Monopolies in a stateless society

Originally posted by hayek11
A robust profit motive and related incentives are absolutely vital in connecting demand with supply. By reducing profit motives for capitalists (i.e. if you take the risk to enter this area of demand, you could fail and lose your investment, or succeed and lose your investment to your employees who also get wages), socialism would make it difficult to innovate.

I am not a proponent of either 'capitalism' or 'socialism', since these two terms can be defined very differently and each of these systems has its pros and cons (especially when viewed from the perspective of a specific social group). However, the above argument about starting up a business from scratch is far-fetched in my opinion. Investment risks have to be compensated. Imagine a society in which every ambitious person will risk their last dollar on starting up a business. They may or may not succeed. It is not entirely dependent on their abilities, but on the countless factors of the market. What if they do not succeed? You certainly don't want to remove from the society the 'best', or the least 'lazy' people who dared to begin their own business? So in real life it is common to invest in a few businesses, only some of which will eventually turn out profitable. These will compensate for the failure of the others. And the sum of money you need to make such investment can't be saved by eating less and working two shifts. You will need much more than that. So, capitalism is not only about producing goods, but about investment and money making. I can't make a parallel with socialism in this respect, but in case of a state-controlled system, the state can probably withstand more business risks than a single investor.

reply to post by votan

Many people are lazy and there are many people who do not aspire to have their own business but live life. Those people are forced into a system that they do not want and they have little power to change it

How are they forced? Unless you consider the inherent drive to continue eating and living force people have had to work for a living since the dawn of time. There are millions of businesses out thee to chose from and or they can chose to start their own as millions have. I'd hardly call that force.

Try to go off the grid and live off the land and you will more than likely be arrested for living on government owned property or private property.

I am doing just that right now. Thousands live off grid and it is growing daily. Going off grid has nothing to do with squatting on government or private property how you equate the two is beyond me. Anyone can buy a piece of property and go off grid of they chose.

I do agree that government has to much control of land making it harder to get land by tying up land causing prices to rise and charging taxes/theft for people to live on their own land however it is still possible to get some land and live off grid without being arrested.

It is slowly changing government is collapsing as we speak even though most do not realize it. They are broke from the monetary fiat money ponzi scheme and those who have land will soon have it free and clear of government so IMO it is wise to get some and minimize all government interaction as much a possible and get set up to be as self sufficient as possible.

 You are funneled into a system that is rigged by government and corporations. So you are not free you are forced into labor. you need currency to live and have a home. You are free to get the home you choose with your wages. You are compelled to continue working or lose your home and your lively hood. 
Even if you manage to pay off yoru land with your labor you are forced to continue working for your task master because if you do not pay your taxes you get kicked off your land. You are forced to work you are forced to conform. try to get a job without a permanent residence or anything else for that matter. you are forced to comply there is no free will it is an illusion. 

I agree with you here to a large extent as I mentioned above Government is the problem. More freedom is the answer IMO. Having said that though we will always be funneled into some system it is just that governments system is unnatural. If you live off grid the labor is often much harder to keep everything going. One of my dreams is of communities that work together creating a better model of society something like this: becauseitstime.com...


reply to post by Merriman Weir

What? Your argument makes no sense. I ask you is it 'lazy' and you say it's called 'theft'? Lazy =/= theft and neither terms are applicable here

Stealing the fruits of others labors is theft pure and simple. Some folks point to elites and label capitalism as bad when the elites do not practice capitalism they practice theft (I am going to call it theft for now since we can't agree on the label). By labeling the elitist theft as evil capitalism (or whatever) and trying to supposedly eliminate it many of your ideas will hurt the hard working people who create the majority of jobs. You guys may have good intentions to level the playing field but where we disagree is on where the problem lies and how to make it fair.

Your ideas are not new and they have been proclaimed through out history in similar fashion and even the people who have supported those movements probably had good intentions however they have always ended up with the leaders of such movements oppressing the masses when they finally gained the power to do so. All of those leaders claimed themselves freedom fighters and how the power would be in the hands of the people everyone would be an owner etc.

This is why I have been so adamant in opposing many of these ideas. While they sound good on the surface they have proven very destructive through out history as vehicles for tyrants and psychopaths to gain power and impose their will on masses of peoples killing millions.

