OK, just so you know, I have seen V for Vendetta. Now that that's done...

I see a lot of kids with Anarchy symbols on their shoes and t-shirts and think, wtf? They don't even know what that means. But neither do I, to a certain point. I know it means that you have no government, or a limited one.

So...

1. What is anarchy?

2. How do you accomplish anarchy?

Anarchy is a lack of organized government. It is the oldest form of organization in human society. for the first few thousand years of our existence, most humans lived in small hunter-gatherer tribes with no means of limiting themselves or others. anarchists tend to believe in the goodness of human nature and that governments limit human potential and capacity for individuality. That's perhaps anarchy's greatest flaw, the belief that humans don't need a set of laws or rulers to coexist. It's a very utopianistic idea, not very plausible at all, but you can't blame someone for being idealistic. Unfortunately, anarchy generally gets a very bad rap in schools and colleges and is immediately written off as "pure chaos" or some other scare tactic. anarchy is really only sustainable in small communites, like kubbutzes, jewish farming committies in the middle east. it can't really work very well on a grand scale--in fact, most good government types can't. those kids you see with anarchy symbols on them are idiots, next time you see one, kick them in the chest. if they wear clothes from hot topic or wherever branded with the anarchy symbol on it, they have no idea what anarchy is and they don't deserve to be wearing that shirt. rip it off of their bodies.

Isn't it a form of communism minus the capatalist transition?

Pol Pot was the closest form of a Anarchist system I think, and that turned out swell...

I may be wrong though...

I would say anarchy is beyond what people in our society will be able to accomplish (or more accurately: be willing to accomplish), most anarchists seem to think that there would be a bunch of tribes who would all work together in harmony like a bunch of hippies, but it would really be like a bunch of tribes constantly at war over land and food, like how animals organize.
The only real benefit of anarchy would be that natural selection would continue on the human race, because at this point it takes no effort to survive (unless you live in certain parts of the world). The downside of that is that technological evolution stop, because with everyone fighting to survive, there wouldn't be anyone with time to teach.

Anarchy is a lack of government separate from the population at large. Actually, probably best to go consult wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) for this one. Its a direct democracy where people only have a say on something if it affects them.

In answer to question 2: "With great difficulty." My personal theory is that it would be best done by somehow coercing the people at the top in govts to gradually deconstruct them. Notably without actually assuming any position of power yourself.

Also, god man - use the goddamn search function.

Isn't it a form of communism minus the capatalist transition?

Anarchism is socialism without a centralized government; socialism being an economic system in which the means of production and land are nationalized. Beyond this, Anarchists differ in their justifications for anarchism, how they think it will function, and how they believe it should be achieved. Some, for example, believe that we can achieve anarchism through peaceful reform via trade unions, while others argue that it can only be achieved through violent revolution. Still more, some anarchists believe anarchism is unachievable, but that it is the ideal against which societies should be measured.

Concerning communism (I may be wrong here, and if I am, hopefully Rust or someone else will correct me), it used to be called “Scientific Socialism” in the 19th century and really refers to the theories and dialectical methods formulated by Marx and Engels, as well as their adoption and development by future adherents, such as Lenin, Trotsky and, more recently, Adorno.

To me anarchy is a free, prosperous capitalistic society.

--Cr@sh

To me anarchy is a free, prosperous capitalistic society.

--Cr@sh



How could a capitalistic society be free?

Isn't it a form of communism minus the capatalist transition?

Pol Pot was the closest form of a Anarchist system I think, and that turned out swell...

I may be wrong though...

Anarchy is the end result/goal of communism (Marx).

Anarchism is socialism without a centralized government;

Where did you read this from? I thought anarchism is one where there is no government, whereas socialism requires a strong powerful government. In other words these two forms of government are mutually exclusive.

Where did you read this from? I thought anarchism is one where there is no government, whereas socialism requires a strong powerful government. In other words these two forms of government are mutually exclusive.

*sigh*. Socialism is a government where the workers control the means of production. Anarchy is a lack of a government. They are closely related on a left-right scale, but yes, in terms of the size of government, they are on opposite ends of the up-down scale.

*sigh*. Socialism is a government where the workers control the means of production. Anarchy is a lack of a government. They are closely related on a left-right scale, but yes, in terms of the size of government, they are on opposite ends of the up-down scale.

What are you sighing about? That I sounded ignorant? No I didn't. In fact, the guy quoted was not making any sense.

Let me explain my thought process to you. Anarchism=lack of government. Socialism=requires a big government. Therefore, they are actually exact opposite things. Yet the guy I quoted was making a WILDLY untrue claim, which is that anarchism is socialism without a central government, hence my questioning.

Concerning communism (I may be wrong here, and if I am, hopefully Rust or someone else will correct me), it used to be called “Scientific Socialism” in the 19th century and really refers to the theories and dialectical methods formulated by Marx and Engels, as well as their adoption and development by future adherents, such as Lenin, Trotsky and, more recently, Adorno.

Yes, it was called "scientific socialism" by Engels (though not Marx if I remember correctly), to make a distinction between the forms socialism that existed before, which they both described as being "Utopian" in the sense that they painted a pretty picture but provided no viable method of being achieved. Theirs was scientific in that they described capitalism and the economic systems that preceded it, as well as formulated a general plan of how to achieve communism.

And yes, since Marx and Engels were the ones who laid the concrete groundwork for the idea, that's what people generally refer to by "communism". Though depending on how broad you want to be, it can include pretty much any system which behaves in a communal fashion (i.e. "primitive communism").

Let me explain my thought process to you. Anarchism=lack of government. Socialism=requires a big government. Therefore, they are actually exact opposite things. Yet the guy I quoted was making a WILDLY untrue claim, which is that anarchism is socialism without a central government, hence my questioning.

Socialism does not necessarily require a big government.

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Source (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Not quite.
Bakunin criticized Marx and anarchists oppose state socialism.

The essence of anarchism (to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and individuality.

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] In other words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism,", p. 75]

Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]

The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery.


more good info here>
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca11

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Anarchy is what totse would be like without moderators.

ITT: WAN tries to act clever.

I don't see why some would want to abolish private property. Every man should have a place to lay his head. A sanctuary to escape the outside world. A place that he alone can enter and be at peace.

I don't see why some would want to abolish private property. Every man should have a place to lay his head. A sanctuary to escape the outside world. A place that he alone can enter and be at peace.

Socialists want to abolish private ownership of the means of production and land, but that is not to say that people will not have their own homes and respected privacy. Where I live in England, for instance, the government own a lot of houses and apartments, and there is a program where a lot of them are distributed among the homeless. I had an uncle who was in the program, and although his apartment was owned by the government, people couldn't just come barging in whenever they liked.

Anarchism is socialism without a centralized government; socialism being an economic system in which the means of production and land are nationalized

"a system without a centralized government where the means of production and land are nationalized"
Please think hard about what you just posted.

"a system without a centralized government where the means of production and land are nationalized"
Please think hard about what you just posted.

Sorry for being imprecise, substitute "nationalized" with "owned by everyone".

Appearently socialist fucks also got their hands on the theory of anarchy. If you research it enough, you'll notice the latest versions of it also dictates collectivization and the abdondement of the monetary system. Which I, for the life of me, cannot understand how it can be achieved without the use of a force thus recreacting a state.

If you research it enough, you'll notice the latest versions of it also dictates collectivization and the abdondement of the monetary system.

Apparently you haven't "researched it enough" yourself...

Apparently you haven't "researched it enough" yourself...

Most common form of anarchy is collectivist anarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Collectivist_anarchism

Anarchy is a stage of society.

From Order comes Anarchy and from Anarchy comes Order.

True anarchy would have to come from the absence of society. Otherwise people will have to find a way to get along and BAM your no longer free to do whatever you want.

Most common form of anarchy is collectivist anarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Collectivist_anarchism


How does that help you in any way?

Not only does the article does not say anything about it being the most common (that I can see, if it does please let me know where), but it refutes the general idea of your post:

How are the "Socialist fucks" laying their hands on the "latest forms of anarchism"? The snippet about collectivist anarchism already lays the origin in Bakunin, and you pretty much can't get older than that (except Proudhon, yet he called himself a socialist to being with).

What I'm saying is, those things you attribute to "socialist fucks" in the "latest forms of anarchism" have existed since the foundations of anarchism. Proudhon and Bakunin, both titans of anarchism, had ideas that grew out of socialist ideals. They believed in the abolition of private property and a change in the monetary system.

Anarchy is a stage of society.

From Order comes Anarchy and from Anarchy comes Order.

True anarchy would have to come from the absence of society. Otherwise people will have to find a way to get along and BAM your no longer free to do whatever you want.I love the smell of fud in the morning (or night, as the situation may warrant).

How does that help you in any way?

Not only does the article does not say anything about it being the most common (that I can see, if it does please let me know where), but it refutes the general idea of your post:

How are the "Socialist fucks" laying their hands on the "latest forms of anarchism"? The snippet about collectivist anarchism already lays the origin in Bakunin, and you pretty much can't get older than that (except Proudhon, yet he called himself a socialist to being with).

What I'm saying is, those things you attribute to "socialist fucks" in the "latest forms of anarchism" have existed since the foundations of anarchism. Proudhon and Bakunin, both titans of anarchism, had ideas that grew out of socialist ideals. They believed in the abolition of private property and a change in the monetary system.

Perhaps I worded my statement a bit too harshly. What I really ment to say was that anarchy movements has tended to be more socialist and towards public owndership rather than endorsing a capitalist system.

Well... yes, that tends to happen when you have your roots so closely tied to socialist/communist ideals of the time.

Anarchism has been tied to socialism/communism in one way or another since it's more formal origins. So saying it's the "latest versions" that have been influenced is just wrong.

As for the use of force, the exploitation found in capitalism is force.

As for the use of force, the exploitation found in capitalism is force.

I don't see anything paticularly forceful about keeping the fruits of my labor, I find collectivisation to be more forceful. But I do think there is a huge a potentional for exploitation within the free market framework.

In case you're curious, I think society is unworkable in a way that ensues freedom and equality for all, I don't think any political system can prevent exploitation of the naive, because there will always be people who are naive and greedy, and those that will want to exploit the system just for the sake of exploiting the system. I think the best we can do is be moral and make the right choices for ourselves.

I don't see anything paticularly forceful about keeping the fruits of my labor, I find collectivisation to be more forceful. But I do think there is a huge a potentional for exploitation within the free market framework.

By definition, you do not get to keep the fruits of your labor if there is profit involved:

You produce 10 pairs of shoes in a hour. Each pair of shoes costs $20, therefore your labor produces $200 dollars an hour. You are paid 10 dollars for that hour of work. You were not paid the full price of what you produced, thus you did not "keep the fruits of your labor".

However all of this is not important since the relevant bit of information is not whether you see it as force but whether "anarchism" does.

I love the smell of fud in the morning (or night, as the situation may warrant).

How does fud have anything to do with what I said?

By definition, you do not get to keep the fruits of your labor if there is profit involved:

You produce 10 pairs of shoes in a hour. Each pair of shoes costs $20, therefore your labor produces $200 dollars an hour. You are paid 10 dollars for that hour of work. You were not paid the full price of what you produced, thus you did not "keep the fruits of your labor".

However all of this is not important since the relevant bit of information is not whether you see it as force but whether "anarchism" does.

You're stupidity amazes me. Unless he is gathering the material, designing, marketing, producing, and selling the shoes he does not deserve the full $200. You seem to forget about all the other people that are involved in this process. The profits are divided up among those that are involved.

You're stupidity amazes me. Unless he is gathering the material, designing, marketing, producing, and selling the shoes he does not deserve the full $200. You seem to forget about all the other people that are involved in this process. The profits are divided up among those that are involved.

Eh, come on, keep personal insults at bay, let's just try to have a meaningful discussion, can't we?

You're stupidity amazes me. Unless he is gathering the material, designing, marketing, producing, and selling the shoes he does not deserve the full $200. You seem to forget about all the other people that are involved in this process. The profits are divided up among those that are involved.

I'm making a simplified example to prove a point. The point, which apparently flew right over your head, is that profits by definition do not allow someone to keep all the "fruits of their labor". The profit has to come from somewhere, and it comes from paying less to the people involved in the product (i.e. which can be one simple shoe maker, or a whole team involved in gathering materials, designing the product, producing it, etc.) than the value of the product in the market. If the value of all those pairs of shoes is $200 then in order for someone to make a profit, the people involved in making those pairs of shoes must have been paid less.

Moreover, your objection still fails unless you can prove that all the workers got paid exactly how much the worked on it, and that no other section (i.e. marketing, design, etc.) or no other worker got paid more or less.

So how about next time you spare me the insults because you'll end up looking like a complete fucking moron. Thanks.

I'm making a simplified example to prove a point. The point, which apparently flew right over your head, is that profits by definition do not allow someone to keep all the "fruits of their labor". The profit has to come from somewhere, and it comes from paying less to the people involved in the product (i.e. which can be one simple shoe maker, or a whole team involved in gathering materials, designing the product, producing it, etc.) than the value of the product in the market. If the value of all those pairs of shoes is $200 then in order for someone to make a profit, the people involved in making those pairs of shoes must have been paid less.

Moreover, your objection still fails unless you can prove that all the workers got paid exactly how much the worked on it, and that no other section (i.e. marketing, design, etc.) or no other worker got paid more or less.

So how about next time you spare me the insults because you'll end up looking like a complete fucking moron. Thanks.

Isn't that assuming we're talking about corporations not indiviual producers, though?

1. Not just corporations, but any company/group, however small, that employs someone else and turns a profit

2. What individual producers? I'm not sure you understand how extremely small that group is. The only ones that come to mind right now would be artisans and they often don't fit that description either, since, for example, they might employ somebody else to do some work in an area they don't process skill for (e.g. a woodworker might pay someone else to do a leather detail on an object, or a painter might pay someone else to construct the physical canvas/frame).

I'm making a simplified example to prove a point.

Your example sucks and its wrong. I'll break it down like a fraction for you to explain why you don't know shit about simple economics. You see, in a free market society you don't have to work for anyone. If some guy thinks he's getting ripped off in a shoe deal he doesn't have to make the shoes.

The point, which apparently flew right over your head, is that profits by definition do not allow someone to keep all the "fruits of their labor".

Here is another fine example of you spewing more shit from your mouth without knowing what you are talking about.

The profit has to come from somewhere, and it comes from paying less to the people involved in the product (i.e. which can be one simple shoe maker, or a whole team involved in gathering materials, designing the product, producing it, etc.) than the value of the product in the market. If the value of all those pairs of shoes is $200 then in order for someone to make a profit, the people involved in making those pairs of shoes must have been paid less.

You're wrong again. Who the fuck would have thought. In the previous shitty example you had you said it cost $10 to make a pair of shoes and 20 pairs were maid. That means it cost $200 to make the shoes. That doesn't mean shit about the value. You think if you get caught stealing an ipod you get charged with the amount it cost to make it? No. You get charged for the sale price. Profit is made on the sale of the item minus the cost of the item. Only a fucktard like you would sell something that cost $200 to make for $200. Lets add a more realistic price tag. Lets say they are selling these shoes for $100 a pop. That is $2000 made off the shoes. The profit is $1800. Of course this whole process is actually different than what you think. Fuck knows whats going on in there. Probably a bunch of rainbows and gummy bears. If the shoemaker thinks he's getting ripped off then he can go take his fucking shoes to another store to sell them. If the store thinks the commie shoemaker is charging to much then they don't have to buy his shoes. If the sales clerk thinks he isn't getting paid enough to sell shoes then he can fuck off and get a different job. If the driver shipping the shoes thinks he isn't getting paid enough to ship them then he doesn't have to. Offers are made and you either accept or you don't. How bout this, I pay $4 for a pack of cigarettes. A friend asks to buy them for $5. It sounds like a good deal so I take it. Who gives a fuck what the store owner thinks about the deal. He is no longer involved. He was selling for $4 and I bought them. Now my friend, being to lazy to go to the store offers me $5 for the pack. I accept the deal and its over. I make a hefty profit of $1. Now he later goes to a party or something and starts selling them for $1 a cigarette. He sells 10 cigarettes and smokes the others. Since he made $10 off the cigarette sales and only paid $5 for the pack he made a profit of $5. That is his cut. Big tobacco, grimy foreigner farmers, paki gas station owners, myself, and others have no stake in his earnings since none of us invested in his little business venture. My friend could have easily lost the cigarettes, smoke them all before he could have sold them, or gotten robbed but I like happy endings.

Moreover, your objection still fails unless you can prove that all the workers got paid exactly how much the worked on it, and that no other section (i.e. marketing, design, etc.) or no other worker got paid more or less.

Why the fuck do you think some people don't deserve more than others? Do you think the guy in marketing who spent 4 years in college and spent every night of the week working late and missing out on his family doesn't deserve more than bob the shoemaker. Bob doesn't get paid all that much but since he has a skill he makes more than Jim the ex-con janitor that can't read.

So how about next time you spare me the insults because you'll end up looking like a complete fucking moron. Thanks.

How bout next time you pull your head out of your ass before throwing your bullshit on the forums.

If some guy thinks he's getting ripped off in a shoe deal he doesn't have to make the shoes.

Which has what the fuck to do with the fact that if he accepted the deal he would still not get the total value of the fruits of his labor? Nothing.

This, of course, ignoring the ridiculous idea that what you're proposing right there is a viable scenario. The fact is that the circumstances of life are such that "decisions" like that are not feasible. If you decide not to get exploited in a capitalist society, you starve to death.

Here is another fine example of you spewing more shit from your mouth without knowing what you are talking about.


Care to point out how exactly, or is that what you consider a refutation?


You're wrong again. Who the fuck would have thought. In the previous shitty example you had you said it cost $10 to make a pair of shoes and 20 pairs were maid. That means it cost $200 to make the shoes. That doesn't mean shit about the value. You think if you get caught stealing an ipod you get charged with the amount it cost to make it? No. You get charged for the sale price.

Congratulations, you did the impossible; you made yourself look even more retarded.

I said:

"The profit has to come from somewhere, and it comes from paying less to the people involved in the product (i.e. which can be one simple shoe maker, or a whole team involved in gathering materials, designing the product, producing it, etc.) than the value of the product in the market."


The value I was speaking of (i.e. the $200) was always the value of the shoes in the market (i.e. what you call "sales price").


All of your objections an insults stem from your inability to read simple English.

So the point, which you didn't address because you tried the simple act of reading and failed miserably at it, is that for there to be a profit the people involved in making the shoe - whether it be 1 or millions of people - would have to be paid less than the value of the shoe in the market.


Lets add a more realistic price tag. Lets say they are selling these shoes for $100 a pop. That is $2000 made off the shoes. The profit is $1800. Of course this whole process is actually different than what you think.

You've just proved my point! Not only was your modification (i.e. "the realistic price tag" of $100) not necessary because I was already speaking of their value in the market (see above), but that shows exactly what I was saying: that they would have to be paid less than the value of what they produced in the market!


If the shoemaker thinks he's getting ripped off then he can go take his fucking shoes to another store to sell them. If the store thinks the commie shoemaker is charging to much then they don't have to buy his shoes. If the sales clerk thinks he isn't getting paid enough to sell shoes then he can fuck off and get a different job. If the driver shipping the shoes thinks he isn't getting paid enough to ship them then he doesn't have to.

Which, again, doesn't change the fact which is that if they do accept they wouldn't be getting paid the full value of what they produced (or helped produce)!

Essentially your argument is:

"Yes, you're right; they won't get paid the entire fruits of their labor but hey tough shit they agreed to it."

Well what you ignore is:

1. I'm not here to argue whether they agreed to or not, I'm here to point out to KING G how he wouldn't get the full value of the fruits of his labor. That is a fact.

2. Not accepting jobs where you are not paid the full value of what you produce isn't a viable choice. Those "jobs" either don't exist or exist in so low quantities that it wouldn't be possible for people to have the ability to choose otherwise.



Why the fuck do you think some people don't deserve more than others? Do you think the guy in marketing who spent 4 years in college and spent every night of the week working late and missing out on his family doesn't deserve more than bob the shoemaker. Bob doesn't get paid all that much but since he has a skill he makes more than Jim the ex-con janitor that can't read.


What the fuck are you babbling about? Please read what I said again; carefully this time. I didn't say that they must be paid the same, I said that for my point to be refuted they would all have to be paid exactly the amount they put into the work involved.

In other words, I didn't say that they must all be paid X dollars (e.g. 3 dollars).


How bout next time you pull your head out of your ass before throwing your bullshit on the forums.

Your insults might had a little more weight had you not failed miserably at reading simple sentences.

Anarchy is what totse is like much of the time, even with moderators.

Fix-ded.

how to make anarchy:

get a lot of guns.

assemble army.

incite country-wide riots

depose government.

