Socialism and property rights

[somekind]

I don't bother debating anarcho-captialists.

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by aaronman

Joints, can you give me an example of an exploitative/coercive free market monopoly?


Nathaniel Branden:


From his essay The Question of Monopolies

Also check out Greenspan's antitrust essay.

well the only nations that practice anarchocapitalism would be the very poor African countries. Those may not be fair examples, but anyways those same total free markets see the price of there goods deflate
and inflate at high frequency. Much noticiably than even our dollar I might add.

This is what you proably saw when more societies practiced anarcho captalism, which lead to the creation of the state.

As for monopolies, the countries that do practice this system deal in such low amonts amounts of wealth it is near impossible to determine such things.

[Kasu]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

Indeed. Luckily for us, it's very efficient and profitable for people to work together in a free market.



But, it must be a moral issue, unless adherence to socialism just means the belief that "the workers will rise up and take control of the means of production." Does it? I thought socialism was the belief that "the workers should rise up and take control of the means of production." Socialists don't just believe in the objective fact that this will occur, they also belief that this revolution is desirable and/or good, right?

Why do they think it's desirable? Because everyone will be better off (utilitarianism)? Because they'll be better off (haha, selfish socialists..)? Or what? What's the ultimate justification?

Or is socialism really just speculative sociology and not a political belief?

Socialism is the only alternative to a painful decent into barbarism. That's all it is. It's the next step of human society, just as capitalism was the next step after feudalism, which was preceded by primitive communism.

Capitalism is based on contradictions within itself, which creates systematic crises, that will continue to get worse as capitalism decays and destroys itself. It's a role as a progressive economic movement has already been accomplished, and now it just stands in the way of progress. It died in the 1930s, and was only saved by the death of millions of people, and the money made off of war.

But that cannot go on forever. It's as Albert Einstein said, "I don't know what weapons world war III will be fought with, but I do know that world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones". Capitalism is obsolete, and it continues to rot. As the capitalist elite desperately try to protect the power, the state becomes more repressive on the workers. We're starting to see the beginnings of this today.

It won't be long now, huge social explosions will ignite class struggle, and the socialists will lead that struggle, organize the masses, and overthrow the ruling class. Society will be run according to a democratic plan, involving all the workers making collective decisions on the good of society. Wealth and food will be in abundance, and everyone will be 'rich' so to speak. The state will cease to exist and humans will only continue to advanced, long past the threat of self-annhilation.


If there are any advanced aliens out there that managed to get past the problems we're going through now, and managed not to destroy themselves, they would most likely be a classless stateless society, i.e communist.


It's either a socialist revolution, or barbarism. That's the objective fact. What's subjective is whether or not a socialist revolution is possible.

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

well the only nations that practice anarchocapitalism would be the very poor African countries

Such as...

[racoon123]

Originally Posted by somekind

I don't bother debating anarcho-captialists.

...............why?

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by aaronman

Such as...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by Kasu

It's either a socialist revolution, or barbarism. That's the objective fact. What's subjective is whether or not a socialist revolution is possible.

If that's an objective fact, it's either not at all obvious, or I'm just stupid (I probably am).

Whether or not a socialist revolution is possible is not subjective. It's either possible or it isn't, and my opinion doesn't change the fact one bit. Whether or not a socialist revolution would be a good thing is subjective, and in my subjective judgment (which, again, probably arises from stupidity), it certainly wouldn't be.

A bit off topic, but how do you respond to the calculation problem? I assume you don't think it's a problem at all, since you seem to think that under socialism our economy would be many times more efficient than it is today. But why isn't it a problem?

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

Somalia and its economy have only improved since ditching the central government. How are they relevant to monopolies, or even the destruction of currency?

The competing currencies after 1991 provided for more stability than they had experienced prior.

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by aaronman

Somalia and its economy have only improved since ditching the central government. How are they relevant to monopolies, or even the destruction of currency?

The competing currencies after 1991 provided for more stability than they had experienced prior.

You never asked me about an example of monopolies in that last post, but if you want it here you go.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200810200154.html

In Somolia a country that is the closest thing to anarcho capitalism in our day and age, there is a monopoly of the most profitable thing to come out of that country.

