Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Free Market Socialism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 10:22:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 10:30:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 10:27:52 PM, Volkov wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't make too much sense?

What part of it doesn't make sense?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 10:39:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 10:30:30 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What part of it doesn't make sense?

All of it.

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... "

But, the issue with this is, if no one does organize themselves into co-ops, collectives, and/or communes, and those that do follow a capitalist model, where do you go from there? The beauty of capitalism is that individual actors can work for themselves, and not for others. Socialism means individual actors must work not only for themselves, but for everyone else as well. There is a certain element of force that must be introduced unless the entire system is designed to fall apart.

"And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism."

Aside from the funny notion that socialism is more efficient than capitalism, its kind of hard to compete with a system where individual actors dropping out doesn't necessarily spell doom, while every man lost for your side decreases your efficiency, decreases your productivity, and decreases your longevity. It's kind of an uneven playing field too.

"So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod

I don't know if its the off wording or what, but I can't make heads or tails of this.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 10:57:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... "

But, the issue with this is, if no one does organize themselves into co-ops, collectives, and/or communes, and those that do follow a capitalist model, where do you go from there?

What is the sun explodes tomorrow? The idea that worker co-ops wouldn't form in a free market is pretty unlikely one.

The beauty of capitalism is that individual actors can work for themselves, and not for others.

Wait, what? "Work for a boss or starve" doesn't sound anything like that to me.

Socialism means individual actors must work not only for themselves, but for everyone else as well.

This shows a pedestrian understanding of socialism. Socialism is the claim that labor should be put in possession of its own.

There is a certain element of force that must be introduced unless the entire system is designed to fall apart.

False.

"And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism."

Aside from the funny notion that socialism is more efficient than capitalism,

Why is that a funny notion?

its kind of hard to compete with a system where individual actors dropping out doesn't necessarily spell doom, while every man lost for your side decreases your efficiency, decreases your productivity, and decreases your longevity.

What?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 11:14:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The term "capitalism" does not forbid coops, communes, and so forth. I don't recommend them, but they are within your rights.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 11:16:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wait, what? "Work for a boss or starve" doesn't sound anything like that to me.
Actually, it's "Work for a boss, or anyone else who will have you, or yourself, or starve." And the "or starve" parted is caused by nature, not any particular human. You seem to be hinting towards a right to be fed, so I must ask who the feeder slave is.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 11:17:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 11:14:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The term "capitalism" does not forbid coops, communes, and so forth. I don't recommend them, but they are within your rights.

Yes it does. Don't confuse Capitalism with the free-market. Obviously Capitalist-Socialism doesn't make any sense.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 11:26:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 11:17:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2010 11:14:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The term "capitalism" does not forbid coops, communes, and so forth. I don't recommend them, but they are within your rights.

Yes it does. Don't confuse Capitalism with the free-market.
Except among those using it for slur reasons, that is more or less the usual definition-- and is what those, such as myself, claiming to be capitalists, tend to advocate. The vast majority of socialists advocate state control of the economy on the other hand.

Obviously Capitalist-Socialism doesn't make any sense.
Only if you stick within the traditional boundaries of the definition of socialism-- statism. If you go to topsy turvy land and advocate voluntary collectivism, choosing to call it "socialism" despite its optional nature, it makes perfect sense.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 11:33:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 11:26:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/8/2010 11:17:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2010 11:14:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The term "capitalism" does not forbid coops, communes, and so forth. I don't recommend them, but they are within your rights.

Yes it does. Don't confuse Capitalism with the free-market.
Except among those using it for slur reasons, that is more or less the usual definition-- and is what those, such as myself, claiming to be capitalists, tend to advocate. The vast majority of socialists advocate state control of the economy on the other hand.

How does it matter what the "majority" of Socialists advocate aside from Socialism? The term Socialism does not mean state control.

Obviously Capitalist-Socialism doesn't make any sense.
Only if you stick within the traditional boundaries of the definition of socialism-- statism. If you go to topsy turvy land and advocate voluntary collectivism, choosing to call it "socialism" despite its optional nature, it makes perfect sense.

Socialism was originally a complete voluntaryist movement. The very point of Socialism is to decentralize authority in the work-place. State-Socialism attempts to force people to be free, which contradicts the very notion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 11:50:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 11:33:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2010 11:26:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/8/2010 11:17:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2010 11:14:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The term "capitalism" does not forbid coops, communes, and so forth. I don't recommend them, but they are within your rights.

Yes it does. Don't confuse Capitalism with the free-market.
Except among those using it for slur reasons, that is more or less the usual definition-- and is what those, such as myself, claiming to be capitalists, tend to advocate. The vast majority of socialists advocate state control of the economy on the other hand.

How does it matter what the "majority" of Socialists advocate aside from Socialism? The term Socialism does not mean state control.
You're missing the point: The majority of socialists define socialism in terms that boil down to state control.


Obviously Capitalist-Socialism doesn't make any sense.
Only if you stick within the traditional boundaries of the definition of socialism-- statism. If you go to topsy turvy land and advocate voluntary collectivism, choosing to call it "socialism" despite its optional nature, it makes perfect sense.

Socialism was originally a complete voluntaryist movement.
And the Catholic clergy was originally open to marriage. But now someone claiming to be a Catholic priest and married is generally called a heretic among Catholics. Indeed, there are very few such claimants left. The term has changed. Likewise with socialism. There are almost no claimants to the term "socialism" for whom participation in collectivization can be permissibly made optional. Considering how the word is "socialism," not "individualism," and emphasizing the primacy of individual options does not bode well with even the way the word is spelled, there is essentially no reason left to use the word in the manner you are using it, unless you are deliberately trying to obfuscate someone's ideology, which is bad.

The very point of Socialism is to decentralize authority in the work-place.
Was, maybe. Not "is." And that's a BIG maybe by the way: http://www.etymonline.com...

(Scroll down to socialism, you'll see the first reference is to Robert Owen's commune movement. If you look up Robert Owen on Wikipedia, you'll see he is VERY comfortable with state authority).

State-Socialism attempts to force people to be free, which contradicts the very notion.
No. It attempts to force them to spread their wealth around, putting social matters before individuals. Nothing to do with freedom.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 11:22:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"[Reasoning] took the "What Type of Anarchist Are You?" quiz and the result is Anarcho-Mutualist.
You believe in an economy organized along the lines of cooperatives and independent artisans selling in a market without wage-slavery or corporations. You think capitalism cannot exist in a truly free market. You prefer a gradual peaceful evolution to anarchy over a violent revolution. Well known mutualists include Joseph Proudhon and Kevin Carson. http://mutualist.org... is probably the best mutualist site online." - What Type of Anarchist Are You?

You can take the quiz here: http://apps.facebook.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 2:32:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 11:22:20 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"[Reasoning] took the "What Type of Anarchist Are You?" quiz and the result is Anarcho-Mutualist.
You believe in an economy organized along the lines of cooperatives and independent artisans selling in a market without wage-slavery or corporations. You think capitalism cannot exist in a truly free market. You prefer a gradual peaceful evolution to anarchy over a violent revolution. Well known mutualists include Joseph Proudhon and Kevin Carson. http://mutualist.org... is probably the best mutualist site online." - What Type of Anarchist Are You?

You can take the quiz here: http://apps.facebook.com...

I took it, I'm also a Mutualist. *high five*
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 2:32:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 2:32:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/9/2010 11:22:20 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"[Reasoning] took the "What Type of Anarchist Are You?" quiz and the result is Anarcho-Mutualist.
You believe in an economy organized along the lines of cooperatives and independent artisans selling in a market without wage-slavery or corporations. You think capitalism cannot exist in a truly free market. You prefer a gradual peaceful evolution to anarchy over a violent revolution. Well known mutualists include Joseph Proudhon and Kevin Carson. http://mutualist.org... is probably the best mutualist site online." - What Type of Anarchist Are You?

You can take the quiz here: http://apps.facebook.com...

I took it, I'm also a Mutualist. *high five*

Take it in five minutes, you'll be something else.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 2:46:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 2:32:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Take it in five minutes, you'll be something else.

Burned!
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 3:24:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 2:32:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I took it, I'm also a Mutualist. *high five*

Take it in five minutes, you'll be something else.

Haha, so true.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 3:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 11:22:20 AM, Reasoning wrote:
You can take the quiz here: http://apps.facebook.com...

AUTHORITARIAN [WITH SWASTIKA PIC]
You are not an anarchist. Perhaps you are a liberal or a laissez-faire capitalist who mistakenly thinks you\'re an anarchist. Or perhaps you just took this quiz out of curiosity. Well known non-anarchists include Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Osama Bin Laden, Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Thomas Hobbes, Confucius, Rush Limbaugh, and Attila the Hun.

Baha.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 3:53:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 3:28:43 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/9/2010 11:22:20 AM, Reasoning wrote:
You can take the quiz here: http://apps.facebook.com...

AUTHORITARIAN [WITH SWASTIKA PIC]
You are not an anarchist. Perhaps you are a liberal or a laissez-faire capitalist who mistakenly thinks you\'re an anarchist. Or perhaps you just took this quiz out of curiosity. Well known non-anarchists include Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Osama Bin Laden, Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Thomas Hobbes, Confucius, Rush Limbaugh, and Attila the Hun.

Baha.

It seems accurate so far then.