However I am going to try and take a different tact here. I think we all want similar things (correct me if I am wrong?) and that is a level playing field where every one has equal opportunity and equal access to resources like land etc. (this does not mean equal things just equal opportunity to acquire them through their efforts.). Freedom and liberty to live our lives how we chose without government intervention as long as we are not harming others etc.

I think where we disagree is where the actual problem lies and how to fix it. In my view government intervention and the monopolized monetary system are the main problem. One need only look around them to see this and the results of heavy government intervention with a monopolized monetary system and it is getting worse as we head for complete collapse. Some seem to want more government intervention to fix the problem created by government intervention in the first place which will never happen. It is akin to being on a bus heading off a cliff and proclaiming the answer to saving the bus is to step on the gas.

So let us try and focus on where we agree for a while here? And then maybe we can narrow down our disagreements and flesh out some possible real solutions based on facts and not conjecture labels or emotions and have some meaningful discussion on it?

reply to post by hawkiye

Other corporations who hire a security force to protect against such threats and small businesses who band together and hire protection against such threats.

Yeah that's just not going to happen. Do you live in reality? The world is not a Utopia. Corporations will band together to squash their enemy, which is anything or anyone a threat to their profits.

Lets not forget corporations would not exist as they are only government created constructs to limit liability so corporations are not liable for harming people.

If there is no government, there is no one to hold them responsible, so I don't get your argument. The consumer is not going to care if the corporations product is trendy, a need, or a cheap price. People still buy Apple products even though they know slave labor in awful conditions make them.

Consumers regulate the markets better then anything else as they vote with their wallets and feet.

Consumers will buy the cheapest product without thinking twice of the corporation. Walmart would still exist with a ton of customers if the government suddenly dissipated tomorrow.

eliminated by government BS regulation.

Well since you hate regulation so much you'll have no problem with letting Monsanto dump their left over chemical waste in your backyard, right?

reply to post by Trustfund

Yeah that's just not going to happen. Do you live in reality? The world is not a Utopia. Corporations will band together to squash their enemy, which is anything or anyone a threat to their profits. 

It is interesting and Ironic that you ask me if I live in reality. I find if interesting that people don't simply look around them and see that their fears have already happened. In your case Corporations have already banded together and subverted the government and used the government monopoly on force to squash their enemies and increase their profits. You act like government is preventing them from doing so when in fact government is enabling them to do so. However this is only a few at the top who are politically connected not all. The rest are regulated to death to protect the few politically connected at the top

Collective capitalist ownership can exist without a government. If the corporation pays off enough people or has enough power, no one will ever get arrested or charged. Money talks, morals do not. Again, you're living in some utopic fantasy that does not exist and never will in a capitalist society. Profits are ALWAYS put over people. 

First of all we don't have capitalism and haven't for decades. Placing our responsibility to protect ourselves from harm by companies in the hands of government is exactly what enables them to pay off people in bureaucracies to allow nameless faceless people to be harmed. If left up to the local people being harmed by corporations to deal with the offending company who is it you think could be paid off to look the other way? Also you keep bringing up Utopia why? It has nothing to do with what I have said, it is those who think more corrupt government intervention will solve the problem when it created the problem in the first place who live in some Utopian fantasy world...

Consumers will buy the cheapest product without thinking twice of the corporation. Walmart would still exist with a ton of customers if the government suddenly dissipated tomorrow. 

Consumers will buy the cheapest functional product they can given the choices. However government intervention/regulation and theft/taxation has driven manufacturing off shore to keep prices down but quality has suffered thus limiting choices. If government stopped intervening and making it expensive to manufacture here then prices on quality goods would come down and be able to compete. Given a choice consumers will chose quality every time. Of course Walmart would continue to exist however without government protection in the form of intervention/regulation protecting their markets competition would eventually rise up with better quality products forcing Walmart to raise their quality or go out of business eventually. Of course it would not happen overnight the current system of theft and corrutption at the top is too entrenched. However it will happen as the dollar approaches final meltdown.

Well since you hate regulation so much you'll have no problem with letting Monsanto dump their left over chemical waste in your backyard, right?

Speaking of reality ... We live in the most highly regulated society in history yet Monsanto has already been allowed to dump their left over chemical waste and polluted the entire world with pcbs which have even been found even in Artic animals. Yet you seem to think more government regulation will solve the problem...Sigh.

