- Capitalism and Alternatives -

have you read them seriously? Without a hint of prejudice or suspiscion?

Posted by: lark on February 02, 19100 at 18:06:12:

In Reply to: Would you like me to assemble a list of the works I've read? posted by Loudon Head on February 01, 19100 at 10:42:27:

: See my reply to McSpotlight in this thread. My point still stands.

I dont know why you prefer to be wedded to ideology rather than facts but hey whatevers your opium I guess, whatever allows to ignore the anti-human, criminal, behaviour of the rich and shameless in their destruction of the world and civil society.

: Oh yes. Would you like me to assemble a list of the works I've read?

I'll bet I've read more capitalist books than you have 'left' anarchist ones or socialist ones. However that is academic, you appear wedded to ideology, accepting what hasnt been actually demonstrated to you whereas I read capitalist books and find contradiction or nonsense and think it's unfortunate people think this way, you probably think this is true this because it sounds good or in reading the oppositions material think it is simply a matter of brainwashing.

:In addition, I read this board quite often (though I only post occasionally), and I frequently read and reread the Anarchist FAQ (that one with the black and red flag.)

Havent learned much from either of those have you, have you read them seriously? Without a hint of prejudice or suspiscion?

: > I also thought anarchism was about freedom and therefore did not respect the conventional political left-right spectrum?

: I don't respect it. But, anarchists of today seem to me to fall into two (very general) categories which are frequently referred to as left and right. I was merely trying to distinguish the kind of anarchist I am with the kind of anarchist I disagree with.

You are the type that defends privilege, hierarchy, riches, eliteism and the establishment, the invisible government, a strange anarchist if you ask me.

: I think I know to what I am referring (property). If you wish to argue the point, then argue it.

OK, my tooth brush is mine, my clothing is mine, my home and car are mine, these things that I possess and use could be, would be considered property by you, anarchists would refer to these as possessions and distinct from property EG property bad, illegitimate not the product of individual effort, possession good, legitimate the product of individual work and effort.

Now these things, possessions, could also be considered commodities, the system of unmolested capitalism you advocate, would lead to, that is by employing your capitalist logic of competition with it's inevitable winners and losers, a highly powerful oligarchy of privileged individuals or families, a new unofficial fuedalism, without competition, or as a mere amusing pass time between the oligarchs, without property, since the families or oligarchs will own it all, and with possession turned into commodities.

If you doubt this, you could try reading 'False Dawn: The Dillusions of Global Capitalism' written by a liberal, but militantly anti-union, anti-workers rights, anti-socialist, capitalist, John Gray, however if that is to much of an effort just turn on your TV set and watch the news about the Russian economy.

: Well hello, non-sequiter. Is this supposed to convey a point?

What's a non-sequiter? If you think property is indisputable and all that is required for freedom is property rights, would you oppose the rich individual who is employing mercenaries to do his will and behaving as an miniture King? I do recall that even the 'market' friendly anarchists like Tucker where opposed to every variety of monopoly, regarding property rights as absolute you couldnt adopt such a position.

: The market place is just a convenient way of referring to people making free and voluntary transactions.

Right OK, I'm really losing patience very, very quickly but I dont want to because your maybe intentionally winding me up with these ideological statements that bare absolutely no likeness to reality.

The free and voluntary transactions and agreements made in the market place are akin to the free and voluntary transactions and agreements made between the prisoner and the prison guard, the victim and the rapist. Choice is either non-existant, as in the case of rape, or so, so minimal as to be completely meaningless.

:Does such a free market place currently exist anywhere on earth? No.

Right now we are getting somewhere, will it ever exist? Fully acknowledging the motivations of individuals I very, very much doubt it, enterprise is nothing but a matter of seeing who can be the most conniving and cunning so there is no way that the market unhindered by state, unions, or consumers will stop being a malicious rat race commited to oligarchy and elitist brutalism.

:There isn't a country on earth without a government which interferes with the market.

Why do you think that is? The capitalists are very willingly collaborating with the government, they are the governments paymasters, if you dont believe this kindly explain why all the former 'socialist' parties are retreating from regulation in order to get elected.

:Get rid of the market, and you get rid of freedom.

That's nonsense, everything that is wrong with the government can be seen distorted beyond all imagination in the market. I cant understand your point of view, it must be the consequences of being wedded to ideology, I'm not that much of a state socialist, I dont think nationalisation/socialisation/state-ownership solves anything in isolation but even the state socialists I know are highly critical of the state, they dont naively trust in the capacity of the state to behave benevolently unpressured yet you believe exactly that about the market.

: I'm curious. In your conception of a free market, who exactly owns this "monopoly" and what exactly do they have a monopoly in?

OK, the free market is not a grand levelling alright? Anarcho-capitalists believe that the market will naturally become this utopian good servant once it is freed from all responsibility to anyone OK? So you will have the monopolies that exist at present only mightier still, Microsoft, Cable and Wireless, McDonalds etc. etc.

That's not even mentioning the natural monopolies that exist in water, electricity, gas and transport.

:You don't seem to have much understanding of the free market. You accuse me of not having read the left anarchists that I critique, but I can't see any evidence that you've read the anarcho-capitalists.

Oh I understand it only to well, I've read Adam Smith, Milton Friedmann (the 'anarcho' capitalist who calls for state provision where, shock, horror the market fails!), Novack or is it Nozick something like that and more, I find it all wedded to ideological utopias and very, very ready to ignore, not just reality and consequences but their own logic.

Companies are logically, in matter how the share ownership or whatever is organised, going to do two things:

1)Maximise profits
2)Maximise Growth

The over riding influence of profit, particularly in the circumstances of the privatised utilities, is to the detrement of quality and service and always will be, market forces are negligable, consumer choice marginal (and under attack from the more privileged anarcho-capitalists who are so convinced by their 'natural order' rethoric that they dont think they should even be governed by the consumer!!) so there is no evidence that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't simply be worse capitalism.

: : Why's that? Hold on is that the way we couldnt fly or swim or grow crops or build shelters?

: Well, we can't fly (though we can build machines which can.) Who EVER said we couldn't swim??? And what about my critique bears any relation to whether we can grow crops or build shelters?

What I am suggesting is that your philosophy of 'can't' or resignation to 'natural' domination is flawed, once we couldnt sail, swim, fly, build etc. etc. we learned it.

: I didn't say we couldn't take actions which assist us and help assuage the effects of hunger and natural disaster.

Ah, yes, but governed by selfishness and the iron rule of 'is it profitable' and ideology that apologises for this asocial (even anti-social) behaviour why would we? What could possibly motivate us?

:We just can't do away with hunger or natural disaster.

True, but must they rule us?

:They exist apart from our wills.

But do we resign to their 'government'?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup