A left-leaning friend of mine likes to think that Europe (he's European and loves the healthcare system there) is socialist and America is somehow the opposite. When I tell him we're also socialist here, he can't accept it and think it's cause I'm 'right wing. ' He has a hard time distinguishing Libertarian from Republican, and lumps me in with them as well.
Is there a simple, not overly biased article I can link to him that shows him just how socialist America is that will set him straight?
Also, is there something that illustrates, say, the French healthcare system vs. the U.S. system, something that doesn't just show it as some kind of miracle system vs. ours? I can't believe for a second that they have some perfect, no cost system over there, but my friend seems to think so. What are the costs? Is there rationing as one should expect? What about their drugs? Does the U.S. basically subsidize all of Europe by paying high drug costs so they can get cheap drugs over there?
Thanks for any help.
In any case, just because people here don't consider borders as legitimate, or they believe them to be artificial, doesn't mean that they deny that they exist. This is not a school of nihilists.
That's kind of my point. How could you have a socialist nation? Socialism inherently rejects borders. Workers of the world, not workers of america. (There is another misnomer btw, it would be more accurate to say "productive members of the world unite")
The problem with the "social anarchist" ideal is that true collectivization of the means of production, or a social-political system in which all means of production were owned by everyone, would be impossible to sustain on any level. What I mean by this is that either the system would revert to a capitalist one, in which all goods were equally distributed amongst the population and economic calculation would once again occur, or the system falls into perpetual poverty.
I think that's a valid criticism. But it all depends on what you mean by "collectivise." Getting more people to own capital seems a much better way to evolve past the state than putting it all under the control of some beauracracy.
But alas, many would say the same about an-cap. The capitalist class would use their influence and power to reinstate a new state to protect their interests. Remember, rich people are trying to protect themselves as much as poor people, arguably more because of said power and influence.
It's nothing new to anarchists for people to say it is infeasible.
In the latter case, since it is impossible for millions upon millions of individuals to collectively plan a process of production, because there would be no consensus and not everyone is knowledgeable on the different aspects of an economy, the system would revert to one of political tyranny
No it's not. This site discusses it everyday. Unless you just admitted an-cap would inevitably lead back to statism.
People already collectively plan a process of production, through the market. That was the whole point. Socialism wasn't anti-thetical to capitalism. In fact it required it.
Therefore, the difference between a capitalist system and a socialist system is that only the latter inevitably ends in statism (with my own caveat, that the former has already developed to an extensive level).
Historically, so has capitalism.
If you re-read what you quoted, you'll notice that I don't call the current medical cartel in the United States socialist. In fact, I call universal health care socialist. There is a big difference. The former is socialistic, the latter is socialist.
Granted. Social Democracy (capitalism with a human face it has been called. I thot it was funny) is much more socialist than american corporatism. But it still requires a state and has defined borders. So, at best it could be called transitionary socialism.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: Socialism inherently rejects borders. Workers of the world, not workers of america.
Yes we know. The socialist commonwealth can never achieve its pure socialist form unless it is either isolated from the rest of the world, or the entire world becomes one global socialist commonwealth.
Until then, the transitional socialist commonwealth can resort to prices abroad from the semi-capitalistic commonwealths, so it can function just enough to keep its starving subjects duped and hopelessly enslaved.
You just don't want to get it, do you? There is no socialist commonwealth without coercion. It's a figment of your imagination. It's just a matter of looking beyond your Marxist fairy tales.
In my opinion, we shouldn't focus just on theory, but also on the practical effects of the implimentation of theory. Socialism is a theory which is incongruent with rational human action, and therefore incongruent with anarchistic society. Socialism leads to statism.
But it all depends on what you mean by "collectivise." Getting more people to own capital seems a much better way to evolve past the state than putting it all under the control of some beauracracy.
The second sentence is not a definition of collectivization. A capitalist society leads to a general increase in the amount of economic goods, and therefore increases the absolute ownership of the means of production of all individuals in a society (income inequality aside, the fact is that the "poor" still get wealthier in a capitalist system, because of the general increase in the volume of economic goods). However, this is not synonymous with collectivization, which is a principle which argues for society's ownership of these economic goods.
So, by redefining collectivization, you have redefined away the argument. You can redefine socialism as capitalism, but then the argument becomes irrelevant.
Ludwig von Mises went through great lengths to correct this dichotomic view of society, in which the "capitalists" and the "workers" are always at odds, and where the gain of one is the loss of the other. I will address the roots of government further down, in response to another point of yours, and so I won't delve too much into this aspect of the argument here. In any case, the difference between an anarchic society and a statist society is that in the latter you have a monopoly on force. This just doesn't exist in an anarchic society (also, this is one of the reasons why in my original response I mentioned the importance of assuming a high division of labor society), where capitalists are actually "combating" (or competing against) other capitalists for the demand of the consumer.
