Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by ANOK
Capitalism is used to attack private property, and by extension, free trade in most contexts. I guess you never noticed that.
Huh? How is that even possible? Capitalism attacks private property? Capitalism attacks itself?
Capitalism is NOT free-markets for the billionth time. If you're going to try to debate me at least read through the thread and understand my
arguments. Capitalism can not be free-market because labour is not treated as other resources are. Capitalists make money by exploiting labour and
then investing the wealth created. Workers are exploited because they have to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make
In a true free-market labour would be treated as any commodity and workers would be able to demand the full worth of their labour. But that will not
happen under capitalism, as it relies on that exploitation. The only way that can happen is if the workers owned the means of production themselves,
cutting out the unnecessary private owner.
The term 'free-market' was around long before capitalism replaced feudalism, the terms are not synonyms. It is just another example of the capitalist
right-wing appropriating left wing terms, and yes 'capitalism' is a left-wing term.
In a free market a person can own any property, including capital. If it is impossible for a person to own capital then it is not a free
market. If an owner of capital wants additional labor for his business, he can sell part of his capital to the laborer or he can pay for labor
directly. The laborer has the choice of what trade he wants to make. Maybe the labor is seasonal and so the laborer wants to work for awhile and
then move on when the season is concluded. Maybe the laborer wants to work at the business until he retires and so would opt for a piece of the
That is not the definition of 'free-market', you are describing capitalism. Under socialism the workers own the means of production, they own their
own capital, so yes it can be and is 'free-market'.
You display a fetish for dogma and lock-step order by your one size fits all blanket endorsement of a social panacea.
Huh? All I propose is worker ownership of the means of production, what dogma are you talking about?
Socialism has to be a government, by definition, because it guaranties that everything is "Fair and Balanced"
No that is not correct. Once again socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a more fair
system because it is a needs based system rather than a profit making system.
Again for the billionth time, do you people ever bother reading, socialism requires no government, Anarchism is the no-state version of socialism.
"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin
As in it's against the law to own anything relating to production.
According to who? Socialism is not a set of rules. In a system that teaches the socialist alternative to capitalism, as it would if it is truly
free, then people could make up their own minds. If people had a choice as to work for a private owner at an hourly wage, or work at a worker owned
company, where you share directly in the fruits of your labour and have a direct say in running the business, most people would choose worker
You are separtating economics, sociology, and goverment like they are not related. Everything in human culture derives from economics, that is
where all of your needs are supplied from. If society abolishes anything, like private ownership of the means of production, it will need a
government structure to enforce the ban. So the government has to keep track of everything you do in your socialism.
Yes I am because they should not be related. Economics should not be politicized, but capitalists do that in order to use government to control the
playing field to their advantage.
Again government is not required. Under anarchism the workers run and control their own workplace, with voluntary directly democratic organization.
Yes anarchism is, and has to be, socialist.
Do you know any economics other than the various definitions of socialism?
Like what? There are only realistically three choices, capitalism, nationalism, or socialism. What do you suggest, that aliens from Mars own the
means of production?
Socialism is an economic system, the various versions of socialism are political systems, anarchism, syndicalism, Marxism etc. The political system
we have is a result of capitalism, not in-spite of it.
If you truly believe in 'free-markets' you should learn what they are, and stop associating them with capitalism. It seems most capitalist supporters
do so based on the myth that they are 'free-markets'.
You support your own economic slavery. That is the power of state control and conditioning.
Capitalism is economic privilege not free-markets. We want a society that is not controlled by force or economic privilege, but through free
association and voluntary cooperation.
If you truly understood the history of the working class left (not government 'left'), and what it's desires were, it becomes very clear what the
right-wing establishment has done by appropriating left-wing terms, in order to confuse and weaken the power of the working class left.
edit on 4/13/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry