NationStates Jolt Archive

People often use monopolies and other such things of 'broad control' as reasons why capitalism is evil.

But have you ever thought of how a monopoly really operates? They can oppress and ask whatever they want of of their employees. Since it is a monopoly, people usually have no choice whether to work there or not, or at least give their business to said monopoly. The monopoly is concerned only with how well it does in the world - it is willing to do anything to get ahead. Because the employees have nowhere else to go, and the monopoly is concerned only with itself; the employees are forced to work for the common good of the company.

A monopoly has so many parallels with socialism I shudder to think of what would happen if their were no laws against them. People equate monopolies with capitalism, but the truth is they behave like a socialistic society in themselves. Compare to the last sentence above: "The citizens of a socialist society are obligated to work for (pay taxes) the good of all the citizens of the society, for a goal of a better society." ('the good' can be free health care, welfare, or anything similar) Read the sentences carefully - they have the exact same meaning, only 'company' is replaced with 'society', and 'employees' with 'citizens'.

Socialism is the worst kind of MONOPOLY there is. It is a monopoly on the lives and liberties of the citizens of the society.

Companies are accountable to their shareholders. This generally means that a company is motivated by profit.

Socialist states are accountable to their citizens. This generally means that a socialist state is motivated to keep its citizens happy.

Companies are accountable to their shareholders. This generally means that a company is motivated by profit.

Socialist states are accountable to their citizens. This generally means that a socialist state is motivated to keep its citizens happy.

Are both of these not just motivations of the common good? Whether for the company or the society? Read the two sentences again with that it mind.

Are both of these not just motivations of the common good?

The "common good" refers to public good, collective good--including the workers and consumers who deal with the company.

The good of the "company" means the good of the owners of the company... private good, not common good, and private good garnered at the expense of the workers and consumers who deal with the company.

Are both of these not just motivations of the common good? Whether for the company or the society? Read the two sentences again with that it mind.If I'd said cooperative or building society (where all customers are shareholders as well), then you might have a point. But I didn't, so you don't.

There is a fallacy inherent to the argument that socialist nations are accountable to their constituencies. They do not offer an alternative to their system, and are instead dedicated to the principle that they should be in power simply because their peoples are too stupid to handle freedom and responsibility, in the opinion of those in power. A company satisfying it's shareholders is a vastly different matter, as those shareholders can force compliance through a variety of means.

There is a fallacy inherent to the argument that socialist nations are accountable to their constituencies. They do not offer an alternative to their system, and are instead dedicated to the principle that they should be in power simply because their peoples are too stupid to handle freedom and responsibility, in the opinion of those in power. A company satisfying it's shareholders is a vastly different matter, as those shareholders can force compliance through a variety of means.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/Enron_Logo.svg/200px-Enron_Logo.svg.png

It is only good for the people that 'designed' it, aka the people who think others should work for them.

An interesting assumption. Justify it.

The "common good" refers to public good, collective good--including the workers and consumers who deal with the company.

The good of the "company" means the good of the owners of the company... private good, not common good, and private good garnered at the expense of the workers and consumers who deal with the company.

It is not good for the productive members of the society. It is only good for the people that 'designed' it, aka the people who think others should work for them. The non-productive. The people that can't pull their own weight. This is the good for them, at the expense of the productive members.

The good of the company leaves the employees in the same situation - no choice whether to support the whole or not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/Enron_Logo.svg/200px-Enron_Logo.svg.png

You didn't even read what he said did you?

A monopoly has so many parallels with socialism I shudder to think of what would happen if their were no laws against them.
...
Socialism is the worst kind of MONOPOLY there is. It is a monopoly on the lives and liberties of the citizens of the society.

So what you're saying is that a capitalist left to pursue his own ends in exclusive ownership and control (private property) and for-profit enterprise is actually a socialist? In the end, there really isn't any meaningful difference between exclusive ownership and control by the state versus exclusive ownership and control by a private citizen as in the absence of certain necessary measures ("...if [there] were no laws against them") they would both end up moving toward the same end? They would both strive to gain "monopoly on the lives and liberties of the citizens of the society?"

This is what's so great about these "capitalist vs. socialist"-type discussions. It's like watching a parakeet yell at its own damn self in a mirror.

and are instead dedicated to the principle that they should be in power simply because their peoples are too stupid to handle freedom and responsibility

Strangely enough, it seems to me that this more accurately describes capitalism.

We give control over our workplaces, our goods, our lives, to a small, extremely rich minority... because, supposedly, we can't handle it ourselves.

You didn't even read what he said did you?

I think he did. Enrons' actions were contrary to the good of all, including their shareholders.

How did the shareholders in this case 'force compliance' through any means?

So what you're saying is that a capitalist left to pursue his own ends in exclusive ownership and control (private property) and for-profit enterprise is actually a socialist? In the end, there really isn't any meaningful difference between exclusive ownership and control by the state versus exclusive ownership and control by a private citizen as in the absence of certain necessary measures ("...if [there] were no laws against them") they would both end to moving toward the same end?

This is what's so great about these "capitalist vs. socialist"-type discussions. It's like watching a parakeet yell at its own damn self in a mirror.

No, I'm saying that a true capitalist society would not have monopolies. That there is a huge difference between owning your own stuff (ie different companies) and one thing owning all (the gov/monopoly)

No, I'm saying that a true capitalist society would not have monopolies.


History is replete with examples wherein capitalist (private property, for-profit private enterprise in the context of an employer-employee wage system) societies have produced monopolies of all sorts. Natural or though manipulation of law and/or economic process. This potential for monopoly continues even now.

Thus, the statement that "a true capitalist society would not have monopolies" is fallacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scottsman).

You didn't even read what he said did you?I did, my response was that ENRON lied to everyone, including its shareholders. How are shareholders meant to control a company that doesn't give its shareholders any power over it. Shareholders trying to control a company would suffer from exactly the same problems as the citizens trying to control their government would. Except if one or several shareholders had very large stakes in the company.

My response was that I didn't think Ordo Drakul had a valid argument.

I think he did. Enrons' actions were contrary to the good of all, including their shareholders.

How did the shareholders in this case 'force compliance' through any means?

No economic system at all works if everyone is being dishonest. You cant judge a failure of an economic system on lies people were told. If the shareholders were aware of what was going on, they would have been able to correct it before it became so dire (Or simply sell the building). The guilty party was imprisoned just as they would have been in any economic system.

To claim that socialism is inherently free from the corrupting influence of money is nonsense.

How are shareholders meant to control a company that doesn't give its shareholders any power over it.

Exactly what he was arguing about - I can't control my government if they decide that I don't know how to manage my own freedom.

It is not good for the productive members of the society. It is only good for the people that 'designed' it, aka the people who think others should work for them. The non-productive. The people that can't pull their own weight. This is the good for them, at the expense of the productive members.

Actually, the businessmen and industrialists are incredibly more productive than their employees, since, after all, action unguided by thought is random and pointless.

The US needs to forget about "Labor Day" and institute a holiday celebrating the TRUE originators of wealth: businessmen and industrialists.

The difference between a monopolistic corporation and a government is that the corporation can't hold a gun to your head and make you do what it wants--it has to convince you. If you don't want to do what it wants, you can refuse to deal with it altogether. You don't get to do that with a government.

When you refuse to deal with a corporation, it might not provide you with something you need--but it's not obligated to do that anyway. And it's definitely not going to take from you something that was yours to begin with. The same can't be said of governments.

