Communism

Post Reply New Topic

I will be honest by saying that anarcho-capitalism would probably create obscene concentrations of power. Just imagine if your 3 largest companies decided to get together to make a profit or monopoly? Heck, even an oligopoly would be bad and I doubt that game theory would cause a great betrayal in all circumstances. By making everything private all we create is a new governing force that may feel less bound to the desires of the people.

Extreme minarchism is doomed to failure. There must always be incentive but a system that lacks governing forces to keep things in proper balance will most likely collapse on itself. People want power and every hole that the government gives up another group will rush to fill, if the gap is too large then this force will be given obscene levels of power. Ultimately our weak and pathetic little democracy is safe because it is so weak and even though its power might decay that would happen to all systems.

I think there needs to be as much of a balance as possible between what is labeled "capitalism" and "socialism". Complete socialism doesn't make sense if it doesn't end up helping the individual by helping the whole. You can't help the whole without inevitably helping the individual.

But humans have this instinctual need for more as a feeling of safety and avoidance of need. It is an instinctual fear. And a good one since others often think the same thing.

But groups which "look after their own" end up doing better in the end. But with "sharing," people always fear not having "enough".

First of all, did anyone here advocate anarcho-capitalism?

Secondly, there are natural limits to the size of any company. Depending what you mean by "monopoly" (and there are many definitions, sadly giving prosecutors leeway as to how to prevent them) they can be a good thing like Standard Oil. Other kinds of 'monopolies', like those supposedly prevented by the ridiculous anti-trust laws in this country, have natural limits due to the inability to know what production lines are economically viable. Economic calculation requires market forces, and one large company or ogliopoly is economically no different than a socialist state. All of the ogliopolies that exist now are held together thanks to state intervention, most infamously OPEC, which has largely been able to keep everyone in line due to the first Iraq war and the Oil for Food programme.

The only problem is if a company is able to prevent anyone from entering a market. This cannot be done via market share or "dominance" but rather via licensing and other forms of state protectionism.



What 'balance' are you referring to?

As for the holes government gives up, what I see are the holes individuals give up every time government grows. The opposite trend would create the opposite effect.

There is no balance between capitalism and socialism. So-called "mixed economies" are interventionist.

Socialism doesn't make sense, but not because of failing to help individuals. Socialism doesn't work because there is no way to know how to help anyone when you abolish the market process. Interventionism subverts the market process, and leads to the same problem albeit more subtly.



Huh? Instinctual need of avoidance of need?

I know you socialists like to say "need" a lot, but what in the sam hill is that supposed to mean?!



Again, don't have a clue what you're trying to say here.

People aren't against theft because they fear not having enough, they're against theft because it's theirs and they have a right to it. Frankly, I don't care what my neighbors do with their money. It's none of my business so long they didn't steal it.

The problem is corporations effect on the environment.

A solution would be to have every partition of land owned privately. If people screw their's up then that is there problem to fix. Logging companies in BC are aloud to clear cut because it is all owned by the people (government) and if one part gets destroyed then their is something else up for grabs. If everything is privately owned than I do see a possibility that people will be mindfull of the environment (it is their land).

Anarkhos, every society will need some form of taxes to cover a police force and military.

I think you just answered your own "problem".



Do you know much about the history of the police? It didn't even exist until the 18th century! Instead there was the military which, for the most part, minded their own business and let the peasants and merchants alike solve their own squabbles. Court orders were rarely enforced by a standing army of officers. This is all a very recent phenomenon; an experiment which hasn't fared all too well IMO.

The so-called "executive" branch of this government is by far most responsible for the most expanse in government power and abuse. So feared was the power of the military that the Constitution made it the weakest 'branch' to the point that it was mostly ceremonial. The country did not have its own standing military or navy. Real power was effectively decentralized. The power of the executive was drastically increased during the Spanish-American war, the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression, and the 'Progressive' era where Senators become directly elected and people became directly taxed by the Fed to finance an ever increasing number of executive department and agencies.

So I agree, taxes are indeed needed to fund the executive. Without direct taxes and unaccountable Senators there is no way the federal government could finance themselves at the expense of the states. They would have had to settle for the mere authority to use the resources of the states, and ask nicely before doing so. Gee, I wonder how many WARS we could have avoided under that system!

But why do we even have an executive?

If a court's authority is not in dispute, there is no need for a standing army of blue-coats to enforce their edicts. In this country, for example, if someone skips bail the bondsman takes care of business. Every time some silly do-gooder thinks a proper state authority ought to perform this function the courts protest, knowing how ineffective such systems have worked in the past. Its simply more effective to let the private professionals do the job.

Take it a step further, a decentralized system of courts to settle disputes merely has to pass judgement on who has rights to what. Any professional force working solely for one court's behalf would rightly be seen as a threat to the whole judicial system. Better to have an unbiased professional force, not unaccountable ATF agents and local cops who line their dept. pocket with property taxes, speeding tickets, and asset forfeitures.

There will always be people who will commit crimes against society.

I have thought of a way of solving that problem as well.
Every private industry has its own security system and people work for the security of the land owned by that company. The independant "states" will work togethor in times of crisis to help fend off a threat.

We had a system like that remember,
it was called Feudalism.

We all fought together in times of crisis
when the crisis was over
we fought each other

I don't trust the private sector with certain things. Although the government is often bad, it is usually just corrupt and stupid. The private sector is where the psychopaths hang out...http://biz.yahoo.com/special/psycho05.html

This is not to say that I don't like capitalism but I think that an agency bound to the people by votes and hyper-sensitive to popularity will be more loyal than one that is out for the money. I think that decentralization will open up a whole new can of worms due to the fact that our current system is stable and works well. Law should be under the control of the government, the government seems to be alright with this and the system does not really seem unfair considering that the government does lose some of its cases. What really needs to be done to reduce the size of government is that we need to eliminate an unnamed Alaskan senator.... http://www.adn.com/front/story/7038924p-6942571c.html Yes, that is right, thousands of tax dollars for a fish on an airplane!