Business leaders in Somalia's semiautonomous region of Puntland met with the region's traditional elders Friday in a bid to avert a growing crisis with the local government, Radio Garowe reported.

The meeting, held at Hotel Karama 2 in the northern port of Bossaso, was attended by members of the business community, intellectuals and traditional elders who wield influence in the region.

Ali Aden Said, a businessman, told the meeting that the Puntland government has "crippled the livestock export industry" by signing a deal with Saudi Arabian company al Jabberi

He said it is "unacceptable" for the Puntland leaders to prevent local traders from exporting livestock for profit aboard.

Under the controversial al Jabberi deal, only the Saudi company has the legal right to export Puntland livestock overseas for the next 15 years. READ: Livestock export disagreement deepens in Puntland

Mohamed Huruse, a wealthy trader, accused the government of "being against economic development," while noting that Puntland leaders "gave an order" to shut down a separate animal quarantine center being built and financed by the region' s business community

Ugas Hassan Ugas Yasin, a traditional elder, told the meeting that the elders and the Puntland government "agreed to have only one animal quarantine," which belongs to al Jabberi.

The comment angered Mr. Said, who stood up and walked out of the meeting in frustration, according to witnesses.

Another traditional elder, Beeldaaje Ali Farah, attempted to cool off the situation by convincing the business community to wait for a new round of talks to resolve the dispute between business leaders and the Puntland administration.

A press statement issued by the business leaders indicated that the Somali transitional federal government and the Puntland Parliament have been officially informed about the dispute over the al Jabberi deal.

Further, the business leaders' press statement said that they pay taxes regularly but have been "prevented from investing" in the Puntland economy.

The livestock industry is the backbone of Somalia's meager economy.

Cattle is the backbone of the Somolian economy(meager as it may be), and when one man can restrict the exporting of that cattle to only one country, that allows that country to set there own rates. The Cattle herders are forced to sell there cattle for barely enough to survive on, and is the purest form of a monopoly.

Sorry for taking a long time, I just installed vista and this shit is all fucked up, plus this is the third response I have written, fucking browser was crashing when I hit submit.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

Cattle is the backbone of the Somolian economy(meager as it may be), and when one man can restrict the exporting of that cattle to only one country, that allows that country to set there own rates. The Cattle herders are forced to sell there cattle for barely enough to survive on, and is the purest form of a monopoly.

Um. It seems to me that the monopoly discussed in the article is being coercively maintained by a government.

Did I misread it?

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

Um. It seems to me that the monopoly discussed in the article is being coercively maintained by a government.

Did I misread it?

well I guess this is a contradiction of meanings, Somolia is a country that has no real government to speak of, they are more like feuding factions within the country to control it.

There are two factions within this land, there are the warlords and Islamic leaders, the leaders of Islam plan to make a more unified government, while the warlords are more like wealthy businessmen who manipulate the wealth to the countries liking. The warlords hold Puntland and Islamic leaders hold Somaliland, it is a complicated issue. So when they say the government signed this, they are saying a bunch of leaders of wealth signed a broker deal and is forcing you to work with these limitations.

I know what your response is going to be, "But that is not Anarcho-capitalism"

Well that is the closest thing we have to it today, so there you go.

[Kasu]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

If that's an objective fact, it's either not at all obvious, or I'm just stupid (I probably am).

Whether or not a socialist revolution is possible is not subjective. It's either possible or it isn't, and my opinion doesn't change the fact one bit. Whether or not a socialist revolution would be a good thing is subjective, and in my subjective judgment (which, again, probably arises from stupidity), it certainly wouldn't be.

That is subjective. For workers, and eventually every member of society, socialism will be a good thing.

Under capitalism, the capitalists benefit directly from that system. It's a system "built" for them.

Under socialism, the workers benefit directly from that system. It's a system "built" for the workers.


Of course, at first the revolution will be opposed by capitalists, because it means that they would have to give up their wealth, and their property (as in the means of production, not personal possessions). They might try to resist, burn crops, destroy machinery, and even form a counter revolution against the new revolutionary government. It will be the governments job to organize an army to defend itself against this counter revolution.

Once the capitalists no longer exist, there will be no classes. Everyone will be 'workers', but everyone will also be 'rich'. Everyone will benefit, no one will even remember what it was like under capitalism.