So there's nothing wrong with monopolies; there's everything wrong with collectivist governments.

Exactly what he was arguing about - I can't control my government if they decide that I don't know how to manage my own freedom.

Do you have a point other than agreeing with everyone that capitalism and socialism are the same thing?

This describes many potential modes of socialism as well.

Even a centralized state socialist system would be considerably more democratic and egalitarian than the capitalist alternative.

Strangely enough, it seems to me that this more accurately describes capitalism.

We give control over our workplaces, our goods, our lives, to a small, extremely rich minority... because, supposedly, we can't handle it ourselves.

This describes many potential modes of socialism as well.

Strangely enough, it seems to me that this more accurately describes capitalism.

We give control over our workplaces, our goods, our lives, to a small, extremely rich minority... because, supposedly, we can't handle it ourselves.

Except that's not it at all.

"We" don't "give" anyone anything.

They simply produce something others want, and we each, individually and independently, choose whether or not we want to deal with them, produce it ourselves, or do without altogether.

In the case of a company, it's workers and owners.

And a monopoly privileges the owners over the workers, who are powerless.

Still, private good over public, common good.

The "common good" refers to public good, collective good--including the workers and consumers who deal with the company.

Sounds like you're just redefining terms so that no matter what, capitalism (or indeed, private ownership, or anything but hive-minded Borg collectivism) and common good are mutually exclusive.

"common good" refers to the common good of those within the system. In the case of a company, it's workers and owners. In the case of a state, its citizens. People who neither own nor work for a company are not part of that company's "commonality" any more than people in California are included as part of China's "commonality."

Oh wait, the USSR wasn't "real" centralized state socialism ...

Indeed it wasn't... since socialism requires social ownership (or maybe worker ownership, which certainly wasn't present), and in the USSR the means of production were not owned by society or by its legitimate representative.

Edit: The better question is whether a centralized state system can ever be "socialist"... I think the answer is yes, but only if it occurs through the forms of modern liberal democracy, which have their own problems.

Even a centralized state socialist system would be considerably more democratic and egalitarian than the capitalist alternative.

Yeah, because when I think of 20 million dead Russians, I think "democratic and egalitarian." Oh wait, the USSR wasn't "real" centralized state socialism ...

Actually, the businessmen and industrialists are incredibly more productive than their employees, since, after all, action unguided by thought is random and pointless.

The US needs to forget about "Labor Day" and institute a holiday celebrating the TRUE originators of wealth: businessmen and industrialists.

The difference between a monopolistic corporation and a government is that the corporation can't hold a gun to your head and make you do what it wants--it has to convince you. If you don't want to do what it wants, you can refuse to deal with it altogether. You don't get to do that with a government.

When you refuse to deal with a corporation, it might not provide you with something you need--but it's not obligated to do that anyway. And it's definitely not going to take from you something that was yours to begin with. The same can't be said of governments.

So there's nothing wrong with monopolies; there's everything wrong with collectivist governments.

I agree with everything you said.

The only problem with monopolies is when they get out of hand and start destroying everybody else. This is only a complete monopoly, the kind no one has seen in a long time.

The difference between a monopolistic corporation and a government is that the corporation can't hold a gun to your head and make you do what it wants--it has to convince you.


The monopolistic corporation can, of course, "convince" me through all kind of coercive means. It can deny me access to what I need to survive, if it maintains exclusive ownership and control of such resources (just like the government). It can direct its "private" security forces against me, who are presumably armed and quite literally holding guns (just like the government). It can throw me off of its "private property" (just like the government can deport me from its "sovereign territory").

Seems to me like the difference between the monopolistic corporation and monopolistic government is mostly in one's head :)


If you don't want to do what it wants, you can refuse to deal with it altogether.


More likely the monopolistic corporation will take any number of manipulative and coercive actions, including those described above, in order to "convince" me to deal with it. Its friends in the government will probably help too.


When you refuse to deal with a corporation, it might not provide you with something you need--but it's not obligated to do that anyway.


When a "government" takes all for its own gain and refuses to give anything back, it is acting immorally. Yet the monopolistic corporation is free to behave in exactly the same way. I'm not seeing how this works.


So there's nothing wrong with monopolies;


Except supply and price manipulation against normal market operations, as well as other behaviors associated with the cartel, collusion, and other general anti-competitive coercion.

We're supposed to be striving for the ideal of free-market competition, yes?

As I've described to Risi 2 and Linus and Lucy, I fail to see the difference.

They're accountable to different constituencies: in one case the people in general, in the other the shareholders.

Even a centralized state socialist system would be considerably more democratic and egalitarian than the capitalist alternative.

Obviously I disagree strongly. As I've described to Risi 2 and Linus and Lucy, I fail to see the difference.

A centralized state is a centralized state. I'm not inclined to make excuses because it happens to (pretend to) wave my flag.

Indeed it wasn't... since socialism requires social ownership (or maybe worker ownership, which certainly wasn't present), and in the USSR the means of production were not owned by society or by its legitimate representative.

Stalin and his government were the legitimate representative of The People. After all it was The People who did that whole Socialist Revolution thing. Everything in the USSR was owned by everyone in it.

But I know you folks just like not to deal with that... there have never been communist societies, or socialist ones, it's all just an ideal and we're all proletariat capitalist slaves etc etc yawn. Much more convenient!

Stalin and his government were the legitimate representative of The People. After all it was The People who did that whole Socialist Revolution thing. Everything in the USSR was owned by everyone in it.

I'm trying to see what point you're trying to make... but unless you're trying to hold me responsible for every piece of propaganda produced by every socialist or pretend-socialist who ever existed, I can't.

Stalin and his government were the legitimate representative of The People. After all it was The People who did that whole Socialist Revolution thing. Everything in the USSR was owned by everyone in it.

But I know you folks just like not to deal with that... there have never been communist societies, or socialist ones, it's all just an ideal and we're all proletariat capitalist slaves etc etc yawn. Much more convenient!

Yes exactly - these people have never heard the phrase "history repeats itself"

Or, if they have they are just purely ignorant and act like it either never happened or it 'was different'.

Yes exactly - these people have never heard the phrase "history repeats itself"

I don't (generally) support Leninist revolutions.

Though I might make an exception in the absurdly implausible circumstance of a revolution led by one of the more libertarian Trotskyist sects.

I have to leave because I have work to do.

I hate having to argue my rights to someone that thinks I should have to work for them. It's disgusting. I hope I don't have to do deal with this kind of parasitic slime for a long time - the slime that blends itself in with the same class of people that produce the goods of society, but thinks that it deserves what they produced.

I'm trying to see what point you're trying to make... but unless you're trying to hold me responsible for every piece of propaganda produced by every socialist or pretend-socialist who ever existed, I can't.

As far as I'm concerned, you ARE a propaganda piece for socialists and pretend-socialists. From my perspective, you're like the Catholics vs Protestants. "WE'RE the REAL christians, those others are just pretenders!" And like I'm supposed to pick and choose? No. You're all socialists and I'm not going to play your game of, "If it's destructive, it's FAKE socialism by FAKE socialists!"

As far as I'm concerned, you ARE a propaganda piece for socialists and pretend-socialists.

That sounds like a pretty--forgive me--propagandistic thing to believe.

