Is the "Free Market" part of "Human Nature"?

Michael Albert responds.

From an interview on market abolition:

http://www.zcommunications.org/michael-albert-on-market-abolition-by-site-adm...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Michael Albert
• free market
• human nature
• market abolition

[MsSexySocialist]

@procraft

And again, your statement "companies that take care of their workers, have workers that work better" assumes that workers need to be "taken care of" in the first place and are incapable of running things themselves.

This is essentially like making an argument for feudalism by saying that "the lords that treat their serfs better do better economically" rather than criticizing serfdom itself as the cause of the problem.

[MsSexySocialist]

@sadisticbrujeria

1. Anarchism is by definition anti-capitalist as capitalism perpetuates "archy", that is heteronomous hierarchical structures of rule and subordination.

2. All you need do to see this is a fact is read a single book by that clown Murray Rothbard - rewritings of history, straw man arguments, and assuming your own conclusion without providing any evidence.

3. Every single market economy has been a statist economy. A "free market" has never existed.

[XXjazzfiend99xx]

@sadisticbrujeria from what I know most companies that were taken over received a lot of government funding, went bankrupt , and were abandoned by their former owners. I am not expert on property rights, but I don't know how one can still claim to be the rightful owners when many of these factories were built using public funds and they used public funding for bailouts. Either way, these worker-controlled companies are doing better than their former owners&being productive.

[sadisticbrujeria]

@XXjazzfiend99xx upon reviewing this is claims the companies were abandoned. Sounds fair to me if that is true.

[sadisticbrujeria]

@XXjazzfiend99xx I havent seen the movie, but legally does not mean morally. If they were ACTUALLY capable of competing they would have taken out a loan and started their own company. Instead they used government force to strong arm the rightful owner(s) of something out of it. That is called theft.

[XXjazzfiend99xx]

@sadisticbrujeria If you watch "The Take" by Naomi Klein, the employees of some of the companies took controls of means of production from former masters legally. Basically they argued that with the amount of unpaid wages, and the amount of corporate welfare their former masters they received, they thought the people/state had more rights to the means of production then the private owners.

[XXjazzfiend99xx]

@MsSexySocialist 3. I agree, I can't think of any country where a true free market has actually existed (same as socialism). The US is state-sponsored corporatism, and it has been that way for ever. Even people like Raegan are known for applying very strong protectionist policies to protect American businesses.

[XXjazzfiend99xx]

@MsSexySocialist I just think there is this contradiction in the capitalist's argument. They say that government is naturally corrupt, and the solution is to create completely free market where government doesn't intervene at all, but isn't asking the government not to intervene just another way of asking government not to be corrupt? They both need government to do what they are supposed to in order to work, and they both fail in reality for that reason.

[XXjazzfiend99xx]

@MsSexySocialist that reminds me I was talking to an ancap about child labor Bangladesh, use of child labor in chocolate production, and their answer was "thing will get better as capitalism flourishes". Easy to say when it's not your problem. Also, I think we need to recognize that the fact that all of us here are able use a computer and discuss ideas like this already puts us in the privileged background, when you consider half of the world lives on less than $2/day

[sadisticbrujeria]

@MsSexySocialist 1.No more so than your unproven opinions do. 2. Sounds hilarious and sick, will do. 3.The logical fallacy is 'argumentum ad antiquitam' and also Reification or hypostatization. Just because A hasn't existed doesn't mean A can't exist. or Just because A is true now doesn't mean A will always be true. It is like a negative is-ought dilemma, like an is not-ought not. Again, please, for the love of god, explain/prove why capitalism requires a state, i keep asking