I sympathize with the right to believe that anarcho-capitalism can result in the same statism, but I just don't recognize it as true. As elucidated below, I am someone who believes that government finds its roots in anarchic primitive society, where there was little competition, but we have advanced many magnitudes beyond this state. In any case, as I mention above, capitalism is a paradigm which maintains its congruency with human rationality, while socialism is completely and absolutely opposed to human rationality.
There is a difference between collectively planning an economy and individually planning one's own usage of his resources. It follows that system wide, production is anarchistic. In a market economy, individual plans synchronize through the price mechanism, but this is not synonymous with collective economic planning.
(N.B. This is actually a major disagreement I have with George Reisman, who stresses that economic planning is actually that which occurs through the price mechanism. While I agree that it is planning in the sense that individuals plan the use of their own wealth, and that these plans are coordinated through the price mechanism, I disagree with the notion that collective planning is actually anarchistic. This is based on Reisman's poor understanding of anarchism; he equates anarchism with chaos and the lack of rule of law. Therefore, a collective economy is chaotic, and therefore it must be anarchistic. This line of reasoning is erroneous.)
As eluded above, here is where I lay out my own theory of the origins of the state. I agree that the state developed out of capitalism, in the sense that capitalism is the natural order of society in which it is not distorted by the existence of a monopoly on force. I believe that the state originated from the need to protect property, especially one's self, in a primitive society without an extensive division of labor. Given the lack of economic competition, it follows that at the time it was far easier to establish this monopoly on force.
I don't think a transition from statism to anarchy in modern times would suffer from the same problem, given that society benefits from an extensive division of labor.
Until then, the transitional socialist commonwealth can resort to prices abroad from the semi-capitalistic commonwealths, so it can function just enough to keep its starving subjects duped and hopelessly enslaved
That's still the point, it's not socialism at all if this is all happening.
If you look at the scandanavian countries, probably the closest to socialism, they have much more economic freedom the US. Statism was never the point of, and in fact antithetical to socialism.
Socialism happens when the productive members of society wrestle control/ownership of the means of production out of the hands of the nobles, former slave holders, and those who have used state's to forcibly confiscate land for capitalist development.
You just don't want to get it, do you? There is no capitalism without coercion. It's a figment of your imagination. It's just a matter of looking beyond your Rothbardian fairy tales
I hold that same opinion. I would ask you to see capitalism in the same light. It has historically lead to statism as well. Really, these words are kind of outdated. Anarchism/libertarianism works just fine.
Plus, none of these countries I think you're referring to developed out of previously capitalist nations. They were largely aggrarian feudal societies.
Collectivization, the dicatatorship of the proletariat in Marxis' branch, simply meant to them popular ownership. The non-existence of a distinct ownership class is the desire. Public control, or non-consolidation; either works fine.
Once again, the whole point of socialism was it was to develop naturally out of capitalism as the workers realized their place in the system.
Ludwig von Mises went through great lengths to correct this dichotomic view of society, in which the "capitalists" and the "workers" are always at odds, and where the gain of one is the loss of the other.
Labor is not treated as a commodity? Are there not those who only means of subsistence is to labor, and those who can choose to labor, or live off their capital dividends? Just because our classes aren't naturally based on birth doesn't mean they don't exist. Even Warren Buffet is willing to admit this.
If capitalists don't use government to protect themselves, why are strikes routinely shut down by the state? Why this?
It's not inconsistent with socialism either. If socialism was to be stateless, who would do this economic planning? The point is to have popular ownership, it doesn't neccesarily have to be public. The only point is to eliminate the distinction between a class that has to work, and one that can choose to.
You're saying Sumer was a capitalist economy? That was my point, there is a clear distinction between capitalism and markets. Capitalism relies heavily upon markets. But to disconnect it from it's history is fallacious. And then capitalism destroyed class by birthright, and opened markets allowing the productive process of popular desire to flourish.
But it still had it's old statists trying to protect themselves. So when workers demanded a higher pay, instead of just moving somewhere else (bcuz it wouldnt be cost effective) they called in state thugs to beat the workers down.
I don't think a transition from statism to anarchy in modern times would suffer from the same problem, given that society benefits from an extensive division of labor
I think the DoL plays a large part in it, but if it were simply that, the state would have disappeared by now. It is both the division of labor and the popularization of education and ownership, imo, that will get rid of the state. As long as one powerful class exists, it will try to protect itself.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:If you look at the scandanavian countries, probably the closest to socialism, they have much more economic freedom the US.
I am sorry but I am not immortal. Time is actually a scarce resource for me, as well as my nerves. That just may be most blatant illogical statement of at least this month, thus far.
Have a good one.
I invite you to re-read my post. Interestingly, you seem to contradict your own thesis below. You write,
You have an incorrect definition of capitalism, possibly stemming from the erroneous belief that capitalism was born after feudal society (also held by George Reisman). Feudal society may have been replaced by a more capitalist, industrial society, but capitalism has existed since the beginning of humanity. Capitalism is but the product of rational human action, and therefore it is inconsistent to claim that society prior to the industrial revolution was not at root capitalistic. All the same, prior to the existence of the state, society was capitalistic. Of course, it was a primitive capitalism, but this is in line with the concept of a dynamic market process.
Collectivization, the dicatatorship of the proletariat in Marxis' branch, simply meant to them popular ownership.
This contradicts all your previous posts on how true collectivization would be one independent of the state. Here you offer two definitions: one that is a complete fantasy (the voluntary popular ownership of the means of production) and the true definition (state ownership of the means of production).
I don't see how this is relevant to anything I said.
What does this have to do with what you quoted? Labor, or work, is a commodity, but this has no bearing on the fact that the wealth of the capitalists is based entirely on how well they serve the consumer (the majority of which are laborers). For all intents and purposes, the entrepreneur also preforms a service, and his own labor is also a commodity, and so there is still no dichotomy present in society. All different types of individuals, regardless of what they offer society, work in harmony, not in conflict. This doesn't invalidate, however, the concept of economic competition.
The above quoted paragraph fails to address what I actually wrote, which is that the capitalist class must consistently progress in order to better serve the consumer. There is no class conflict in capitalism. This is a fictitious dichotomy created by socialists to justify their tyrannical political ideology.
If capitalists don't use government to protect themselves, why are strikes routinely shut down by the state?
Um, again, this has nothing to do with that you quoted. We were discussing capitalists in an anarchic society, not capitalists in a statist society.
It's not inconsistent with socialism either. If socialism was to be stateless, who would do this economic planning? The point is to have popular ownership, it doesn't neccesarily have to be public.
The second sentence is completely absurd and contradictory. "Popular ownership" refers to the lack of ownership of the means of production; in other words, everybody owns everything. In socialism, there is no price mechanism to coordinate individual human action. In socialism, human action is limited because there is no private property. A system of private property is one of capitalism.
The only point is to eliminate the distinction between a class that has to work, and one that can choose to.
This is a natural byproduct of capitalism and a growing standard of living, not of socialism. The differences between socialism and capitalism are much broader than this, and you are failing to address them. In fact, in order to defend an absurd position, you are completely redefining the terms in your favor. You are ignoring away the basic contradictory tenets of socialism.
You're saying Sumer was a capitalist economy?
No, where did I say that? Human society existed before the development of civilization in Mesopotamia, you are aware right?
That was my point, there is a clear distinction between capitalism and markets.
Capitalism refers to a free society, or a free market. You are, again, redefining terms.
But to disconnect it from it's history is fallacious.
This is an absurd statement with no bearing on the actual debate. Nobody is "disconnecting" anything from history.
But it still had it's old statists trying to protect themselves.
You are trying to define rational action within a state as capitalist. All action is rational, whether it occurs in a socialist or capitalist society. This alone is not what makes a society capitalist. Capitalism is a society abset a monopoly on force. It follows that the action of a dictator in a communist country is also rational, as is the action of the slave to the communist state; this does not make that society capitalist. It may be called socialist, interventionism, et cetera, but it is not capitalism.
Prateek Sanjay:There are governments which earn income from market activities, like Singapore, and they specially allocate some funds back into such business activities and some funds into state programs.
Where do they get the capital from?
No. Market ecnomics existed before capitalism and feudal society, but capitalism is a distinct system that developed in recent history. This was my whole point, market economics and capitalism are not the same thing.
This contradicts all your previous posts on how true collectivization would be one independent of the state. Here you offer two definitions: one that is a complete fantasy (the voluntary popular ownership of the means of production) and the true definition (state ownership of the means of production)
No, you're just misunderstanding me. You're also misunderstanding the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." It was a satyrical take on feudal critiques of democracy. It simply refers to control being in the hands the people at large, rather than at the hands of some small plutocracy.
It means socialism was never supposed to be diametrically opposed to market economics. Capitalism made them flourish, socialism will make them accesable to the people at large.
What does this have to do with what you quoted? Labor, or work, is a commodity, but this has no bearing on the fact that the wealth of the capitalists is based entirely on how well they serve the consumer (the majority of which are laborers).
In fact, the consumers exercising the most influence on the market are capitalists as well. And in a free market their wealth may be "based on meeting consumer demands," but in our current system, their wealth is based off of many subsidies, monopoly protection, and illegitimate ownership of native lands.
For all intents and purposes, the entrepreneur also preforms a service, and his own labor is also a commodity
Correct
and so there is still no dichotomy present in society.
Not true. There are those who can choose to labor, and those who cannot. Those who can choose to labor control large amounts of hte world's wealth, and as such play a very big role in government policy and social orginization.
No, we were discussing capitalists in capitalism. This is the point I'm trying to get across; as much as you want to disconnect capitalism from its historic routes, it is pure revisionism.
And you can respectfully stop calling me a tyrant, tyvm. I've never subjected you to my will.
Pop music is public music? Somebody tell RTA. Popular != public
This is a natural byproduct of capitalism and a growing standard of living, not of socialism
Markets != capitalism, government != socialism
but capitalism has existed since the beginning of humanity
I feel like you are trying to conflate capitalism with market economics, and telling me I'm redefining things to fit my views.
HA! I was right...
Capitalism is a society abset a monopoly on force. It follows that the action of a dictator in a communist country is also rational, as is the action of the slave to the communist state; this does not make that society capitalist. It may be called socialist, interventionism, et cetera, but it is not capitalism
Then you agree there is scant evidence that capitalism has ever existed post 5k bce? Capitalism is not the same thing as market economics. Capitalism is a distinct social orginization arising out of 16th ce italy and later developed in western systems. It does rely heavily on market economics, but it still has, historically, relied upon the state to protect the ownership class' interests.
Feudalism is called what it is becuase power is in the hands of feudal land owners, merchantilism in the hands of merchants, capitalism in the hands of capitalists, socialism in the hands of the public at large. I am not the one redifining terms here.
That's more like the Marxist definition that people use. Try to use the definitions that people use here. You're not going to get us to change our terminology to suit your tastes/views.
Your point is wrong.
I didn't misunderstand anything. You are distorting the debate, again. We were discussing the definition of collectivization. You agreed that the nationalization of the means of production by the state is tantamount to collectivization (in fact, it is the only realistic form of collectivization, since voluntary collectivization [altruism] is incongruent with human rationality).
It means socialism was never supposed to be diametrically opposed to market economics.
You are either re-defining socialism, or you are blatantly ignoring the fact that socialism (especially Marxism) is absolutely opposed to the underlying mechanism of the market economy — human rationality.
Again, we were discussing anarcho-capitalism. Can you please stay on topic?
Another absurd premise. There's no reason to re-state this Marxist fabrication of a two-part society. In a capitalist society everyone can voluntarily choose whether or not to offer their labor on the market. It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that a socialist political system can only lead to a society based on government coercion (we've been over this before, and this is a concept you have failed to address).
No, we were discussing capitalists in capitalism.
Um, revisit the posts you are responding to. This particular part of the discussion originated when I responded to this part of a previous post of yours, "But alas, many would say the same about an-cap.". I can see that this debate is now headed down the road of intellectual dishonesty (in order to defend an obviously flawed ideology).
This is the point I'm trying to get across; as much as you want to disconnect capitalism from its historic routes, it is pure revisionism.
You keep mentioning that I am disconnecting "capitalism from its historic routes [sic.]", yet have failed to shown how I've done this or even failed to show "capitalism's historic roots". You have even failed to properly address what capitalism actually is, and instead you've insisted on presenting a straw man. I'm sorry, but this tactic doesn't make you right. It only makes your position all the more inconsistent, contradictory, and absurd.
And you can respectfully stop calling me a tyrant, tyvm.
When did I call you a tyrant? This is getting ridiculous.
What does this have to do with what you quoted? What does the wide distribution of music have to do with collectivized ownership? That everyone owns a television doesn't mean that the means of production have been collectivized. You still haven't come to terms with the true definition of collectivization, probably because if you did you'd realize that your entire position is untenable.
Great, shifting the goal posts with more untenable positions (although, if you look at my first post, you'll notice that I never wrote that government is equal to socialism.)
LOL! You are the one conflating terms.
Then you agree there is scant evidence that capitalism has ever existed post 5k bce?
Wait, so now you agree with me that capitalism is a market economy? Oh, how poor your defense is becoming! In any case, yes, I agree that there has been no truly capitalist society since the foundation of government.
Capitalism is a distinct social orginization arising out of 16th ce italy and later developed in western systems.
This is an argument that a lot of left-libertarians posit, because that is the definition used by Marx. Indeed, the word "Capitalism" was a socialist word, used to describe the industrial society they lived in. However, these same socialist intellectuals conflated the existing society they lived in with a true system of private property. In other words, they assumed that a system of private property was one in the same with the society they lived in. Saying that capitalism represents a true market economy, therefore, is not a redefinition; rather, it is a correction of the erroneous socialist definition. It is also worth saying that most socialist cases against capitalism are not against the state, rather against the market economy (for example, the notion that firms tend toward monopoly, or that profit is just stolen wages, et cetera).
The socialist paradigm is unsustainable and is built on erroneous premises.
According to the small subset of the austrian school, and that's about it. Idk anywhere else you're going ot find someone who says Sumer was capitalist.
You are distorting the debate, again. We were discussing the definition of collectivization. You agreed that the nationalization of the means of production by the state is tantamount to collectivization (in fact, it is the only realistic form of collectivization, since voluntary collectivization [altruism] is incongruent with human rationality).
I am not distorting anything, I am using capitalism in its historic context. I am not the one who is trying to disconnect it from that and claim that it existed pre-1600. Markets !=capitalism.
And altruism is incongruent with human rationality? Tell United Way to give me my check back then.
I am doing no such thing. You may think all socialists are Marxists, but it isn't true.
I said "in a free market they are, but in our current system they are not." Can you please pay attention? Or you could just quote me out of context to make yourself look better.. whatever.
In a capitalist society everyone can voluntarily choose whether or not to offer their labor on the market. It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that a socialist political system can only lead to a society based on government coercion (we've been over this before, and this is a concept you have failed to address).
One who owns nothing but his own labor power cannot choose not to be a non-laborer, he can only choose to beg or work. One who owns large shares of stock can choose to live off his dividends, or work. There is a clear distinction there, especially considering the statistics supporting the notion that most people will make about what their parents made.
It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that capitalist systems have only lead to government coercion. We've been over this before.. blah blah blah.
The problem with the "social anarchist" ideal is that true collectivization of the means of production, or a social-political system in which all means of production were owned by everyone, would be impossible to sustain on any level. What I mean by this is that either the system would revert to a capitalist one, in which all goods were equally distributed amongst the population and economic calculation would once again occur, or the system falls into perpetual poverty. I think that's a valid criticism. But it all depends on what you mean by "collectivise." Getting more people to own capital seems a much better way to evolve past the state than putting it all under the control of some beauracracy. But alas, many would say the same about an-cap. The capitalist class would use their influence and power to reinstate a new state to protect their interests. Remember, rich people are trying to protect themselves as much as poor people, arguably more because of said power and influence. Ludwig von Mises went through great lengths to correct this dichotomic view of society, in which the "capitalists" and the "workers" are always at odds, and where the gain of one is the loss of the other. Labor is not treated as a commodity? Are there not those who only means of subsistence is to labor, and those who can choose to labor, or live off their capital dividends? Just because our classes aren't naturally based on birth doesn't mean they don't exist. Even Warren Buffet is willing to admit this. If capitalists don't use government to protect themselves, why are strikes routinely shut down by the state? Why this?
You can try to call me dishonest all you want. ^There's your facts. We were discussing capitalists in capitalsim, as much as you want to think anything less than an-cap isn't capitalism, it's simply not true. We were discussing whether or not either of our versions of anarchy would lead to statism. I said in our current capitalist system it has always been accompanied by elites using coercion to protect their own interests. Historically, both of our systems, in practice, have relied on statism. Which is why they're both outdated, and us believers in liberty should just drop them and use libertarian/anarchy.
I have done all of that. If you willfully overlook that, and then accuse ME of being dishonest... really there's no point in debating you. I have shown capitalism's historic routes, as well as defined capitalism. And you, and generally the austrian school, wants to rewrite that debate and conflate market economics with capitalism. I have said, and provided arguments for why capitalism may rely on markets, but it is not equatable with market economics.
When you keep trying to accuse your "opponent" of your tactics, that's called intellectual terrorism. And it is in no way productive.
This is a fictitious dichotomy created by socialists to justify their tyrannical political ideology.
Either be honest, or stop accusing me of dishonesty. I would prefer you do both tho.
What does this have to do with what you quoted? What does the wide distribution of music have to do with collectivized ownership? That everyone owns a television doesn't mean that the means of production have been collectivized.
Here was the context;
It's not inconsistent with socialism either. If socialism was to be stateless, who would do this economic planning? The point is to have popular ownership, it doesn't neccesarily have to be public. The second sentence is completely absurd and contradictory. "Popular ownership" refers to the lack of ownership of the means of production; in other words, everybody owns everything. In socialism, there is no price mechanism to coordinate individual human action. In socialism, human action is limited because there is no private property. A system of private property is one of capitalism.
You clearly conflated popular with public. Popular ownership would just mean ownership is in a wide range of hands. Public ownership would mean no private body has ownership. Two distinctly different things.
haven't come to terms with the true definition of collectivization, probably because if you did you'd realize that your entire position is untenable.
Or I could just drop the term collectivization and replace it with popularization, since it's not at all inconsistent with my position. I can do public ownership (non-state public, "I give this land to the town of Hattysburg, MI") or popular ownership. As long as some small plutocracy isn't running people's lives, I'm happy.
Great, shifting the goal posts with more untenable positions
No, I have said that multiple times in this thread. It was actually the point of my first post.
OMG talk about intellectual terrorism. The context of my posts was to say that according to your definition, capitalism has never existed.. ever. You agree with this here. I am saying to you if "there has been no truly capitalist society since the foundation of government" than there also has never been a truly socialist society either. My position has been the same the whole time.
Indeed, the word "Capitalism" was a socialist word, used to describe the industrial society they lived in. However, these same socialist intellectuals conflated the existing society they lived in with a true system of private property.
Thank you! You have just proved my point. I am using capitalism in it's historic context. You are conflating market economics with capitalism. /thread
In other words, they assumed that a system of private property was one in the same with the society they lived in. Saying that capitalism represents a true market economy, therefore, is not a redefinition; rather, it is a correction of the erroneous socialist definition.
No, they assumed a system of private property based on the current (for their time) distribution of ownership would inevitably create the system we have today, not that it was equal to it. And if they made the term up to describe something, to "correct" it in itself would be erroneous. It was what they used to describe the system they lived under. They made clear distinctions between the system of capitalism and the functions of market economics.
My point is that is exactly what you're doing. I am trying to reconnect these words with their historical context.
According to the small subset of the austrian school, and that's about it.
Do you mean the entire Austrian school, and a wide variety of non-Austrian Chicagoite/Neoclassical free market economists?
Idk anywhere else you're going ot find someone who says Sumer was capitalist.
Are you purposefully being dense? Or are you really this dense?
I am not distorting anything, I am using capitalism in its historic context.
I'm sorry, but you are the only one here who has absolutely no knowledge on the "historical context" of Capitalism, and has absolutely no idea on how Marxists actually framed capitalism. The same Marxists who would have agreed that the state was the product of the free market, or that at least the free market would lead to monopoly (in this case, a monopoly on force).
You obviously have no idea on the definition of altruism either. Unsurprising, really.
Socialism, as you agreed, is the collective ownership of the means of production. You are ignoring the implications of this ideology by conflating collective ownership with some distorted view of private property. Your position is contradictory, and makes no sense whatsover. Instead, you've decided to defend your position by arguing pedantically over terms which you really have no idea about (such as capitalism, altruism, collectivization, et cetera).
I didn't quote you out of context. The context was originally provided by me, when I replied to your premise that it could be argued that anarcho-capitalism leads to statism. You're the one who needs to pay attention.
One who owns nothing but his own labor power cannot choose not to be a non-laborer, he can only choose to beg or work.
Is that not a choice? He can also choose who to work for. As he labors and earns an income, and therefore earns wealth, he can pit this wealth towards any means he desires. This means that the laborer, through his work, inherently begins to own parts of the means of production.
There is a clear distinction there, especially considering the statistics supporting the notion that most people will make about what their parents made.
The only distinction being made is that some are better off than others. This is not an argument about pure choice.
It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that capitalist systems have only lead to government coercion.
Operating in your own framework, this doesn't make any sense. According to you, capitalism requires government coercion (since according to you, capitalism is not the free market).
here's your facts. We were discussing capitalists in capitalsim, as much as you want to think anything less than an-cap isn't capitalism, it's simply not true.
I'm sorry? This sentence doesn't make any sense.
We were discussing whether or not either of our versions of anarchy would lead to statism.
EXACTLY. (Bolding mine.)
I said in our current capitalist system it has always been accompanied by elites using coercion to protect their own interests.
This is absolutely irrelevant to the topic of anarchism and free-market capitalism, because it does not describe an anarchic society.
I have shown capitalism's historic routes, as well as defined capitalism.
No, you have absolutely failed to property analyze the socialist definition of capitalism. They believed capitalism to be private ownership of the means of production. They believed that private ownership of the means of production led to monopoly and capitalist oppression. This is clearly incorrect, both in their conclusions and their premises. You have absolutely no clue on what the "historic roots" of capitalism actually are.
When did I call you a tyrant? This is getting ridiculous. Either be honest, or stop accusing me of dishonesty. I would prefer you do both tho.
I wasn't aware that you "created" the dichotomy. lol
You clearly conflated popular with public. Popular ownership would just mean ownership is in a wide range of hands.
Ridiculous. Presently, the means of production are owned by millions of people. This is a staple of private ownership of the means of production. There is no grey area on this topic: ownership is either collectivized or it's private.
Or I could just drop the term collectivization and replace it with popularization, since it's not at all inconsistent with my position.
It just makes your position completely based on fantasy and absurd premises. At least Marx was semi-consistent.
Go back and read again. That's not what I quoted. I quoted the following,
Nobody claims what you wrote above.
Don't jump to conclusions. Keep reading.
No, they assumed a system of private property based on the current (for their time) distribution of ownership would inevitably create the system we have today, not that it was equal to it.
This is misleading, because it was not based on the existing distribution of ownership per sé. They disagreed with how the market distributed ownership of the means of production; i.e. they disagreed with the notion of profit. They believed, following the iron law of wages, that profits were necessarily taken from wages, and therefore believed that profit was unfair theft from the wage earner. Their solution was the collectivization of the means of production, and the substitution of the market's price mechanism for a collectivized distribution of goods. Since profit is a natural byproduct of the market, socialism is incompatible with the free market (because it leads to a distribution of the means of production incongruous with socialism's objectives).
Therefore, their critique of capitalism was also one of the free market, believing that their present world was indeed a product of the free market (or that the bourgeoise government was a product of the natural market tendency towards monopoly). That is the context they operated in.
And if they made the term up to describe something, to "correct" it in itself would be erroneous.
In this case it's not, because their definition of the market is clear (private ownership of the means of production). Private ownership of the means of production, as distributed by the free market, is not compatible with socialist theory of fair distribution, and this is why they opted for collectivization and not the free market.
Before this thread, goes off on tangents, that will answer the OP post, but probably serve to confuse the discussion generally.
I will attempt to answer, for the op, you're friend, might prescribe to socialism, that is leaning more toward communism, that advocates workers rights, state owned enterprises, nationalization for areas where private industry is deemed lacking for society. In his society, he might have live and prescribe to a left leaning form of socialism, that advocates state owned enterprises, where private demand in insufficient such as healthcare, energy, etc. Generally speaking a gradual approach to Marxist policies; one could call on as a democratic socialism. For him, it would be uncommon to belive, that government could fund something like Healthcare, and not allow government to own and manage healthcare due it being funded with his tax dollars.
He probably has been led to believe the US has no healthcare at all for its citizens, that the US government doesn't spend a dime of tax revenue of healthcare, which is completely false. As a percentage of GDP the US is second in overall healthcare spending in the world , and in nominal amounts spends more then any nation on the earth, that spending however is directed by rules and regulations to a largely owned and operated private sector, which creates the healthcare system, that Americans use today & hate. It is largely economically fascist.
If it were a capitalist healthcare system at fault, the US Federal, local and state governments would be spending nothing at all on healthcare, and not mandating anything to cover you.
However when you're friend, thinks of the US, is is predominantly a far-right
ie a visual representation of this would look somewhat like this Left < Communism < Socialism = Capitalism > Fascism > Right
A visual representation of another spectrum, that has much less spotlight, but twice the meaning, is Totalitarian <> Anarchy.
Totalitarian < Communism = Fascism < Socialism > Capitalism > Anarchy.
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a social state where the state, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible
Communism is equal to Fascism which is greater then Socialism trying to strive to regulate every - most - some aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.
Capitalism is less than Anarchy in trying to create a society with social state in which there is few (very least) governing person or group of people needed, but each individual has a hair less than absolute liberty, to ensure basic order
Anarchy a social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder, a non-coercively)."
In retrospect, I argue, that fascism and communism are the extreme left and right positions of socialism, since all belive in using tax dollars to redistribute wealth, in ways people like or don't. Capitalism, doesn't redistribute wealth using tax dollars.
Traditionally, many on left and right have branded those on the Left as progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists. The Right tends to brand those as conservatives, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists. Which leads to a lot of confusion
"Here are Mussolini's thoughts on whether governments should see corporations or individuals as more important:
"TheFascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [that] denied the State in the name of the individual."
``The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans.'' ``If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.''"
The left right paradigm confuses this situation, for many, as it places capitalism, on the right. If your definition of left and right is to mean Right is for individualism and the Left is for collectivism. Then the left should get use, to being equated with nationalists and fascists, and anarchists to the right end of the spectrum. Alas though many equate the left to mean social justice, which allows for anarchy due to its espousing nature for peoples rights to be equated with the left, but not fascists or nationalists due to their relationships with the upper class, which get placed on the right
To understand, in any light, if I had a choice which could only between, a left leaning socialist environment, and right leaning socialist environment, I would pick the left any time.
The right leaning form of socialism, uses tax dollars unlike left leaning models to subsidize programs, for goods, and or services, which are largely held and owned by the private industry, while this intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. It will however avoid to nationalize industries, differing from left leaning forms of socialism, or communism, it will buy shares, etc or invest using tax dollars then nationalizing "take over" industry, ie kicking out employers and shareholders/investors.
Left leaning forms of socialism, communism for example, would not have bailed out GM Shareholders or Employers, and would be effectively running it has a state enterprise between bureaucrats and workers.
GM screams right leaning socialism/fascism where in the US Government, Canadian, Government, Private CEOs, Shareholders (investors) and Workers divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State
"Compare the recent actions of Henry Paulson to the rhetoric of Mussolini. Paulson appeared before the nation and asked for $700 Billion, which was supposed to be used to buy up failed mortgages, and then negotiate with the people directly to help them out of their foreclosures. Once we gave him the money to help out our neighbors, he announced he would not use it on them. He funded the cororations directly, instead of the people, judging corporations more important than people to the "national interest.""
"Compare [everything] [to] that [of] today's rhetoric. The government and Wall Street are telling you that AIG is “too big to fail” and GM is “too big to fail.” Fanny and Freddie were “too big to fail.” Allowing them to fail would be bad for the “national interest.” "
"That’s a scare tactic out of the Fascist playbook. They want you to conclude that if these companies fail, America itself will fail. If there is no more AIG, if there is no more GM, there may be no way to continue America and sustain her government. The corporations and the government are therefore one interest."
"...the American government are not racial, [social], [politcal] (one party), fascists, but there is no denying that by confiscating your money and distributing it to corporations as if they and not you are the national interest, they are acting as Economic Fascists"
Fascists thought that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." Private property rights were supported but were contingent upon service to the state. For example, "an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labour than he would find profitable; or more modernly, an owner of a foreclosed property to be compelled to allow a person(s) to stay without eviction, instead of allowing shore or distressed sales from taking place, while being responsible to maintain the property, and use more resources then what is profitable, creating an economic loss for the taxpayers who are ultimately on the hook for the housing market, and not the banks.
The housing market gives new meaning to what "Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.""
Fascism is also a economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword
-George Orwell writer of Animal Farm
I would show you're friend, these articles:
The Doctrine of Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism
This is a great source for some quotes from the very man who wrote the book titled above, by Giovanni Gentile, He is to Fascism as Karl Marx was to Communism. Give insights as to Fascist Ideals, in role of government, to how the "Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State" (p. 41).
Economy of Italy under Fascism 1922 - 1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_Fascism,_1922-1943
An short history of the timeline 1922-43, going over the creations of economic councils(czars) to meet and resolve problems, to the bailing out of its major banks, using the newly created funds like TARP and TALF but then were called "Sofindit" &" Imi", to buying shares of industries, etc, and backstop the financial sector.
Riegel: The right-wing socialists
An article going over the nature of most socialists .
ITS FASCISM, STUPID. NOT SOCIALISM
http://justifiedright.typepad.com/justified_right/2008/11/its-fascism-stupid-not-socialism.html
An article going over relationships of Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism
FASCISM HAS COME: OBAMA: GM: CEO TO RESIGN
http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/fascism-has-come-obama-orders-gm-ceo-to-resign/
An article showing how right winged socialists influence business without nationalizing a company like a communist or left leaning regime
GM, Amtrak and an Increasingly Fascist America
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=104
An article a little more in depth look at role of government in private industry
Singapore Success
http://www.liberatehealthcare.com/foreign/Singapore_success.htm
"How does Singapore do it? Singapore is no libertarian health care paradise, but it does self-consciously try to maintain good incentives by narrowly tailoring its departures from laissez-faire [system]"
Neurotic people can each cost society $22,000 a year
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE69500R.htm
One study showing effects of of covering all of the population