Anarcho-Capitalists?

[Revoltingest]

I think slavery would be an excellent example of anarcho-capitalism at its "finest", as the profit-motive was the #1 cause.

Slavery was also a great tool of socialism too, as supreme authority of the state & disregard of the individual was the #1 cause.

And before you try to pull it, the "no true socialist" fallacy has become prohibited at RF.

 

[metis]

Slavery was also a great tool of socialism too, as supreme authority of the state & disregard of the individual was the #1 cause.

And before you try to pull it, the "no true socialist" fallacy has become prohibited at RF.

Disregard for the individual doesn't even get close to explaining why slaves were brought to the Americas. The reality is that they were well regarded-- as property to be sold on the free market, which they were.

It was the profit motive that was the driving force. It was why Africans capture other Africans and sold them to especially English and Dutch traders. It was the profit motive that had these traders sell them on the free market to middle-men in the Americas. It was the profit motive that had the slaves sold to farmers. It was the profit motive that had farmers buy them for cheap labor. It was the profit motive and power, which go hand and hand together, that had Southern lawmakers pass Jim Crow laws after slavery was banned.

Yep, capitalism at its finest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Disregard for the individual doesn't even get close to explaining why slaves were brought to the Americas. The reality is that they were well regarded-- as property to be sold on the free market, which they were.

Well regarded? Yes, but not as fellow human beings with all the attendant rights & regard.
Let me get this straight.....you're defending socialism's use of slavery by saying slaves were better regarded under capitalism?
Oh, dear.

It was the profit motive that was the driving force.

Is there any real difference between calling capitalism's economic gains "profit", & calling socialism's economic gains "revenue" or whatever?
The motive to produce the benefits of production is fundamental to both. The question is what we as a society require our government to allow or prohibit.

Socialists tend to be extremely ignorant of the difference between the fundamental elements of various economic systems. They believe that slavery is part of capitalism. But it is neither in the definition, nor is it an inevitable emergent property of it. Now socialism (by strict dictionary definition) doesn't require slavery either, but it does require a powerful authoritarian central government, & slavery is the likely result.

It was why Africans capture other Africans and sold them to especially English and Dutch traders. It was the profit motive that had these traders sell them on the free market to middle-men in the Americas. It was the profit motive that had the slaves sold to farmers. It was the profit motive that had farmers buy them for cheap labor. It was the profit motive and power, which go hand and hand together, that had Southern lawmakers pass Jim Crow laws after slavery was banned.
Yep, capitalism at its finest.

And when the National Socialists (Nazis) enslaved prisoners, the Soviets enslaved prisoners & citizens, the N Koreans enslaved.....well, you get the picture.
Yep, socialism at its most typical.

 

[metis]

Well regarded? Yes, but not as fellow human beings with all the attendant rights & regard.
Let me get this straight.....you're defending socialism's use of slavery by say slaves were better regarded under capitalism?
Oh, dear.

Is there any real difference between calling capitalism's economic gains "profit", & calling socialism's economic gains "revenue" or whatever?
The motive to produce the benefits of production is fundamental to both. The question is what we as a society require our government to allow or prohibit.

Socialists tend to be extremely ignorant of the difference between the fundamental elements of various economic systems. They believe that slavery is part of capitalism. But it is neither in the definition, nor is it an inevitable emergent property of it. Now socialism (by strict dictionary definition) doesn't require slavery either, but it does require a powerful authoritarian central government, & slavery is the likely result.

And when the National Socialists (Nazis) enslaved prisoners, the Soviets enslaved prisoners & citizens, the N Koreans enslaved.....well, you get the picture.
Yep, socialism at its most typical.

Let me just say that you have a rather bizarre definition of "socialism", and maybe even this will help get you on the right path: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems that you're confusing "socialism" for "totalitarianism" when in reality they're pretty much polar opposites by intent.

And since us "socialists" are so ignorant as compared to you, then I guess I'll just let you believe that. I'll just move on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me just say that you have a rather bizarre definition of "socialism", and maybe even this will help get you on the right path: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems that you're confusing "socialism" for "totalitarianism" when in reality they're pretty much polar opposites by intent.

And since us "socialists" are so ignorant as compared to you, then I guess I'll just let you believe that. I'll just move on.

Socialists never seem to admit to socialism ever being practiced in the real world.
(I can understand that it's hard to "own" N Korea, USSR, Mao, Castro, Hitler.)
Moreover, they even reject dictionary definitions of the word.
(And yes, I've read the Wikipedia entry.)
Now, for a correction.
I've oft stated that totalitarianism is not in the definition of "socialism".
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting ofthe ownership and control of the means of production and distribution,of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of asociety to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementationof collectivist principles.

Instead, it's a necessary condition of its being imposed upon a population. Why? Because without an authority to prevent backsliding, people will always resort to private commerce, as exemplified by the thriving Soviet black markets.

 

[Revoltingest]

And since us "socialists" are so ignorant as compared to you....

That should be "we" instead of "us".

