible to stop market formation and inhibiting it is obstructing free will."
This is old school capitalist rhetoric which has failed to stand up to both the anthropological record and the social sciences. Money has only been around for approximately four thousand years, and barter and social classes aren't much older.
Communitis 2 years ago
From the time that man first began to evolve from Australopithecus approximately two million years ago until approximately twenty-five thousand years ago when human social classes first appeared, man has lived in bands of primitive communistic social arrangements. And there are still indigenous peoples and cultures around the globe which have lived in primitive communistic social arrangements from then until the present. All of which utterly lack "market formation" and are abundant in free will.
Communitis 2 years ago
There is no large scale historic society that has ever existed that has been completely free from markets and or market elements. Prove me wrong.
"And there are still indigenous peoples and cultures around the globe which have lived in primitive communistic social arrangements from then until the present."
They have a terrible standard of living in my opinion and I never said they did not exist. Indigenous people did trade (markets.) Not all, but lots did.
KruZer7 2 years ago
First prove it right, then we'll talk. But moreover, I'm not denying that trade never occurred in prehistory. I'm merely saying that the overwhelming productive relations of man were communistic due to primitive technology; there did not exist at this time the ability to exploit labor through productive means. The things which man possessed were all readily available from nature, hence; HUNTER-GATHERING society: the overwhelming majority of things were hunted and gathered.
Communitis 2 years ago
Things which were and are acquired by the peoples that practice/d these economic systems hunted and gathered their means of subsistence collectively, and the product was distributed collectively. Why? Primarily because it was hard to generate surplus with primitive means; without surplus, depriving others of the product of their labor could mean certain death for the producers, who were each valuable to one another in their abilities to hunt, gather and provide a means of subsistence.
Communitis 2 years ago
The only time trade would ever occur in these societies would be if an imperishable good was scarce, or taken somewhere in which it was scarce. Obviously trade could be potentially vital to vagabonds who knew little about the lands they were in, but more important than trade was being educated by a foreign land's inhabitants in successfully habitating the region, so diplomatic relations between two tribes was imperative.
Communitis 2 years ago
But more importantly, trade was impromptu in these societies; it happened out of necessity, and it was not a highly established or fundamental part of life therein. There were no markets and there was no marketplace. Trade is indeed a "market element," but it was by no stretch of the imagination a defining aspect of social relations. You exaggerate the role of trade in primitive and prehistoric society and gloss over the reality of social being therein to score points in debate; bravo, sire.
Communitis 2 years ago
"You exaggerate the role of trade in primitive and prehistoric society and gloss over the reality of social being therein to score points in debate; bravo, sire."
I never said much about trade in primitive societies other than it existed. So this "exaggeration" is another fiat assertion.
KruZer7 2 years ago
Fair enough; I'll admit that I was hasty in that conclusion. But trade doesn't always occur due to scarcity, depending on the relative industrial development of the society in question. In modern industrial capitalist society, industry has made labor power more efficient and productive, and therefore allows surplus to be generated and extracted therefrom, and things are no longer traded for need due to scarcity, but for profit and trade in its own sake.
Communitis 2 years ago
"The only time trade would ever occur in these societies would be if an imperishable good was scarce,"
This is the only time trade occurs in any society in accordance with economics (including Classical economics, where Marxist economics stems from.)
KruZer7 2 years ago
"First prove it right, then we'll talk. "
Look up "Mesa Verde National Park." This park is one of the many, many places that North American Indian tribes gathered to trade. Fourth graders understand indigenous people traded. Seriously.
"overwhelming majority of things were hunted and gathered. "
This statement completely depends on time and location of what specific peoples you are referring to. I can produce plenty of evidence to show this is not always true. They did exchange (markets.)
KruZer7 2 years ago
This is old school capitalist rhetoric which has failed to stand up to both the anthropological record and the social sciences. Money has only been around for approximately four thousand years, and barter and social classes aren't much older."
Where did I say money has been around since history? I said exchange has existed since history has. The anthropological record proves that it has existed before history. I am sorry but trading was part of hunter gatherer societies.