Just joking about the whole "elimination" thing Hope the patriot act doesn't get me!

I have recently changed my political stance from socialist to communist.

Perhaps you should challenge your economic methodology as well.

I have many times and have came to the conclusion that nobody is more deserving than anyone else, least of all those that tend to get rich via the corruption of capatilism. The sickening greed (and blase attitude to lives and the planet around us) of capatilism is sickening and must be tackled before things get even more out of hand.

The west bang on about free trade and along with rising economies flood their cheap imports to places that cant compete but then give grants to their own farmers and large corporations and impede any free trade by keeping the status quo and failing to allow african farmers for instance the chance to compete.

Others must join me in my quest for a fair and just communist society where everyone is a true equal or prepare for they're inevitable downfall. To the brave few (at this point in time) who will join me in my noble quest for true equality i have only this to say, Solidarity comrades!

Capitalism doesn't decide who is more deserving, instead people voluntarily exchange what they make for what others make. On what basis you make such exchanges is all up to you, not capitalism.

As for what other people do, it is indeed "out of hand" because it isn't any of your business. I fail to see what you think ought to (or even have a right to) be "tackled" in this context.



So the answer is free trade, i.e. capitalism, not protectionism from the west.

Let's not confuse capitalism with mercantilism or so-called "state capitalism" or "crony capitalism" (which are forms of interventionism).



Must join you? I suppose you'll bury those who disagree like Mao Zedong did.

I don't know what you mean by "true equal," but being treated equally and social egalitarianism are mutually exclusive.

It is my business when they create sytems that allow some people to be stinking rich and others poor beyond belief and also when we are destroying the planet. Capaatilism doesnt run the way you say it does, there is a lot of cronyism and the only way to get ahead (unless you are exeptionally gifted) is to be corrupt and do over people.



No that isnt the answer, the answer is to help the africans and other poor countries and allow everyone a dignified living.



So because i believe in everyone having a right to a dignified life i am the murderer? Oh right another communist stereotype. True democratic communism has never been tried. A child dies every three seconds from poverty all the while we live in this capatilist world, do you approve? I suppose if we want to do stereotypes i could ask you would you cull me and my rebellion just like Hitler or the US in vietnam but i understand that maaybe as an individual you might not be responsible for everything that has happened under capatilist regimes.

I think once again you have your definitions mixed up or you are misguided. Egiltaianism means that everyone is born equal and should have the same opportunities in life. How is this mutually exclusive with being treated equally?

I fail to see how others being rich has anything to do with you.

I also fail to see the connection with, or even definition of, "destroying the planet."



If you betray your principles, how are you ahead?

As for cronyism, that has nothing to do with capitalism. Owners of businesses who hire cronies (like family businesses often do) mostly harm themselves. Politicians who intervene subvert capitalism to the point it is no longer a free market, but an interventionist market. Policies are easily divided into those which are capitalistic or socialistic.

Cronyism is not capitalistic.



Help how?

Also, you can't have alms and dignity at the same time. Alms don't work anyhow.



My comparison with Mao has to do with your mentality that I must join you, or else.

The old chestnut that "true democratic communism has never been tried" ignores the fact that communism fails for economic and not political reasons. In fact true communism was tried in the Soviet Union for the first couple years, but quickly replaced with a highly regulated market due to its unfeasibility. Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the inability for communism to perform economic planning. Ludwig von Mises explained as much (in his book, "Socialism") as socialism in various forms was in vogue in the 1920s. He explained why Communism doesn't work in theory or practice well before the Soviet Union fell.

The practical implementation of Communism isn't something possible, but which hasn't been tried. To believe Communism can work you have to discard not only history, but reason itself.

As for children dying of poverty, what does that have to do with anything? We aren't eating because others are starving. We are eating because we're productive enough to feed ourselves. The fact that they are not as productive has everything to do with their condition and nothing do to with mine.

As for so-called "capitalist regimes," I find the very idea an oxymoron. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, not state ownership.



First of all, we don't have the same opportunities in life. The fact that we're discussing this on an AS forum should make this self-evident.

Social egalitarianism can only be accomplished by treating those more able differently than those less able. If treated equally, those more able would be able to do more and thus create more and thus own more.

Furthermore trade can't even occur under social equity. The only reason we trade is because of inequity. The same goes for division of labour and everything else accounting for our higher standard of living. Should people with AS do the same jobs as everyone else? No. We aren't equal.

Life isn't fair, but we can treat one another equally as having the same rights stemming from self-ownership. That means I own my own abilities as well as my troubles.

Capatilism at it's most rampant is unnashamedly about greed and arrogant selfishness without much conscience. If you and most others in the west support this draining of resources while destroying the environment then i will not care so much for your people when they die like you care little for those who die over in Africa or for those that live in abject poverty even here in the west. Democratic communism has You think you are more productive than the average African? LOLOLOL. Capatilism by it's very nature is about greed and devisiveness.

Under truly practised democratic communism everyone will be valued the same and allowed the chance to live a valued and productive life. How do you know my mentality is one of you must join us or else? Maybe your thinking of your "great" capatilist leader , President Bush? What you support or dont support is up to you but if you care little for people that die elsewhere (largely due to unethical western policies) why should i care for you and like-minded people?

I realise empathy isnt well known in aspies but i truly wish yourself and others awaken to the fact that thet everyone deserves a chance to live in dignified conditions or else there will never be true peace in our minds or on earth as a whole.