"Ah! He's a socialist! Clearly he's a Bolshevik Stalinist Mao-lover!"

:rolleyes:

From my perspective, you're like the Catholics vs Protestants. "WE'RE the REAL christians, those others are just pretenders!"

Fine, Augusto Pinochet.

People often use monopolies and other such things of 'broad control' as reasons why capitalism is evil.

But have you ever thought of how a monopoly really operates? They can oppress and ask whatever they want of of their employees. Since it is a monopoly, people usually have no choice whether to work there or not, or at least give their business to said monopoly. The monopoly is concerned only with how well it does in the world - it is willing to do anything to get ahead. Because the employees have nowhere else to go, and the monopoly is concerned only with itself; the employees are forced to work for the common good of the company.

A monopoly has so many parallels with socialism I shudder to think of what would happen if their were no laws against them. People equate monopolies with capitalism, but the truth is they behave like a socialistic society in themselves. Compare to the last sentence above: "The citizens of a socialist society are obligated to work for (pay taxes) the good of all the citizens of the society, for a goal of a better society." ('the good' can be free health care, welfare, or anything similar) Read the sentences carefully - they have the exact same meaning, only 'company' is replaced with 'society', and 'employees' with 'citizens'.

Socialism is the worst kind of MONOPOLY there is. It is a monopoly on the lives and liberties of the citizens of the society.

Red Flag: Logical Fallacy
Equivocation

My friend, you are destroying language with your argument. You have subtly changed the definition of "common good" to make your argument appear to not be made of fail. In the first case, under capitalism, the "common good" is what is best for the material interests of the owners of the enterprise, which inevitably cotradicts the best interests of the majority, being the people and the workers.

In case 2, under socialism, the common good means exactly that. People work and society is structured to ensure that no one can profit at the expense of another. There is no inherant contadiction, obviously, between the common good of all and those people who constitute the group.

But I know you folks just like not to deal with that... there have never been communist societies, or socialist ones, it's all just an ideal and we're all proletariat capitalist slaves etc etc yawn. Much more convenient!


There have been many communist and socialist political systems, and most were disgusting perversions. They cannot be ignored (they should not be ignored exactly because of the lessons they provide concerning governance and its inherent dangers) but neither do they represent the entirety of socialist or left-wing thought.

"What, how can you support democracy? Just look at North Korea!"

Those were "real" socialists

In what sense?

You're all socialists and I'm not going to play your game of, "If it's destructive, it's FAKE socialism by FAKE socialists!"

Those were "real" socialists, but "fake" advocates of human liberty.

Kind of like how Augusto Pinochet was an advocate of right-wing market economics, but again a rather piss-poor defender of human liberty.

I hate having to argue my rights to someone that thinks I should have to work for them. It's disgusting. I hope I don't have to do deal with this kind of parasitic slime for a long time - the slime that blends itself in with the same class of people that produce the goods of society, but thinks that it deserves what they produced.

We do agree on something. :)

The difference between a monopolistic corporation and a government is that the corporation can't hold a gun to your head and make you do what it wants--it has to convince you. If you don't want to do what it wants, you can refuse to deal with it altogether. You don't get to do that with a government.

Tell that to the 19th century workers who were beaten and shot by Pinkerton private guards.

That sounds like a pretty--forgive me--propagandistic thing to believe.

"Ah! He's a socialist! Clearly he's a Bolshevik Stalinist Mao-lover!"


No. But Bolsheviks, Stalinists and Maoists are all socialists.

You claim to be a socialist, so I say you are a socialist too.

Fine, Augusto Pinochet.

What about him?

See, I don't have this idealized, artificially-utopian definition of "capitalism" whereby I only include amongst "capitalists" those who I can sympathize and agree with and wax romantic about. I'm perfectly willing to admit Pinochet was capitalist.

but neither do they represent the entirety of socialist or left-wing thought.

I never said they did. I just disagree with the "not real" attempt at dismissal.

Also, where did "left-wing" come into this? Pretty soon we're going to start talking "liberals" and then "Democrats" and then the really nasty names will start coming out...

You claim to be a socialist, so I say you are a socialist too.

That's an interesting standard.

I lied. I'm not, in fact, a socialist. In fact, I'm a militantly right-wing advocate of ultra-capitalism who, if put into power, would nationalize all the means of production, abolish every element of market distribution, and get the population to elect a central planning board.

What do you call me?

I never said they did. I just disagree with the "not real" attempt at dismissal.


Ok. Then we don't disagree.

Implementing socialism can indeed be extremely dangerous; Stalin, Mao, and all the rest prove this. But totalitarian absolutism is not a necessary conclusion. Neither is totalitarian absolutism a necessary conclusion of capitalism, either.

As I've stated in other threads, I prefer a mixture of the best (in my opinion, anyway) of both. Throw the rest of the garbage from both sides away.


Also, where did "left-wing" come into this? Pretty soon we're going to start talking "liberals" and then "Democrats" and then the really nasty names will start coming out...


It's my observation that in the rest of the world, "left-wing" and "socialist" are nearly the same exact thing. It's only in the United States that a right-wing conservative party like the Democrats can possibly be "left-wing."

In the sense that socialism comes in both "state" and "anti-state" flavors.

Of course it does. State socialism is real socialism... though certainly not ideal and certainly not utopian.

Dictatorial "socialism" is not.

In what sense?

In the sense that socialism comes in both "state" and "anti-state" flavors.

I might reject the "state" approach as one I would personally recommend and prefer, but I cannot deny the existence of the ideology altogether.

You know, Soheran, we're anarchists, and so shouldn't have to take this crap. So, my question to the opposing side is this: are you even going to listen to how we define socialism (i.e., in a completely voluntary, democratic, non-hierarchical and cooperative), or are you going to just cry "zOMG! t3h ebil S74L1N15T5!"

Of course it does. State socialism is real socialism... though certainly not ideal and certainly not utopian.

Dictatorial "socialism" is not.

Dictatorial socialism is just state socialism extended to its furthest conclusion. That the political spectrum bends in such a fashion that dictatorial capitalism occupies the same point at dictatorial socialism doesn't change that fact.

Which is why the political compass should actually be a triangle, not a square.

Dictatorial socialism is just state socialism extended to its furthest conclusion.

That depends entirely on which elements you want to "extend" to their furthest conclusion... and if the result is dictatorial state ownership, it seems to me that you're extending the "state" part rather than (indeed, in opposition to) the "socialist" one.

Socialism extended to its furthest conclusion is anarchy.

They're accountable to different constituencies: in one case the people in general, in the other the shareholders.

(emphasis added by me)

Only when we specifically assume a relatively liberal and democratic mode of state socialism, only a portion of the overall population.

Socialism extended to its furthest conclusion is anarchy.


I agree.

What, however, are the odds that the agents of the state are going to extend the anarchist part instead of the dictatorial part?

I agree.

What, however, are the odds that the agents of the state are going to extend the anarchist part instead of the dictatorial part?

The odds? Low.

But, the calculus of power balance between capital and state is not necessarily a zero sum game. In many ways, the abolition of capitalism, and the creation of a truly socialist system built around worker's control and self-management would greatly weaken the power of the state by building alternative centers of popular power.

But, the calculus of power balance between capital and state is not necessarily a zero sum game.


Of course not.


In many ways, the abolition of capitalism, and the creation of a truly socialist system built around worker's control and self-management would greatly weaken the power of the state by building alternative centers of popular power.

The obvious examples start out this way, but end rather poorly. This doens't mean it's impossible; I'm just an empiricist who studies his history and thus develops a healthy level of skepticism.

IF the agents of the state allow workers' control and self-management...

Dictatorial socialism is just state socialism extended to its furthest conclusion.

Socialism extended to its furthest conclusion is anarchy.I agree.

Uh... care to explain yourself?

That's an interesting standard.

It's the one people seem to use. I say I'm a Jew, you don't tend to go "AHA! YOU MUST BE A CATHOLIC!" You tend to assume that I am not lying about my belief. Should I not give you the benefit of the doubt on this matter - even if you don't do the same for entire populations of socialists?

I lied. I'm not, in fact, a socialist. In fact, I'm a militantly right-wing advocate of ultra-capitalism who, if put into power, would nationalize all the means of production, abolish every element of market distribution, and get the population to elect a central planning board.

What do you call me?

I'm not allowed by the moderators to use that kind of language.

It's my observation that in the rest of the world, "left-wing" and "socialist" are nearly the same exact thing. It's only in the United States that a right-wing conservative party like the Democrats can possibly be "left-wing."

I think "left" and "right" and "conservative" and "liberal" are largely useless terms, especially given this context. And they often become little more than add-ons for massive generalizations.

It's the one people seem to use. I say I'm a Jew, you don't tend to go "AHA! YOU MUST BE A CATHOLIC!" You tend to assume that I am not lying about my belief.

Indeed.

But if you, say, proceeded to state that you believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God, that only through faith in him can we attain salvation, and that you faithfully go to church every Sunday, I might begin to question whether you really believed in Judaism.

Uh... care to explain yourself?

When Soheran said...


Socialism extended to its furthest conclusion is anarchy


...I understood there to be an implied "Anti-state" at the beginning of the sentence. This assumption would be consistent with what I understand to be Soheran's beliefs (even if we disagree on the extent to which we would each tolerate a more statist implementation). Thus, I read:


[Anti-State] Socialism extended to its furthest conclusion is anarchy


So,

1. Dictatorship is an extension of state socialism
2. Anarchism is an extension of anti-state socialism

Perfectly consistent.

I think "left" and "right" and "conservative" and "liberal" are largely useless terms, especially given this context. And they often become little more than add-ons for massive generalizations.

I agree. The terminology is still common, though, even if flawed and confusing.

When Soheran said...



...I understood there to be an implied "Anti-state" at the beginning of the sentence. This assumption would be consistent with what I understand to be Soheran's beliefs (even if we disagree on the extent to which we would each tolerate a more statist implementation). Thus, I read:



So,

1. Dictatorship is an extension of state socialism
2. Anarchism is an extension of anti-state socialism

Perfectly consistent.I would assume you'd misread Soheran's post then. He was claiming that neat socialism is anti-state. Ergo, a dictatorship is an extension of Statism and not of Socialism in State Socialism. So I don't think you do agree with him.

I shudder to think of what would happen if their were no laws against them.

Since when has a law against a monopoly or corporate merger been enforced? the last one I remember was when AT&T was broken up which allowed for the telephone system we have today.

In the mean time, Microsoft is a virtual monopoly and nothing has happened.

Nearly every industry has merged to the point of no competition and nothing has happened.

The majority of people on this forum weren't born the last time monopoly laws were in effect.

He was claiming that neat socialism is anti-state.


I'm not familiar with this use of the word "neat," so I'm not sure what you mean.


Ergo, a dictatorship is an extension of Statism and not of Socialism in State Socialism. So I don't think you do agree with him.


I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. I had thought there was confusion as to the difference between "dictatorial" and "anarchist" socialism. I was attempting to clarify.

There are not laws against monopoly (in any western country I know of).

Microsoft having a monopoly over making OSs is not what got them in trouble with the EU and South Korea. It was their specific predatory practices that caused the problems.

Like their bundling of Windows Media Player. That is anti-competitive behaviour because it puts companies making a small unrelated product out of business by providing it free with a larger product which everyone would need to buy to run the smaller product.

Similarly, on a smaller level, when a supermarket which is part of a large national chain, constantly prices certain items BELOW cost in an attempt to put their smaller local competitor out of business, this is predatory pricing and is illegal (at least it is in Australia and I presume other countries as well)

A monopoly is not always BAD per se. But when a company engages in anti-competitive behaviour that is when it is bad.

To return to the actual topic, I believe this to be the same for society. In a one party system there is normally some dis-unity within the ruling party. Provided the leaders of that party do not use their power to supress the ideas within their own party, you still benefit from the conflict of ideas that supposedly makes a democratic society successful.

He was claiming that neat socialism is anti-state. Ergo, a dictatorship is an extension of Statism and not of Socialism in State Socialism.

Well, something like that.

The "direction" of socialist ideology can be looked at in a number of ways, from social ownership to the abolition of a certain kind of class distinction to a broad concern for social benefit... but a common element is the idea of public power rather than the private, exclusive power of a minority.

As such, I maintain that socialism necessarily has an anti-authoritarian element to it... and thus that carried out to its extreme necessitates the rejection of the state as an authoritarian political model that privileges an elite political class of rulers.

To "extend" socialism therefore is necessarily to call into question the power of the state.

Crucially, even state socialist thinkers (the radical ones, anyway) have consistently argued that state power must be controlled and exercised in a very different way in a socialist society than it is in a capitalist one.

I'm not familiar with this use of the word "neat," so I'm not sure what you mean.You do not go drinking enough. Or at least not unmixed spirits. Neat means on its own - unadulterated.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. I had thought there was confusion as to the difference between "dictatorial" and "anarchist" socialism. I was attempting to clarify.[/QUOTE]Soheran has replied, and clarified his position himself, which is much better than me putting words in his mouth that perhaps he might not agree with.



I was reading something the other day regarding socialism and it used community in place of public. I think community is a better choice of vocabulary because it implies localisation as opposed to centralisation which is what public implies (for me), as it is a word that is tied in with 'state'.

As such, I maintain that socialism necessarily has an anti-authoritarian element to it... and thus that carried out to its extreme necessitates the rejection of the state as an authoritarian political model that privileges an elite political class of rulers.


I suppose if I disagree, I do so only to the extent that I would change "necessarily has an anti-authoritarian element" to "should have an anti-authoritarian element."

I can't deny the capitalist the ability to reject authoritarianism as "not real capitalism" while rejecting authoritarianism as "not real socialism" myself.

You do not go drinking enough. Or at least not unmixed spirits. Neat means on its own - unadulterated.


That's what I figured. I just wanted to be clear; misunderstanding is all too easy on the internet forum.

I can't deny the capitalist the ability to reject authoritarianism as "not real capitalism"

When authoritarianism is in fact "not real capitalism", I would deny her nothing of the sort.

But she would have to justify that claim, as I have attempted to justify mine.

I can't deny the capitalist the ability to reject authoritarianism as "not real capitalism" while rejecting authoritarianism as "not real socialism" myself.Perhaps you can though. Capitalism requires a neutral arbiter to resolve legal disputes, and to enforce the law as well - the state.

I was reading something the other day regarding socialism and it used community in place of public. I think community is a better choice of vocabulary because it implies localisation as opposed to centralisation which is what public implies (for me), as it is a word that is tied in with 'state'.