KruZer7 2 years ago
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."Definition of Communism
Karl.Marx,German Ideology(1845) Soviet?
cjanne9 3 years ago
what a great video. thanks for posting.
collapseofthedollar 3 years ago
No country at the moment has a laissez-faire capitalist economy, so how can you call it the "naturally forming system"? It is a utopia just like communism.
oaarghh 3 years ago
I don't see the problem. When we say laissez-faire we mean 'absent the State power structure', I.E., natural, since the State power structure is not natural. Laissez-faire is perfectly compatible with everything besides State power, including the existence of communes or worker-controlled factories.
StoicSentry 3 years ago
Well, now that we're getting to the question of incidental phenomena vs. human agency, I was hoping to make a video in reply to this one, which could possibly be more effective, but since you've asked and I lack the means and the patience, I will get into it now. Before I do, however, I would like to first state an afterthought about state capitalism; it is a problem, in this context, because the arguments against socialism and communism presented hear are entirely based upon it.
Communitis 3 years ago
As long as you aren't violating the non-aggression principle, I have no problem with you. As far as I'm concerned, you are free to try whatever world it is that you want to try, just as long as it isn't forced upon others. That means that if a bunch of people are paid to construct a building for someone, you shouldn't just run at him with guns and take his building. If workers want to own MoP then more power to them, as long as its done non-violently. Clearly we have situations now where
StoicSentry 3 years ago
I don't necessarily believe in the use of violence to advance social revolution, but I do believe that we will inevitably clash with that class which possesses the social power of capital, heavily armed for the purpose of stopping such advancements. But moving on, the state. I advance the Marxist theory of the state as arbiter of class rule and preserver of the status quo; where social classes exist, so must the state, and where the state exists, classlessness does not. Your thoughts?
Communitis 3 years ago
Now, without further adieu, I will answer to the preposterous notion that the market, or any human economic system besides, perhaps, a primitivist hunter-gatherer economy, is "natural." First, I must point out that there is a philosophical corner that a good deal of market anarchists, particularly the ones who've bought XOmniverse's philosophical tap-dancing, in which it is present, hook, line and sinker, have backed yourselves into.
Communitis 3 years ago
The view put forth in this video is that the market is both naturally occurring and free of coercion; reasoning that since the market is a matrix of spontaneous exchanges which are freely, mutually agreed upon by the consent of two or more parties, XOmniverse concludes that it is both a totally natural phenomenon and entirely free of coercion. The problem with this notion is that truly natural phenomena don't happen consentually; they happen because of material causality alone.
Communitis 3 years ago
By the understood premise that free-marketeers adhere to, i.e., that of freedom of choice, means that the free-market is the product of people consciously, deliberately making informed decisions with their own rationale and freewill; it is the product of human agency. You can cling to your fanciful, utopian delusion that the market is a product of nature all you want, but to do so would imply a complete lack of freedom or freewill of any kind. It's either one or the other; nature or freewill.
Communitis 3 years ago
Yes, we in the socialist camp deny that the free-market is naturally occurring, but we do accept, as I believe "market anarchists" and other ideologically capitalist individuals do in the least, that the capitalist social system is a part of human social evolution. However, arguing that the market is the product of human agency; i.e., implemented by human beings, isn't the same as arguing that the universe and the earth was created by a deity some twelve thousand years ago.
Communitis 3 years ago
But moving forward in my critique, even though the market is the product of human agency, even though choices and exchanges are arguably being made consentually and contractually, that doesn't mean that they occur in the absence of coercion. In fact, hardly ever does a completely, mutually "informed decision" take place in the market, if ever. The overwhelming majority, if not all, of these exchanges take place in deceit; a form of coercion.
Communitis 3 years ago
If I were to offer you a penny for a dollar in your hand, you would call me crazy. If I were to succeed in convincing you to accept my offer, others would call it deceit; fraud; shenanigans. Yet capitalism operates exclusively upon this principle. Everyday, the capitalist pays the worker a meager wage for the commodities produced, takes them to market, and sells them for many time more than they paid the worker; defrauding the worker and the consumer in due course. Free of coercion my ass.