Do not place yourself as a ruler, but rather once the government is destroyed, feel free to speed or murder people or smoke up

but always remember to watch your back and the road is not going to be repaired or have the snow plowed off it and there will be no one to provide utilities (electricity, water) and food sellers will be more scarce so be self-sufficient

There's "original anarchy", which is "left anarchy" (as I will define it here) as explained by Bakunin and Kropotkin. However there's also market anarchy (a "newer form", arising largely out of the libertarian movement) which posits that all of the functions of a government can be fulfilled more effectively (and/or with less force) in the private sector. Both left and market anarchy is unified in that neither believes in a government but both have different ideas on economics (I won't say that they have different ideas on force because there are left anarchists that believe that the market is innately non-forceful). Anarchy spans the bottom of the left-right axis of the typical political chart (x=economics, y=size of the state).

How could a capitalistic society be free?

anarcho-capitalism and IIRC anarcho-libertarianism. "right" anarchism..

However there's also market anarchy (a "newer form", arising largely out of the libertarian movement) which posits that all of the functions of a government can be fulfilled more effectively (and/or with less force) in the private sector.

IIRC isn't that related to "libertarianism" in Europe? Both were Anarchist versions.

anarcho-capitalism and IIRC anarcho-libertarianism. "right" anarchism..



IIRC isn't that related to "libertarianism" in Europe? Both were Anarchist versions.

Those are either delusions or other means to neoliberalism (what constols the world today)

For example who would control the monetary system in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Those are either delusions or other means to neoliberalism (what constols the world today)

For example who would control the monetary system in an anarcho-capitalist society?

The gold miners.

The gold miners.

So the gold will be the money? Then the gold miners would rule the world. period. Imagine how much will the gold be worth if the total ammount of gold available would be equivalent to the total goods and services.

Those are either delusions or other means to neoliberalism (what constols the world today)


k

So the gold will be the money?

it would be used as money. there's stuff like Liberty Dollars that have a certain percentage of gold and whatnot in them already. I expect something like that to happen.

There's other things too

Then the gold miners would rule the world. period. Imagine how much will the gold be worth if the total ammount of gold available would be equivalent to the total goods and services.

they would be able to have a strong influence like DeBeers if they form collectives and whatnot

How could a capitalistic society be free?

How could it not? A free society is a requirement for a capitalist system.

How could it not? A free society is a requirement for a capitalist system.

This is either bullshit or using a very particular definition of "free society".
Like free in the sense that the government will not interfere in private business.

This is either bullshit or using a very particular definition of "free society".
Like free in the sense that the government will not interfere in private business.

No, I'm not. The same reasons why a market should be free apply to society at large as well. Simply, the proper role of a government is to protect the individual rights of it's citizens, to maintain a judicial system and police force to protect them from within, and to maintain a defensive military to protect them from without. It does not involve telling people what they can say, or which consenting adults they can have sex with, just as it does not involve artificially influencing the market or limiting who a person can engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit with.

The moral argument for capitalism is very similar, if not identical to the moral argument for a free society, and those who make the first argument also make the second.

May I ask what definition of capitalism you're working under? I suspect it would properly be called corporatism or fascism.

Simply, the proper role of a government is to protect the individual rights of it's citizens, to maintain a judicial system and police force to protect them from within, and to maintain a defensive military to protect them from without. It does not involve telling people what they can say, or which consenting adults they can have sex with, just as it does not involve artificially influencing the market or limiting who a person can engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit with.
.

Intresting. So what is your opinion in this (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/dying-days-for-pakistans-kidney-tourist-trade/2008/05/11/1210444240320.html&usg=__ykk3oA_CwJFODsGcT0UGtbJy3xE=) government intervention?

Under capitalism, the ones that own the capital exercise domination over the ones that do not own the capital. And the main role of the state (also controlled by the capital) is to protect and perpetuate this.


About your second question, for me capitalism is the economic system on which the means of production are owned by private people. Fascism refers to the "range" of the state control over individuals (not only over economy) thus a fascist administration may be capitalist and communist as well. Corporativism is somewhat vague to me. The actual free-market capitalism leads to some kind of corporativism for the case. Not sure what is your definition of it.

I haven't really thought about it, but tentatively I'd say it should be legal. It's part of your body, you should be able to dispose of it, or sell it as you wish. On a practical note, making it legal means you can use that judicial system I mentioned to ensure it's all voluntary, as well as annihilating the black market for such organs where an individual's rights are far more likely to be violated to make a buck.

Under capitalism, the ones that own the capital exercise domination over the ones that do not own the capital. And the main role of the state (also controlled by the capital) is to protect and perpetuate this.