Go join your little Cheney/Bin Laden/Confucious Authoritarian club. They're all the same.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 3:53:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/9/2010 3:28:43 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/9/2010 11:22:20 AM, Reasoning wrote:
You can take the quiz here: http://apps.facebook.com...

AUTHORITARIAN [WITH SWASTIKA PIC]
You are not an anarchist. Perhaps you are a liberal or a laissez-faire capitalist who mistakenly thinks you\'re an anarchist. Or perhaps you just took this quiz out of curiosity. Well known non-anarchists include Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Osama Bin Laden, Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Thomas Hobbes, Confucius, Rush Limbaugh, and Attila the Hun.

Baha.

It seems accurate so far then.

Go join your little Cheney/Bin Laden/Confucious Authoritarian club. They're all the same.

So, anyone who isn't an anarchist is an authoritarian? Nice work on turning it into a logically valid dichotomy.

Wait a minute... Ohhh, you almost tricked me there!

Just kidding. No you didn't.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 4:07:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 3:53:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
It seems accurate so far then.

Go join your little Cheney/Bin Laden/Confucious Authoritarian club. They're all the same.

The ignorance is astounding.

Go play with all your [non-existent] friends and talk about how the man is holding you down. After that, talk about how different you are and how you should be recognized as such by society, which will further fuel your ego. Next, talk about how awesome it would be to kill, rape, and steal and get away with it if you have a bigger gun than the victim. Then, talk about how awesome Somalia is. Yay, Somalia and Anarchy! Hooyah! I mean, hey, they're doing better in anarchy than in an authoritarian rule, so anarchy must be awesome! Look at this graph [http://www.freedomhouse.org...] and notice that Somalia is the least free country economically and socially in the world. Somalia also has the worst human rights record in the world. Chyeah boy. I digress. Later, talk about how all laws are bad, all hierarchy is bad, and that we should all live as animals. After that, you can talk about how anarchy won't inevitably lead to a power grab and slavery like every other time countries have fell into slavery. Obviously. Next, talk about how people dying on the streets is AY-OK. Is there anything I missed?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 4:12:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 11:22:20 AM, Reasoning wrote:
You think capitalism cannot exist in a truly free market.

lolwut
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 11:24:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Definitions:

FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all
economic transactions result from voluntary choice
without coercion.

VOLUNTARY: Any action not influenced by coercion or fraud perpetrated by any human agency.

FRAUD: Inducing one to part with something of value through the use of dishonesty.

THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the
Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or
the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).

COERCION: physical force or threat of such against persons or property

PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law.
An advantage granted by the State and protected by its
powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the
Free Market in which one State-supported group
monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute
(interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic
transactions.

LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference
with the Free Market in which one State-supported
group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent)
from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating
elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff,
which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to
exemplify it.

SOCIALISM: Any of the various ways proposed to sole "the labor problem" through radical changes in the capitalist economy.

THE LABOR PROBLEM: The problem of improving the conditions of the working class.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 12:51:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Awww. How cute. Reasoning gets his subjective definitions from a no-name anarchist website named blackcrayon.com and uses them as objective definitions. He might as well have used urbandictionary.com. Pathetic either way.
shaniqualawyers013
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:31:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:24:06 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Definitions:
LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference
with the Free Market in which one State-supported
group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent)
from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

http://i41.tinypic.com...
: At 4/11/2010 12:45:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
: Banker, stop being a creeper!

: At 4/11/2010 1:09:39 PM, banker wrote:
: Insert I have done that before I left high skool

: At 3/30/2010 6:44:38 AM, belle wrote:
: : At 3/29/2010 7:19:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
: : I think I have an irregular heartbeat.
:
: you're going to die.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:48:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:24:06 AM, Reasoning wrote:
CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating
elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff,
which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to
exemplify it.

Source.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:50:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:24:06 AM, Reasoning wrote:
CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating
elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff,
which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to
exemplify it.

Last time I checked, capitalism was an economic system in which the means of production (capital) were owned privately (and those that owned these means were called capitalists).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:51:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:24:06 AM, Reasoning wrote:
USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the
Free Market in which one State-supported group
monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute
(interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic
transactions.

Marx supported Usury.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:53:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:50:06 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 4/10/2010 11:24:06 AM, Reasoning wrote:
CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating
elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff,
which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to
exemplify it.

Last time I checked, capitalism was an economic system in which the means of production (capital) were owned privately (and those that owned these means were called capitalists).

Right, I actually don't agree with Reasoning's definition.

There is State Capitalism and there is Free Market Capitalism, there is State Socialism and there is Free Market Socialism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 8:32:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 11:24:06 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Definitions:

LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference
with the Free Market in which one State-supported
group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent)
from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

That's called the property tax. Definitely not capitalist in the slightest.