Communitis 3 years ago
And the results attest to this fact; wealth couldn't possibly be amassed, accumulated and transferred from one class to the next in such quantities if this wasn't so. The very existence of profit means that the seller sells their commodities for more than the price they paid for it. To profit in this sense is to exploit and defraud the buyer; to take advantage of their relative position of ignorance and dispossession. Au contraire; the market is not free of coercion: it is coercion manifest.
Communitis 3 years ago
this is a result of state capitalism (collective instead of no ownership of land), where the government makes agreements with businesses that allow for resources like water to become property. It's funny that you would invoke such an argument against individualists who believe that the only just property is acquired by labor or the exchange of property acquired by labor.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but who are you talking to here?
Communitis 2 years ago
..From exchanging comes the market. People don't create the market then they exchange. They exchange and there comes the market.
KruZer7 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're so far off the mark over there it's impossible to believe you'll ever understand anything. the rethoric that socialism is bad is something you've been incessantly told by the media, the corporations, the rich, the people in power, the government etc. Why do you think that is?
gunthaarz 3 years ago
You're so far off the mark over there it's impossible to believe you'll ever understand anything. the rethoric that socialism is bad is something you've been incessantly told by the media, the corporations, the rich, the people in power, the government etc. Why do you think that is?
gunthaarz 3 years ago
Accusing me of being programmed by the media is a complete non-argument and also completely incorrect.
I was using socialism here to denote a statist society in which the economy was to some degree planned by the state.
It is regulation and government involvement in the economy that creates huge, pseudo-monopolistic corporations.
Maybe you should take a deep breath, calm down, and actually consider my argument before going off on a rant.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
HA! Not programmed by the media, eh? This reply is a mere parrot of the very argument put forth by the dominant ideology of the ruling class via their privately owned media: the idea that socialism is nothing more than government economic activity! Your use of the word socialism has no substance; in your hands, it is nothing more than epithet! Government ownership of the means of production is not socialism; it is State Capitalism! Socialism is DIRECT worker-ownership of the means of production.
Communitis 3 years ago
Undoubtedly you're thinking "But the Soviet Union was Socialist! It's name and constitution said so! And it was nothing but government ownership of the means of production!" Capitalism and socialism are social relations of production, no matter what anyone says. You can call an apple an orange, it doesn't change what it is. It's the same for socioeconomic systems. If relations of production are esoteric, if wages and prices are imposed, if surplus is still extracted, socialism it is NOT!
Communitis 3 years ago
WHAT? We are brainwashed by the media? What media are you watching? The word socialism is almost entirely mentioned in a positive light EVERYWHERE. Try googling 'capitalism' on the other hand and see if you get a single positive result.
StoicSentry 3 years ago
HA! You dumbass! When I say, "the media," I am of course referring to the privately owned, capitalist media. Do you see them talking bad about capitalism? NO. Do you see them talking positively about socialism? NEVER. They repeat the very same rhetoric about government-run capitalism, verbatim. If you google anything like said topics you're gonna get mixed results about 'em; it's the fucking INTERNET! Quit reading the shit you've loaded your colon with and pull your head out of your ass!
Communitis 3 years ago
Well I'm sure I hate what you are calling government-run capitalism just as much as you do. The bailouts, the mere existence of corporations, corporate welfare and lobbying, war profiteering, etc.
But dude, enough with the ad hominems already. That kind of stuff doesn't help any of us.
StoicSentry 3 years ago
Well said. I apologize, that was no way to talk to someone who was not responding in kind. You must forgive; I'm more accustomed to such exchanges, as you can imagine, I get more than my share. I guess I was affronted by your manner of total negation. Once more; I'm sorry, it wasn't fair to you, and is counterproductive to rational discussion.
Communitis 3 years ago
No prob man, we're all guilty of it sometimes. This stuff can be frustrating. One of the worst things that happens is when people get caught up arguing about the meaning of words, instead of the ideas. For example, when I hear Communism and I'm thinking of a huge government dictating what everyone can/can't do, summary executions, etc or when others hear the words free market and think I'm referring to George W. Bush when that's not what I mean and it's not what you mean...frustrating.