Hey, interesting question.....
I oppose slavery, & see it as not inherent in capitalism.
You also oppose slavery, but you see it as inherent in capitalism.
If you believe capitalism to be about slavery, why would you identify as a capitalist?

 

[metis]

That should be "we" instead of "us".

Hey, interesting question.....
I oppose slavery, & see it as not inherent in capitalism.
You also oppose slavery, but you see it as inherent in capitalism.
If you believe capitalism to be about slavery, why would you identify as a capitalist?

I never said it was inherent to capitalism. My drift was that capitalism unchecked can lead to all sorts of problems, and slavery was only one of them, which is why virtually all governments ended up using various degrees of socialistic methodology to cure its ills.

 

[metis]

Instead, it's a necessary condition of its being imposed upon a population. Why? Because without an authority to prevent backsliding, people will always resort to private commerce, as exemplified by the thriving Soviet black markets.

As I've posted at least two times that I can remember in response to posts such as this, your using what the Soviets did as an example of "socialism" is really a bastardization of what "socialism" really was created to try and do. There was no serious attempt at relative equality and the general welfare of all-- it was a power-grab sold under the "socialism" label, very much like what the NAZI's did. Both were totalitarian systems, which is the polar opposite of what socialism was generally designed to try and create.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said it was inherent to capitalism. My drift was that capitalism unchecked can lead to all sorts of problems, and slavery was only one of them, which is why virtually all governments ended up using various degrees of socialistic methodology to cure its ills.

Well, every economic system can lead to all sorts of evils.
So when someone points to slavery as "capitalism at its finest", I infer that significance is attached.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I've posted at least two times that I can remember in response to posts such as this, your using what the Soviets did as an example of "socialism" is really a bastardization of what "socialism" really was created to try and do. There was no serious attempt at relative equality and the general welfare of all-- it was a power-grab sold under the "socialism" label, very much like what the NAZI's did. Both were totalitarian systems, which is the polar opposite of what socialism was generally designed to try and create.

Designers of things often don't envision unintended consequences.
But things are what they are.
And looking at real world examples, the more countries embrace the strict definition of socialism, the more oppressive they become.
What you should glean from this is that socialism won't deliver the society you want.
You need capitalism, a representative constitutional democracy, & the welfare state.
Realpolitik would dictate that you & I would be working out some compromise including these components.

Now, you might wonder just who am I to prescribe what is best for you?
That's my function here. It's why I'm the only poster with an advice column.

 

[ShivaFan]

I believe the same human element, the percentage of good and bad, can exist in government and business. However, it seems the power wielded by government is becoming much more extensive than the largest corporation, and thus power is being placed in the hands of humans in government which consist of the same percentage of bad elements, selfish, unaccotntable and often mentally sick, power hungry liars as found in the humans of any corporation but the power of these idiots and ideologues has a broader and ever increasingly more broad reach and a danger to me, my family, children, the weak, women, and the entire spectrum including a danger to themselves.

A neo-Marxist is not a Capitalist. Go fly that kite someplace else. However a neo-Anarchist in the "I don't trust government" genre of politics, could be indeed.

There were some in the 1920s who called themselves Anarchists but were actually labor activists. Some also wanted to overthrow the government, but when they went down that path then some of them said "over throw government" but instead of completing the sentence with "and then I will go home", instead they said "and then put me in charge".

Humans.

Bait and switch despots. In charge means replace with a new Big Brother but just wearing a different Uncle Sam hat.

So the term is foggy. But many are and can be Capitalists if we think of anarchy as just allowing nature to take it's course and realizing there are no utopias at this time.

Marxists please, you are not capitalists, you are also the past. Dinos.

 

[metis]

Designers of things often don't envision unintended consequences.
But things are what they are.
And looking at real world examples, the more countries embrace the strict definition of socialism, the more oppressive they become.
What you should glean from this is that socialism won't deliver the society you want.
You need capitalism, a representative constitutional democracy, & the welfare state.
Realpolitik would dictate that you & I would be working out some compromise including these components.

Now, you might wonder just who am I to prescribe what is best for you?
That's my function here. It's why I'm the only poster with an advice column.

The first sentence I underlined of yours is false because socialism has the best interest of all people in mind, so what you're doing is confusing it with totalitarian systems that do the opposite.

Your second sentence that I underlined is exactly where I'm coming from.

 

[Revoltingest]

The first sentence I underlined of yours is false because socialism has the best interest of all people in mind, so what you're doing is confusing it with totalitarian systems that do the opposite.

You're missing the point. I don't say that totalitarianism is the intention of socialism....only that it is a consequence of implementing socialism (per the dictionary definition), because capitalist tendencies must be quashed..

Your second sentence that I underlined is exactly where I'm coming from.

Then I should be your best friend.
(No touching though.)

 

[metis]

You're missing the point. I don't say that totalitarianism is the intention of socialism....only that it is a consequence of implementing socialism (per the dictionary definition), because capitalist tendencies must be quashed..

Again, there are various forms of socialism, and most movements in that direction did not involve totalitarianism. Secondly, capitalism need not be squashed, but would need to be modified.

Again, you've fallen into the trap of equating Soviet-style "socialism", which was a perversion of what Marx taught, as somehow being the only form of socialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, there are various forms of socialism, and most movements in that direction did not involve totalitarianism. Secondly, capitalism need not be squashed, but would need to be modified.

Again, you've fallen into the trap of equating Soviet-style "socialism", which was a perversion of what Marx taught, as somehow being the only form of socialism.

Now, just which of us is being trapped?
Am I, for seeing real world attempts at socialism & how they turn out?
Or are you, for denying the many horrible examples of socialism....even if you don't acknowledge it as "socialism", but a failed attempt?

 

[metis]

Now, just which of us is being trapped?
Am I, for seeing real world attempts at socialism & how they turn out?
Or are you, for denying the many horrible examples of socialism....even if you don't acknowledge it as "socialism", but a failed attempt?

I am not denying the atrocities that were committed in the name of "socialism", but to blame socialism for the atrocities is a non sequitur.

For example, the Scandinavian countries have heavily used socialistic programs, and done so without being totalitarian. You have it that a country seemingly must abandon all aspects of capitalism in order to be called "socialistic", but that's simply not true. All countries, including the Soviets and Maoists, still had capitalism operating as a large sector of their economy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not denying the atrocities that were committed in the name of "socialism", but to blame socialism for the atrocities is a non sequitur.

That would be a misuse of "non sequitur".
All cases of attempts to implement socialism (using the stricter primary definition found in dictionaries) have resulted in oppressive governments.
Now, if you want to argue that some of the more loosey goosey definitions of socialism (eg, a welfare state fueled by capitalism), don't lead to the same result, then this is a different story.

For example, the Scandinavian countries have heavily used socialistic programs, and done so without being totalitarian. You have it that a country seemingly must abandon all aspects of capitalism in order to be called "socialistic", but that's simply not true. All countries, including the Soviets and Maoists, still had capitalism operating as a large sector of their economy.

It's interesting that you used the term "socialistic", to describe non-socialist features which are in the direction of socialism. I never found much acceptance of this view here when I broached it several years ago. I say we have common ground here, except that I don't like broadening the term "socialism" to include economies which don't meet the opening line from your Wikipedia entry.....

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy

Just don't pursue the N Korean, Cuban, Soviet, Hitlerian or Maoist routes to socialism.
They just don't turn out well.

 

[metis]

That would be a misuse of "non sequitur".
All cases of attempts to implement socialism (using the stricter primary definition found in dictionaries) have resulted in oppressive governments.
Now, if you want to argue that some of the more loosey goosey definitions of socialism (eg, a welfare state fueled by capitalism), don't lead to the same result, then this is a different story.

It's interesting that you used the term "socialistic", to describe non-socialist features which are in the direction of socialism. I never found much acceptance of this view here when I broached it several years ago. I say we have common ground here, except that I don't like broadening the term "socialism" to include economies which don't meet the opening line from your Wikipedia entry.....

Just don't pursue the N Korean, Cuban, Soviet, Hitlerian or Maoist routes to socialism.
They just don't turn out well.

A dictionary definition is way too simplistic to take seriously in regards to "socialism". It's like defining "ice cream" as "cold fatty substance that comes from an utter"-- it's accurate but hardly gives you the true flavor of what it really is.

Secondly, much like there are no pure examples of "capitalism", neither are there any pure examples of "socialism". The reality is that each country pretty much can be put on a continuum of varying degrees of each.

But then it gets even more complicated when one is dealing with Neo-Marxist economics as there's a blending of the two together, and it's in this direction that I drift.

 

[Revoltingest]

A dictionary definition is way too simplistic to take seriously in regards to "socialism". It's like defining "ice cream" as "cold fatty substance that comes from an utter"-- it's accurate but hardly gives you the true flavor of what it really is.

Your joke would work better if you properly spelled "udder".
But dictionary.com does a better job of defining "ice cream"....

a frozen food containing cream or milk and butterfat, sugar, flavoring, and sometimes eggs.

Secondly, much like there are no pure examples of "capitalism", neither are there any pure examples of "socialism". The reality is that each country pretty much can be put on a continuum of varying degrees of each.

Again, going to dictionary.com for a definition of "capialism"....

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

I'd say that we've many examples which fit this definition, even they're not "pure".

But then it gets even more complicated when one is dealing with Neo-Marxist economics as there's a blending of the two together, and it's in this direction that I drift.

If advocating something other than common dictionary definitions of a word, tis best to add clarifying modifiers or prefixes.
Example:
I'd never call myself a "feminist", but I'd admit to "Libertarian feminist". And even then, I'd have to ensure that my audience notices the implications of using a capital "L", which indicates I favor both economic & social liberty. Complicated it can be come, eh.....as Canuckistan Yoda would say.

 

[dust1n]

There were some in the 1920s who called themselves Anarchists but were actually labor activists. Some also wanted to overthrow the government, but when they went down that path then some of them said "over throw government" but instead of completing the sentence with "and then I will go home", instead they said "and then put me in charge".

Humans.

Do you have an example and a source for this claim?