Decentralization has been a key part of much socialist ideology. A fact that many socialists and non-socialists alike can't seem to get their heads around.

Perhaps you can though. Capitalism requires a neutral arbiter to resolve legal disputes, and to enforce the law as well - the state.

But so does socialism. Something has to coordinate the interactions of the various autonomous workers' collectives or cooperatives, not to mention autonomous individuals. Law and legal disputes will continue to exist.

This is why it is important to distinguish between "governance" and "the state." "The state" is a specific kind of governance that many capitalists and socialists alike reject. Both will continue to require some kind of governance, though.

But so does socialism. Something has to coordinate the interactions of the various autonomous workers' collectives or cooperatives, not to mention autonomous individuals. Law and legal disputes will continue to exist.

This is why it is important to distinguish between "governance" and "the state." "The state" is a specific kind of governance that many capitalists and socialists alike reject. Both will continue to require some kind of governance, though.Eh, well if we're saying that anarchy is an extension of socialism then it is possible for a form of socialism to be without laws. Instead of being based on a legal system it is instead based upon a trust-based system and societal norms.
ie. A fairly standard societal norm is that it is wrong to burn people's homes down. If I burn your home down and the community feels that this has been adequately proven to have committed that act, then it will be nearly impossible for me to operate within the community as no one will trust me or like me. I may even suffer retribution as well until I have made a mends for my ways.

When authoritarianism is in fact "not real capitalism", I would deny her nothing of the sort.


I don't mean to imply otherwise.


But she would have to justify that claim, as I have attempted to justify mine.


I think that when state authoritarianism does go away, the differences between "socialism" and "capitalism" will become trivial at best. I think that at some level the two ideologies are just nonsense the authoritarians use to pit me against my brothers and sisters.

Eh, well if we're saying that anarchy is an extension of socialism then it is possible for a form of socialism to be without laws.


Anarchy is not the absence of law. It is the absence of exclusive privilege and authority. Law can be the product of free cooperation amongst equal individuals.

The rest of what you describe can indeed be a manifestation of such, as can more "traditional" (that is, how we see and apply law now) approaches.

The key is the source of executive power: a single sovereign (even those elected) or the whole of the people.

Anarchy is not the absence of law. It is the absence of exclusive privilege and authority. Law can be the product of free cooperation amongst equal individuals.

The rest of what you describe can indeed be a manifestation of such, as can more "traditional" (that is, how we see and apply law now) approaches.

The key is the source of executive power: a single sovereign (even those elected) or the whole of the people.Anarchy is an absence of law, however it is not necessarily an absence of rules.

Anarchy is where an individual has absolute liberty. Law implies authority and sovereignty over a certain grouping of land or people. The Law may be instituted through communal or democratic means, but it is still Law. As such is has authority over people and binds their actions - thus restricting their absolute liberty.

In a group of three people, two decide to create a law that governs all three and punishes non-compliance. the third person has had his/her liberty restricted. Therefore this is not Anarchy. In Anarchy, the first two people would mutually agree to abide by a certain rule and refuse to deal with the third person if they refused to abide by the rule. All three still have their liberty. However, it may be in the third person's best interest to follow the rule set down by the other two, but the third person still has absolute liberty in whether they choose to abide by this rule or not.

Just as Anarchy is an absence of rulers, but not leaders, it is an absence of law, but not rules.

Anarchy is an absence of law, however it is not necessarily an absence of rules.

Anarchy is where an individual has absolute liberty. Law implies authority and sovereignty over a certain grouping of land or people. The Law may be instituted through communal or democratic means, but it is still Law. As such is has authority over people and binds their actions - thus restricting their absolute liberty.

In a group of three people, two decide to create a law that governs all three and punishes non-compliance. the third person has had his/her liberty restricted. Therefore this is not Anarchy. In Anarchy, the first two people would mutually agree to abide by a certain rule and refuse to deal with the third person if they refused to abide by the rule. All three still have their liberty. However, it may be in the third person's best interest to follow the rule set down by the other two, but the third person still has absolute liberty in whether they choose to abide by this rule or not.

Just as Anarchy is an absence of rulers, but not leaders, it is an absence of law, but not rules.

I see your point. But I will try to further complicate matters by proposing the idea of a class of "rule" that is likely to enjoy widespread support and that people are likely to enforce whether or not all parties explicitly agree to be governed by it.

Such a rule could be "Thou shalt not murder." Prohibiting murder seems to be one of those rules that should be (if not must be) enforced universally regardless of individual consent to be governed as such. Otherwise the murderer can simply refuse consent and thus be immune from justice. What about theft, whether from the personal possessions of an individual or those of a collective? Does the thief simply refuse consent and get away?

Even anarchy will require the enforcement of certain rules regardless of explicit individual consent, even if the most harsh punishment possible is simply to be run out of town. Again, what defines anarchy is not the absence of mandatory compliance with law. Rather, the key is the establishment of equal power for each autonomous individual to create and shape that law to the greatest extent possible. The key is to place that power in the hands of every individual, not just in the hands of the one sovereign or the oligarchy of "representatives."

Since when has a law against a monopoly or corporate merger been enforced? the last one I remember was when AT&T was broken up which allowed for the telephone system we have today.

In the mean time, Microsoft is a virtual monopoly and nothing has happened.

Nearly every industry has merged to the point of no competition and nothing has happened.

The majority of people on this forum weren't born the last time monopoly laws were in effect.
Monopolies are incredibly rare in a free market and only exist with government protection. Of course some companies attempt to use anti-trust legislation to harm their competitors. There is at least one major merger blocked every year in the US. Actually if you want to know a little bit about anti-trust law you should take a look at the XM Sirius merger.

Microsoft does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have a monopoly. It has a dominant position with a very large market share - that is a far cry from having a monopoly. Anyone that does not want to use a Microsoft product has a multitude of alternatives to choose from - that most users prefer to use Microsoft's offerings does not mean it is the only product available.

Name one industry that has 'merged to the point of no competition'. Competition is alive and well in every industry (with very rare exceptions which arise from government enforced monopolies such as cable TV).

Name one industry that has 'merged to the point of no competition'. Competition is alive and well in every industry (with very rare exceptions which arise from government enforced monopolies such as cable TV).

The consumer OS market, for one. The fact that 90% plus of all computers have the Windows operating system should be apparent to everyone.

The music industry is run as a de facto trust through the RIAA. 4 corporations control 85% of all music sales, and have long had the price of a CD well above the legitimate market price.

And in other industries, competition is far from "alive and well". There is an overwhelming trend towards concentration in every single American industry, and there are no signs that this will stop. But, that is what is to be expected from a market system, which because of the effects of pervasive externalities, can't even achieve perfect competition even if we grant their absurd preconditions of perfect information, let alone the decidedly monopolistic nature of modern capitalism. Monopoly can only beget monopoly.

More rabble about socialism

Inspired by Southpark, I shall reply with:

rabble rabble rabble!

I see your point. But I will try to further complicate matters by proposing the idea of a class of "rule" that is likely to enjoy widespread support and that people are likely to enforce whether or not all parties explicitly agree to be governed by it.

Such a rule could be "Thou shalt not murder." Prohibiting murder seems to be one of those rules that should be (if not must be) enforced universally regardless of individual consent to be governed as such. Otherwise the murderer can simply refuse consent and thus be immune from justice. What about theft, whether from the personal possessions of an individual or those of a collective? Does the thief simply refuse consent and get away?

Even anarchy will require the enforcement of certain rules regardless of explicit individual consent, even if the most harsh punishment possible is simply to be run out of town. Again, what defines anarchy is not the absence of mandatory compliance with law. Rather, the key is the establishment of equal power for each autonomous individual to create and shape that law to the greatest extent possible. The key is to place that power in the hands of every individual, not just in the hands of the one sovereign or the oligarchy of "representatives."In the case of theft, that implies property rights, which implies law. In an anarchic system there would be no property rights (remember the joke - Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft). However, this does not mean people will take whatever they want regardless of any consideration other than their own needs. An example would be if I went and caught a fish and then placed it in smoking hut, then it would be considered unfair for others to take that fish when I had put so much effort into preparing it. Hence, anyone who does not respect the efforts of others cannot expect to have their own efforts respected.

In the case of murder, I would imagine that the community would be devoid of any respect for the murderer, to such an extent that life for the murderer within the community would become impossible - leading to de facto banishment.

Stalin and his government were the legitimate representative of The People. After all it was The People who did that whole Socialist Revolution thing. Everything in the USSR was owned by everyone in it.

But I know you folks just like not to deal with that... there have never been communist societies, or socialist ones, it's all just an ideal and we're all proletariat capitalist slaves etc etc yawn. Much more convenient!

Well Hitler was democratically elected, it doesnt mean the Nazi Regime was democratic (yes, I'll godwin myself now but in my defence we were already on stalin :)) Just because a state starts off as one thing doesnt mean that it remains as it.

People often use monopolies and other such things of 'broad control' as reasons why capitalism is evil.

A true free-market society does not have monopolies. Economists realized that they were less efficient than a competitive arena, and all of the freedom that liberals loved about capitalism (in the 18th century it was liberal) disappeared with them.
I agree that monopolies are a threat to a capitalist society, but I think most economists see them as a threat to capitalism, too, and therefore encourage their prevention.

Since when has a law against a monopoly or corporate merger been enforced? the last one I remember was when AT&T was broken up which allowed for the telephone system we have today.

Yes, the last one you remember.
Monopolies are still pretty rare in countries with anti-trust laws (Japan is a good example of a place without these laws, and it has many huge conglomerates). However, the monopolies are always the biggest companies that everyone knows about, such as Microsoft. No one thinks about the smallish corporations, because they're, well, small.

Tell that to the 19th century workers who were beaten and shot by Pinkerton private guards.

There's no such thing as the right to trespass.

Violating the rights of another is an assault, and using force to get them off is simply an act of self-defense.

Like their bundling of Windows Media Player. That is anti-competitive behaviour because it puts companies making a small unrelated product out of business by providing it free with a larger product which everyone would need to buy to run the smaller product.
It is their product to design, produce, and offer as they see fit. Nothing justifies violating that right.

Similarly, on a smaller level, when a supermarket which is part of a large national chain, constantly prices certain items BELOW cost in an attempt to put their smaller local competitor out of business, this is predatory pricing and is illegal (at least it is in Australia and I presume other countries as well)
See above.

Since it is a monopoly, people usually have no choice whether to work there or not
This is only true if the monopoly also has monopsony power, which is extremely rare in a free market.

People work and society is structured to ensure that no one can profit at the expense of another.
I've never understood how socialists could say this and think it was a good thing.

If I'm not allowed to profit at the expense of another, then the other is never allowed to make a bad decision that works to my advantage but to his disadvantage. So then all of our decisions need to be vetted by some central agency to determine whether either of us is an idiot and needs to be protected from his own stupidity.

But what that means is we're all only ever able to make decisions of which the central agency approves, and that means we're all being completely deprived of free will.

And you're seriously supporting that.

There's no such thing as the right to trespass.

Violating the rights of another is an assault, and using force to get them off is simply an act of self-defense.

So long unions and collective bargaining. Goodbye liberty! Hello corporate police state.

I've never understood how socialists could say this and think it was a good thing.

If I'm not allowed to profit at the expense of another, then the other is never allowed to make a bad decision that works to my advantage but to his disadvantage. So then all of our decisions need to be vetted by some central agency to determine whether either of us is an idiot and needs to be protected from his own stupidity.

But what that means is we're all only ever able to make decisions of which the central agency approves, and that means we're all being completely deprived of free will.

And you're seriously supporting that.

In a cooperative firm (i.e., the worker's self management that we socialists use as our bedrock principle) no one is forced by necessity surrender their liberty and labor in exchange for subsistence. A person will be returned the full value of their labor, minus only the costs of running the firm. This is what I mean by structured to prevent people from profiting at the expense of others.

The consumer OS market, for one. The fact that 90% plus of all computers have the Windows operating system should be apparent to everyone.

I didn't know that 10% translated to "no."

I didn't know that 10% translated to "no."

The remaining 10 percent either us Linux or Mac OS, which will likely fold soon anyway. Apple has already set up their Mac computers for a transition out of the OS market.

The remaining 10 percent either us Linux or Mac OS

True. Competitors, thus, no monopoly.

, which will likely fold soon anyway.

Prediction. I have grains of salt here.

True. Competitors, thus, no monopoly.

What competition? Mac OS is still in play only because I number of technophobes are willing to put up with a lack of software just to avoid making a change. That's not competition.

Socialism extended to its furthest conclusion is anarchy.

Well I'd disagree with that. Socialism doesn't really have an 'extended to its furthest conclusion'. It is made up of different branches. Perhaps indvidualist or non hierachial based socialism would become an anarchist society.

In a cooperative firm (i.e., the worker's self management that we socialists use as our bedrock principle) no one is forced by necessity surrender their liberty and labor in exchange for subsistence. A person will be returned the full value of their labor, minus only the costs of running the firm. This is what I mean by structured to prevent people from profiting at the expense of others.
What about independent workers? Your example only deals with workers inside a traditional large-scale employer (the sort prevalent in the 19th century). What about entrepreneurs?

And how are these firms even formed? People have to get that capital together somehow.

What about independent workers? Your example only deals with workers inside a traditional large-scale employer (the sort prevalent in the 19th century). What about entrepreneurs?

If there are independent workers (I assume you mean one worker working alone) then if they put together the tools to do work (and remain competitive, assuming a mutualist market), then no one will stop them.

And how are these firms even formed? People have to get that capital together somehow.

The logical answer is of course that they will originally be formed out of the shell of the old capitalist firms (yay revolution!). While money still exists as the means of exchange, banks will still exist. P.J. Proudhon came up with a very good model for a socialist banking system with his Bank of the People idea, which would allow different firms to pool together their resources and lend surplus capital at inflation level interest.

If there are independent workers (I assume you mean one worker working alone) then if they put together the tools to do work (and remain competitive, assuming a mutualist market), then no one will stop them.
But what if they don't remain competitive? One of the bigger sources of failure in the free market is entrepreneurs with lousy ideas. These people try something new, and it's crap, so they end up broke.

Who's going to fund these in your system? Who's going to bear the burden of their failure?

But what if they don't remain competitive? One of the bigger sources of failure in the free market is entrepreneurs with lousy ideas. These people try something new, and it's crap, so they end up broke.

Who's going to fund these in your system? Who's going to bear the burden of their failure?

The whole system is not designed to foster adventuristic entrepreneurship. In many ways, it is unnecessary because the self-management system provides outlets for creativity that capitalism wagedom stifles. If you look at the record of cooperatives under capitalism, not only do they innovate, they also have a lower employee turnover rate.

In an anarchic system there would be no property rights


Not if the community of equal and autonomous individuals says otherwise :)


However, this does not mean people will take whatever they want regardless of any consideration other than their own needs. An example would be if I went and caught a fish and then placed it in smoking hut, then it would be considered unfair for others to take that fish when I had put so much effort into preparing it. Hence, anyone who does not respect the efforts of others cannot expect to have their own efforts respected.


Thus, property law.


In the case of murder, I would imagine that the community would be devoid of any respect for the murderer, to such an extent that life for the murderer within the community would become impossible - leading to de facto banishment.

Right, a punishment which the community will enforce regardless of the consent of the murderer.

Not if the community of equal and autonomous individuals says otherwise :)Gah, you completely misunderstand my point.

An anarchic community is in a Locke-ian state of nature. A community may be autonomous and equal, but if they enact laws or restrict liberty then they have moved away from anarchy and into Athenian Democracy.

Thus, property law.No, there is no 'thus'. People who respect each other don't tend to insult each other. This does not mean there is a law against people insulting each other.

Right, a punishment which the community will enforce regardless of the consent of the murderer.What you talk of is authority. In anarchy there is no higher authority - no law, no state.

There are anarchic conditions in my own house. We each own various parts of pots, pans, crockery and cutlery in the house, but they are treated as communal. This is because there is an understanding that we each wash up what we use promptly. If someone were constantly to abuse this system then they would pretty quickly be excluded from the arrangement. Yet I have not infringed upon that person's liberty in anyway. We do not have a contract, simply an understanding. And none of us have any recourse to the law if we break the understanding.

So to talk of the murderer's consent is nonsense. As all that is happening is that individuals are withdrawing their consent from any understandings that they had with the murderer.

Think of an apple tree that supplies apples for the community. The understanding is to only take what you need and not to take from others what they have already taken. There is no law that says this must be so, simply an understanding between individuals.

An anarchic community is in a Locke-ian state of nature. A community may be autonomous and equal, but if they enact laws or restrict liberty then they have moved away from anarchy and into Athenian Democracy.


There is chaos, and then there is anarchy. Totally unrestricted "liberty" is more characteristic of Hobbes' state of nature (or chaos, or pure lassiez-faire capitalism, or international relations as conducted by the modern state...).

Voluntary organization on the basis of equality and autonomy (or anarchy) provides escape from the state of nature. The traditional circle-A symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anarchy-symbol.svg) doesn't actually contain a circle. It contains a letter "O." For "Order." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_A#Circle-A) Anarchy is Order. It is also...

"...a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune."
-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Origins )


No, there is no 'thus'. People who respect each other don't tend to insult each other. This does not mean there is a law against people insulting each other.


The behavior of people who respect each other also tends to happily conform to the requirements of just and righteous law. So I ask, what exactly is the practical difference?

Thus the thus.


What you talk of is authority. In anarchy there is no higher authority - no law, no state.


There is authority in anarchy: The collection of autonomous individuals.

Anarchy is not the absense of rule. It is the absense of rulers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy).

(so yes, "anarchy" does sound a lot like simple direct democracy. That's how bad things have gotten under the sovereign state. The most radical political ideology man has yet come up with is just simple democracy...)


We do not have a contract, simply an understanding. And none of us have any recourse to the law if we break the understanding.


There are all sorts of "understandings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_contract)" which enjoy the protection of the law.


So to talk of the murderer's consent is nonsense.


Earlier, you seemed to draw a distinction between "law" and "rules" based on whether all parties involved give their explicit consent. "Rules" allow a person to withdraw their consent and gain maximum liberty, but this is insufficient for the protection of the rights of others as with only "rules" a person need only revoke his consent to be governed and he can literally get away with murder. What right have you to deny such an individual, as a form of punishment, the ability to trade or live within the town or otherwise carry on however s/he wishes ? S/he has the right to do as they wish, correct?

At any rate, enacting "laws" against such things as murder and theft does not actually restrict liberty, because no one is free to murder or steal to begin with. Murder and theft destroy liberty; the "freedom" to destroy freedom is nonsense. All the "law" does is provide a formal mechanism and a system of accountability (the concept of "the rule of law," presumption of innocence, etc.) so that social relations are orderly and fair. Otherwise, we're right back to war of all against all.


There is no law that says this must be so, simply an understanding between individuals.

This understanding requires the presence of an authority with the power to impose it, or it means squat. Otherwise, an anti-social strongman eventually comes along and imposes the opposite, and the rest of us are left with nothing.

Running the whole country as a corporation does not equal socialism, it equals fascism. The key difference is class struggle, socialism holds that history is viewed in terms of materialism and dialectics, fascism on the other hand is about class collaboration, not class abolition, and tries to amalgamate all interests into a massive state.

Socialism is about autonomy, which means independence, there is a socialist saying which goes 'in need, freedom is latent', meaning that if you are in need you are immediately beholden to those who have that good and service, and them in a position over them. Socialism realizes that individual independence is needed, but also that men naturally live with each other in a communal interdependent nature, that is why the objective of such parties is the socialization of industry and exchange to eliminate exploitation, so that in society people may trade on an equal basis, in which each side has equal need of each others good or service, rather than one side having an unequal footing in the exchange, as I said it's interdependence.

Socialism is about autonomy, which means independence


Anarchism is about autonomy. Socialism may or may not be anarchic.


Socialism realizes that individual independence is needed, but also that men naturally live with each other in a communal interdependent nature,


Reason leads to the recognition that individual independence coexists with collective interdependence. Socialism may or may not be reasonable.

Anarchism is about autonomy. Socialism may or may not be anarchic.



Reason leads to the recognition that individual independence coexists with collective interdependence. Socialism may or may not be reasonable.

Well anarchism (the individualist type) is wrong because it assumes that people can actually live individually with total independence (political, economic etc), not only is this practically wrong (and even if it were), it ignores the fact that we are social creatures, we like to interact and trade with each other. And trade is my main point, communities are forged because we all have different needs, we need shoes so we have a shoemaker, food so we have farmers etc, and we exchange our labor value for theirs (in the form of a good or service), so both needs are satisfied, thus the interdependence.

Socialism comes into this because it wants the socialization of exchange to the extent to eliminate exploitation that occurs when one side of the exchange market becomes totally outbalanced, so those who need what this side has become more and more indentured to them because their need is greater and the need of the seller for their labor value (either directly via wages or some other form of exchange - money). Socialism is Utopian, I will not deny it, and it seeks an interdependent community in which the need of individuals for a given good or service is equal (or thereabouts) proportionately to the amount of exchange value the other individual has. Thus the socialization of exchange.

So socialism is more practical and realistic because it recognizes that us humans live in an exchange community for a very good reason.

Well anarchism (the individualist type) is wrong because it assumes that people can actually live individually with total independence (political, economic etc), not only is this practically wrong (and even if it were), it ignores the fact that we are social creatures, we like to interact and trade with each other. And trade is my main point, communities are forged because we all have different needs, we need shoes so we have a shoemaker, food so we have farmers etc, and we exchange our labor value for theirs (in the form of a good or service), so both needs are satisfied, thus the interdependence.
No. Anarchism is not individual autarky. People are not completely isolated hermits. You are completely free to trade goods and services with anyone you see fit for any reason or any rate of exchange using any medium you so desire without restriction. Anything those directly involved can agree upon.