StoicSentry 3 years ago
Agreed. But let me assure you; when I refer to these things, they have very specific and explicit definitions, and I adhere to them exclusively. Communism and capitalism are socioeconomic systems, not people or governments. =P
Communitis 3 years ago
Well, at least we are both agreed that the status quo is a serious problem. I would just say that I think the biggest issue with the market is the existence of the State to begin with. I do not think wealth is so unevenly divided if not for the power class of the State which creates 'corporations', controls the money supply, uses the general fund of taxes to squash out competition and help friends monopolize and control the market, etc.
StoicSentry 3 years ago
Now, in the vein of rational discussion, when the government is the sole owner and operator of the means of production (MoP) conducting itself through a market with a means of exchange, this amounts to no more than capitalism of the state. It is more inefficient than, if not as inefficient as, free-market capitalism. Moreover, exploitation still exists and surplus is still extracted; it is not socialism: a society based upon social and economic equality via the common ownership of the MoP.
Communitis 3 years ago
When I was talking about socialism, I meant that system of statism by which the elite hold power by promising to create an 'equal' society, when in fact they have all the power so they do no such thing. The kind of power wielded by the State is unnatural, dangerous and it corrupts everyone it touches. I would liken it to the ring in Lord of the Rings, you cannot use it for good, no matter how good your intentions are. The answer is not to take the ring but destroy it.
StoicSentry 3 years ago
Yes, but since state capitalism, or whatever social arrangement which is insubstantively socialist, referring to it as such is a misnomer. Second, you are referring to The One Ring, not the series, and since it is entirely fictional, I advise against its use for this purpose. Lastly, before continuing, being aware of the importance of definition and context, you must define the state. It would seem the major disconnect, and, thus, the source of much controversy, is rooted in what it is exactly.
Communitis 3 years ago
Chavez, Mao, the Norweigans, etc have all called themselves/their programs socialist or been called socialist by others. So, I'm calling what we've got here, in general, socialist. You are calling this state capitalism, and that's fine. I don't see why I can't call something socialist when so many others do. Words don't have inherent meaning.
I made an analogy between the One ring and the State. It was not supposed to be a definition.. it's an analogy.
willing to continue this by pv. message.
StoicSentry 3 years ago
The reason that I must insist upon the proper use of the word is because the discussion herein pertains to the normative term, and not the relative usage in relation to people and social systems. We must have a common understanding of what we are talking about if we are to succeed in actually discussing the subject. Yes, I understand that it's analogical, but we are being ANALYTICAL, and analogy is a poor candidate for pursuing this purpose. We are talking about REAL, CONCRETE SUBJECTS.
Communitis 3 years ago
You can see here by your own admission that you aren't even referring to socialism. You are instead referring to a social arrangement in which, as Orwell observed, "These people (your aforementioned elite) will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organize society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. Private property rights will be abolished, but common ownership will not be established."
Communitis 3 years ago
Adam Smith held that the market should consist of many small providers that competed on a level playingfield and create optimal competition. There is no such optimal market, there is no competition, there is no "free" market. it's an illusion. Regulation means rules _against_ monopoly. the US populace have been force fed the idea that "regulation" is somehow always inherently bad. As if playing the game of monopoly with ten huge corporations who can disregard all the rules is good for you.
gunthaarz 3 years ago
egggggggggsactly!
great post. i liked the part about voluntary communes and syndicalist factories. i have been trying to convince people of this for a while, but there's a very hard shell to get through. in an actual free *market*, *free* people and communities would be *free* to organize themselves how they want to. a lot of socialist anarchists will use phrases like "voluntary exchange and association". chomsky does this all the time.
that is a free market!
benson471 3 years ago
This was great. Thanks!
jingleshady 3 years ago
4. i can see a lot of people in the world being unhappy because the only have "themselves". i also see a lot of people sacrifying themselves for "the greater good" how do you explain that?
5. market economies only work in industrialised and highly organised societies. but here, markets don't organise themselves, but they need A LOT OF infrastructure, police, schools, laws, and so on... so your notion of "market by nature" is bull. please research, before you explain the world!
Baijuntak 3 years ago
my god, there are so many flaws in the presented argument!
1. in nature creatures don't fight for their own interest, but in order to make their genetic material survive. so, in nature you can see a lot of sacrifice in order to protect the family AND the group
Baijuntak 3 years ago 2
However the group no longer has meaning any more with the high degree of exit or defection options. In a tribal system you were stuck to the group, in a global extend order you can abandon it and see aid elsewhere. Thus we should naturally move more toward a mutuality ethos. Also group selection theory has been largely marginalized. One sacrifices to the group to ensure their cohesion in the group.
rayyf69 2 years ago
Um, and what about pre-historic man? Where was the market then?
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Is your suggestion that there was a time that people did not engage in some sort of natural exchange of goods and services? The only alternatives to this are:
(1) A situation in which each individual sustains himself without any sort of trade whatsoever. Basically, people not living socially at all.
(2) A situation in which some men take from other men in order to sustain themselves, and some men have to live to sustain themselves and those around them.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
(1.) The social group (i.e. the "tribe") sustained itself without trade. Egalitarian. A small society, but a society none the less. There are also all the examples of successful communal living from the more recent past.
I find the comparison with intelligent design utterly ridiculous. People can decide, can choose to live without any trade at all, if they so wish. You cannot decide that God exists.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
It appears that you have misunderstood the argument presented in the video (ironic considering that this sort of misunderstanding is a major point of the video). People choosing to engage in the "communal living" of which you speak, as long as they are in no way coerced into this lifestyle, are indeed acting in accordance with free market operation. A free market is NOTHING other than a society which LACKS coercive force of one individual or group over another individual or group.
DescentToCocytus 3 years ago
"People choosing to engage in the "communal living" . . . are indeed acting in accordance with free market operation."
Wow. If there's one thing "anarcho"-capitalists are good at, its bending the definition of words in such a way as they become meaningless. A free market does need force, by the way. Ayn Rand was one of the people who realised this with her statism.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
I'm thinking you might want to reread the last sentence of my post and make another attempt at a reply, but this time with more logic and less vitriol. Keep in mind that 'free' in this sense means 'lack of coercion' and 'market' means 'the arena in which exchanges between persons--be they of words, goods, services, ideas, etc--may possibly occur'.
DescentToCocytus 3 years ago
"A free market is NOTHING other than a society which LACKS coercive force of one individual or group over another individual or group."
Utter nonsense.
Property ownership is based on the threat of force. As long as property exists, force would be necessary to impose it. For example, if a homeless man goes into an abandoned building for shelter force is necessary to evict him. How? Through a police force. Read Adam Smith: "Til there be property, there can be no government".
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
It is YOU who is bending the meaning of words.
You are conflating "defense" with "imposition".
If I come into your house with a knife and go after you and your life savings, you aren't "imposing" force upon me by defending yourself.
It is ME who is imposing myself.
jingleshady 3 years ago
Property rights need to be enforced. Where do you think they originate from? The exertion of force.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Both are a denial of emergence, and of natural processes. One group want to be god and the other group assumes there is a god.
WorBlux 3 years ago
Yes, I've always considered socialists to have a misplaced religiosity...
xelenty 3 years ago
Corporations instantiate a high degree of intelligent design. Not only that, but successful corporations like Wal-Mart now engage in centralized planning that approaches the size of small national economies like Belgium's.
advancedatheist 3 years ago
I agree. Corporatism is just another form of statism, and suffers the same problems socialism does.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Sorry but this is plain stupid it looks like a VenomFangX video.
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
Which points do you disagree with?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Comment removed
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
The financial crises is a government failure, not a market failure.
WorBlux 3 years ago
How exactly is our market unregulated? It's regulated all over the place.
The fact that the government is about to bail out a bunch of banks is proof that what we have is hardly a free market.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Comment removed
itsbizbuz 3 years ago