About your second question, for me capitalism is the economic system on which the means of production are owned by private people. Fascism refers to the "range" of the state control over individuals (not only over economy) thus a fascist administration may be capitalist and communist as well. Corporativism is somewhat vague to me. The actual free-market capitalism leads to some kind of corporatism for the case. Not sure what is your definition of it.

Capitalism is precisely what you said, a system where private citizens/entities own the means to production, and private property more generally. The distinction I'd like to draw is with your first paragraph. Free market capitalism means NO government intervention into the system. The state deliberately aiding a rich oligarchy to maintain power is not capitalism, at least any kind of a free market. And that judicial system again is required to prevent just such a domination. Capitalism is economic survival of the fittest; if your business can't hack it, it dies. You have to EARN that market share, not get it legislated to you. The use of government (defined as the entity in a given geographic location with a monopoly on the use of force) to either prevent this economic Darwinism, by placing barriers to entry, or otherwise supporting existing businesses, is delving into corporatism, and away from capitalism.

Basically, free-market capitalism can only lead to corporatism to the extent that the government has power over business. When legislators have power over buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold are legislators. People call lobbying and such evil, and to an extent I agree, but really: Imagine you run a fairly large business. You hear that congress just passed a law enabling it to control parts of how you run your business. Wouldn't you do everything in your power to argue that that control not be detrimental? Take it one step further, and you have lobbying for active benefits, corporate welfare. That's not capitalism, and it's not a free market. Corporations cannot be artificially propped up unless the government has the power to do so, which in a free market, it would not.

I haven't really thought about it, but tentatively I'd say it should be legal. It's part of your body, you should be able to dispose of it, or sell it as you wish. On a practical note, making it legal means you can use that judicial system I mentioned to ensure it's all voluntary, as well as annihilating the black market for such organs where an individual's rights are far more likely to be violated to make a buck.



Capitalism is precisely what you said, a system where private citizens/entities own the means to production, and private property more generally. The distinction I'd like to draw is with your first paragraph. Free market capitalism means NO government intervention into the system. The state deliberately aiding a rich oligarchy to maintain power is not capitalism, at least any kind of a free market. And that judicial system again is required to prevent just such a domination. Capitalism is economic survival of the fittest; if your business can't hack it, it dies. You have to EARN that market share, not get it legislated to you. The use of government (defined as the entity in a given geographic location with a monopoly on the use of force) to either prevent this economic Darwinism, by placing barriers to entry, or otherwise supporting existing businesses, is delving into corporatism, and away from capitalism.

Basically, free-market capitalism can only lead to corporatism to the extent that the government has power over business. When legislators have power over buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold are legislators. People call lobbying and such evil, and to an extent I agree, but really: Imagine you run a fairly large business. You hear that congress just passed a law enabling it to control parts of how you run your business. Wouldn't you do everything in your power to argue that that control not be detrimental? Take it one step further, and you have lobbying for active benefits, corporate welfare. That's not capitalism, and it's not a free market. Corporations cannot be artificially propped up unless the government has the power to do so, which in a free market, it would not.

OK I concede that in a true free-market capitalist society there won't exist any sort of corporatism /lobby.
What I want to point out is that economic darwinism will apply only among the ones with equivalent posibilities, yet this darwinism won't make the weaker ones dissapear, it will just enslave them to serve the dominant ones.

My first paragraph in the previous post was not refering to that spurious role of the goverment, but the role of preventing people that don't have the capital, gain the control of private property by force. (the state being the only one that can legitimately make use of the force)

[sorry if the last phrase sounds like star wars, English is my second language, but you get the point]

May I ask what definition of capitalism you're working under? I suspect it would properly be called corporatism or fascism.

No, actually it's what would properly be called capitalism. If anyone here is using another definition, it is you.

If you look at the origins of the word, you'll see it was never used to describe "free markets", and it's not commonly used that way today either, by the fact that the majority of nations considered to be capitalist today do not have a completely free market.

Some definitions:


"Capitalism equals a free market" may be a definition used by some economists, but it sure as hell doesn't follow the historic definition of the term, and it sure as hell isn't used by the speaking community with more prevalence.

"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, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."


"an economic system based on private ownership of capital"


There are other yes, that speak about a "free market" yet even some of those are very loose with how "free" it must b. For example, this one cites the U.S. as an example and the U.S. definitely has a regulated market:

"An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. The U.S. is a capitalistic system."