Socialism comes into this because it wants the socialization of exchange to the extent to eliminate exploitation that occurs when one side of the exchange market becomes totally outbalanced, so those who need what this side has become more and more indentured to them because their need is greater and the need of the seller for their labor value (either directly via wages or some other form of exchange - money).
Socialism is a third party, not directly involved in an exchange, interfering with a free exchange between individuals. The 'party', the 'state', the 'trade union', or whoever says it knows what is better for you than you do, and thus should have the right to make decisions on how you may behave and interact with others.

Socialism is Utopian, I will not deny it, and it seeks an interdependent community in which the need of individuals for a given good or service is equal (or thereabouts) proportionately to the amount of exchange value the other individual has. Thus the socialization of exchange.
Not utopian at all - its authoritarian paternalism. It says you are not allowed to make decisions for yourself, but that everyone else has the right to say what you are allowed to exchange. Other people, who are not directly involved in a transaction, have the right to meddle in it for their own reasons.

So socialism is more practical and realistic because it recognizes that us humans live in an exchange community for a very good reason.Practical? Realistic? Nonsense. Practical would be for those directly involved to make the decisions rather than the community at large to interfere. Realistic would be to recognize that making a decision for yourself is better than running your life by committee.

The whole system is not designed to foster adventuristic entrepreneurship. In many ways, it is unnecessary because the self-management system provides outlets for creativity that capitalism wagedom stifles. If you look at the record of cooperatives under capitalism, not only do they innovate, they also have a lower employee turnover rate.
Way to completely avoid the question.

Who pays for failure?

No, socialism is realistic because it accepts that without a regulatory social institution for exchange, inevitably monopolies will occur and one side of the exchange will eventually have less need for your trade (money) and you have more need of their trade, so if this person employs you it would be in their best interest to drive down your wages to keep his profit margin high, or to drive up the prices of the good or service he is selling to you, because he knows you absolutely need the good or service so you have no choice but to pay the higher price. Socialism merely intends the socialization of exchange to the extent to eliminate that kind of exploitation and other anti-social features.

Way to completely avoid the question.

Who pays for failure?

If a cooperative enterprise fails, then all of its members share equally in its failures. They share equally in management, and share equally in its sucess, so naturally, they will share equally in its failure.

Well anarchism (the individualist type) is wrong because it assumes that people can actually live individually with total independence (political, economic etc), not only is this practically wrong (and even if it were), it ignores the fact that we are social creatures, we like to interact and trade with each other. And trade is my main point, communities are forged because we all have different needs, we need shoes so we have a shoemaker, food so we have farmers etc, and we exchange our labor value for theirs (in the form of a good or service), so both needs are satisfied, thus the interdependence.

Individualist anarchy, namely market anarchy, is built upon the fact that we are social people. The "virtue", so to speak, of market anarchy is that the aforementioned need of market participants to interact and derive utility from other market participants causes them to treat each other as equals, even if it is entirely selfishly motivated. It can be natural, it is totally material, with there is being need to impose moral or positive law.

In short, all of those things that you have said is ignored by individualistic anarchism is the very basis of individualistic anarchism.

Socialism comes into this because it wants the socialization of exchange to the extent to eliminate exploitation that occurs when one side of the exchange market becomes totally outbalanced, so those who need what this side has become more and more indentured to them because their need is greater and the need of the seller for their labor value (either directly via wages or some other form of exchange - money). Socialism is Utopian, I will not deny it, and it seeks an interdependent community in which the need of individuals for a given good or service is equal (or thereabouts) proportionately to the amount of exchange value the other individual has. Thus the socialization of exchange.

After reading this conceptual salad, all I can say is that socialism is not exchange.

So socialism is more practical and realistic because it recognizes that us humans live in an exchange community for a very good reason.

I think you truly are the first person I have ever heard that has said socialism is better than individualist anarchy (many very intelligent people consider the two to be one and the same) because people prefer exchange.

I think you truly are the first person I have ever heard that has said socialism is better than individualist anarchy (many very intelligent people consider the two to be one and the same) because people prefer exchange.

Yay! Vittos is back!

Our resident Marxist-Leninist, Andaras Prime, has been conceptualizing a lot lately about why the Russian Revolution failed, what the "main thing" of capitalism is, etc. He hasn't really gone anywhere but in circles. Every time I correct him, he declares me to be reactionary, and a worse enemy to the cause than the capitalists etc.

In short, you haven't missed much.

aforementioned need

That is not a virtue--that is power.

And this is precisely Andaras Prime's point, I would assume: because we are creatures who (at least under this social structure) are very much dependent on the economic actions of others, we are highly vulnerable to inequities of economic power and the resulting exploitation.

As such, to achieve true freedom (that is probably not how he would phrase it) we must have an economic system where economic power is distributed on egalitarian lines.

That is a very common argument for socialism, one that I am quite sure I have before used in response to you.

Yay! Vittos is back!

Our resident Marxist-Leninist, Andaras Prime, has been conceptualizing a lot lately about why the Russian Revolution failed, what the "main thing" of capitalism is, etc. He hasn't really gone anywhere but in circles. Every time I correct him, he declares me to be reactionary, and a worse enemy to the cause than the capitalists etc.

In short, you haven't missed much.

I love it when someone gets a poorly thought out opinion in their head and then builds their reasoning around the opinion.

That is not a virtue--that is power.

That is why I put it in quotations. It is not a virtue, it is a simple statement of materialistic fact.

And this is precisely Andaras Prime's point, I would assume: because we are creatures who (at least under this social structure) are very much dependent on the economic actions of others, we are highly vulnerable to inequities of economic power and the resulting exploitation.

Well, from the first paragraph, he seems to be advocating interdependence through trade, which is something you have heard me mention before, as well.

This, as I said, is the very point of individualistic anarchy: that statist intervention into trade is the overwhelming source of economic inequality (there are systematic inequalities that cannot be done away with, but these are natural), and that the market provides freedom through economic interdependence.

As such, to achieve true freedom (that is probably not how he would phrase it) we must have an economic system where economic power is distributed on egalitarian lines.

That is a very common argument for socialism, one that I am quite sure I have before used in response to you.

Yes, you have used it before, but have you ever advocated an economy based on exchange in the same breath?

...he declares me to be reactionary...

If delivered by a Marxist-Leninist, I would personally consider such a declaration to be the highest of possible complements.

Ditto for when a capitalist calls me a communist :D

Socialism is a third party, not directly involved in an exchange, interfering with a free exchange between individuals. The 'party', the 'state', the 'trade union', or whoever says it knows what is better for you than you do, and thus should have the right to make decisions on how you may behave and interact with others.


I would expect, or, rather, I would demand that a socialist tell the 'party,' the 'state,' and the 'trade union' to screw off exactly because he or she is able and willing to handle his or her own affairs. Assuming this basic ideological milestone is passed, collective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) decision-making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management) and "free exchange between individuals" are one and the same.

If a cooperative enterprise fails, then all of its members share equally in its failures. They share equally in management, and share equally in its sucess, so naturally, they will share equally in its failure.
So if a single person starts an enterprise and it fails, he carries the burden himself, rendering himself poor and homeless? What's the difference between your socialism and my free market, then?