Had it been left up to the locals to take care of Monsanto polluting their back yards the company would have probably been a smoldering ruin by now. And in fact the farmers in India (not as burdened by government regulation as America) have taken care of much of Monsantos BS in their country by burning any crop of monsanto seed. So here we have a real life example of local control working just as I said. Where is your real life example of government regulation preventing Monsanto from polluting the world with their poisons and Franken seeds?

reply to post by hawkiye


This is just going in circles so I'm dropping out the debate. It's hard to debate economic systems with someone who isn't familiar with the term "means of production" anyway.

Originally posted by Trustfund
reply to post by hawkiye

 

This is just going in circles so I'm dropping out the debate. It's hard to debate economic systems with someone who isn't familiar with the term "means of production" anyway.

At least you know when you are out of your league. To bad you do not have the honesty to admit it and instead resort to false accusations. Why is it you think I am not familiar with the term "means of production? I asked him to define his use of the term because the commies around here love to falsely redefine terms to push their false arguments...

reply to post by hawkiye


Capitalist rage...lol

reply to post by hawkiye


How can you redefine the term "means of production"?

You really shouldn't accuse others of twisting terms when you yourself have proven you fail to understand most of them. You are the one using the twisted definitions that have been fed to you by the state and the media.

Have you ever read anything on socialism, other than other peoples right wing opinions of it?

I don't have anything constructive to add.

I just wanted to say: Anok and Trustfund. That was some inspired posting, and a great read. Thanks for fighting the good fight!

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by hawkiye

 

How can you redefine the term "means of production"?

You really shouldn't accuse others of twisting terms when you yourself have proven you fail to understand most of them. You are the one using the twisted definitions that have been fed to you by the state and the media.

Have you ever read anything on socialism, other than other peoples right wing opinions of it?

Yeah you sure showed me didn't you... oh wait you didn't even respond to my posts destroying your non-nonsensical ridiculous arguments... Sigh... I even tried to find some common ground with you but you really have nothing so can't respond except to try and attack the messenger..

All ask one more time where is your employee owned company model to show us all how it's done? You have no excuses millions have started successful businesses from nothing blowing your "means of production" argument completely out of the water... Wannabe socialist/commie propaganda will only get you so far, as they say talk in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster...

Originally posted by Malynn
I don't have anything constructive to add.

I just wanted to say: Anok and Trustfund. That was some inspired posting, and a great read. Thanks for fighting the good fight!

Care to tell us some specifics of what you found inspiring about any of it?

Originally posted by hawkiye

Stealing the fruits of others labors is theft pure and simple.

The irony here is crushing. I think you've got a warped understanding of who is doing the stealing and who is doing the labouring. Labour theory of value?

Your ideas are not new and they have been proclaimed through out history in similar fashion and even the people who have supported those movements probably had good intentions however they have always ended up with the leaders of such movements oppressing the masses when they finally gained the power to do so. All of those leaders claimed themselves freedom fighters and how the power would be in the hands of the people everyone would be an owner etc.

Much of my criticism of your posts has been based on the fact that there's an historical argument here, and these ideas were born out of the position that many, many hard-working and low-earning people have found themselves in. Who has suggested that any of this is new? Unfortunately, what you describe is not socialism or similar. In the typical 'move to China/Russia' type arguments people often make, you'll see that the actual socialist component is very small or non-existent. Very big on the extremes of statism, authoritarianism &c but not much else. Although planned economies do have much to offer in a world where resources wars are already becoming an issue.

This is why I have been so adamant in opposing many of these ideas.

Unfortunately, you don't actually understand many of these ideas as others are repeatedly pointing out.

While they sound good on the surface they have proven very destructive through out history as vehicles for tyrants and psychopaths to gain power and impose their will on masses of peoples killing millions.

You use the term 'vehicle' here. I'd suggest that you're conflating the ideas of vehicles, passengers, drivers and so on. I think you also need to look at the research linking 'psychopathy' within business 'success' and what western capitalism does to the 3rd world.

However I am going to try and take a different tact here. I think we all want similar things (correct me if I am wrong?) and that is a level playing field where every one has equal opportunity and equal access to resources like land etc. (this does not mean equal things just equal opportunity to acquire them through their efforts.). Freedom and liberty to live our lives how we chose without government intervention as long as we are not harming others etc. I think where we disagree is where the actual problem lies and how to fix it. In my view government intervention and the monopolized monetary system are the main problem. One need only look around them to see this and the results of heavy government intervention with a monopolized monetary system and it is getting worse as we head for complete collapse. Some seem to want more government intervention to fix the problem created by government intervention in the first place which will never happen. It's akin to being on a bus heading off a cliff and proclaiming the answer to saving the bus is to step on the gas.

You're confused by your own argument. On one hand, you say we want 'similar things', and on the other you're saying that we 'disagree where the actual problem lies'. Usually, people will agree on where the problem is (inequality, unfairness, economic rape &c) but disagree with what the solution is, eg Republicans and Democrats alike will always point to the same issues as being problems (unemployment &c) but where people disagree is how to combat it.

So let us try and focus on where we agree for a while here? And then maybe we can narrow down our disagreements and flesh out some possible real solutions based on facts and not conjecture labels or emotions and have some meaningful discussion on it?

Myself and others have asserted what we think are the problems, repeatedly. No offence, but it sounds like what you want to happen is we change position to match yours. And, again, no offence, but it's fairly apparent you're not familiar with some of the concepts that are fundamental to some of the arguments here, whether it's 'means of production', 'labour theory of value' and so on. You seem to be still thinking that the ownership means of production is theft. Ironic as the people who currently own the means of production are either thieves or the sons of daughters of thieves. Resources are also means of production. In Britain, massive swathes of land ownership is still in the hands of families dating back to the Norman Conquest - a 1000 years of people holding land that was literally taken by force and depriving the masses into ever smaller spaces. If you can't address basic things like this, and escape this peculiar 'theft' argument that you keep making, none of this is going anywhere.

I'm not surprised people have stopped replying to this thread.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Yeah you sure showed me didn't you... oh wait you didn't even respond to my posts destroying your non-nonsensical ridiculous arguments... Sigh... I even tried to find some common ground with you but you really have nothing so can't respond except to try and attack the messenger..

You didn't destroy anything, get over yourself. Every time I reply to you I have to correct your definitions. Until you get your definitions correct you have nothing. If I mist one of your enlightening posts it had nothing to do with what you said, I never even read it. If I read a post to me, I will reply to it. I only have so much time to waste on this.

What common ground? Again until you are on the same page as far as definitions of terms then we can never find common ground.

All ask one more time where is your employee owned company model to show us all how it's done? You have no excuses millions have started successful businesses from nothing blowing your "means of production" argument completely out of the water... Wannabe socialist/commie propaganda will only get you so far, as they say talk in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster...

'Means of production argument'?

Millions of people may have started businesses, but again it takes billions of employees to run those businesses.
Business owners will always be a minority exploiting the majority. Are you really thinking that we can all be business owners? How can a business make profit without labour?

I really don't understand your argument here. Is this what you want...

How to Start an Employee-Owned Company

Are you under the impression that worker owned companies are not a possibility? What makes you so sure they can't work without a private owner? You do realise that the workers do the everyday running of a business, not the owner right? Removing the owner doesn't suddenly leave all the workers lost as to what to do.

I'd like to know where you work now, or if you have ever worked in industry?

List of employee-owned companies

BTW the 'means of production' is not an 'argument', it is the basis of all economic system. You have to understand this to understand economic systems.

Means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production—the factories, machines, and tools used to produce wealth[1] — along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the classical factors of production minus financial capital and minus human capital. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labour (natural resources and raw materials). People operate on the subjects of labour, using the instruments of labour, to create a product; or, stated another way, labour acting on the means of production creates a product.[2] When used in the broad sense, the "means of production" includes the "means of distribution" which includes stores, banks, and railroads.[3]

Means of production

Whomever owns the means of production owns and controls the economy, and the state.

reply to post by ANOK


So you falsely define terms and claim until i agree with your false definition I don't know what I am talking about or don't understand... Ah ok... Apparently thats all you got? LOL!

And then you keep claiming I don't understand the "Means of production" Which is just a straw man to avoid meaningful discussion. Then when I point out millions have not had a problem starting businesses some of which are employee owned you claim billions are exploited by the millions who started those businesses. So you think those who started those businesses had an unfair advantage over the billions? LOL again! But you ignore the fact most of those business were started with next to nothing and any of the billions can do the same thing if they the gumption to do it.

Apparently you think it is up to the millions who start businesses and use their drive efforts vision and action do all the heavy lifting to get the business off the ground so they can hire and make those who do not have the drive vision an action owners wow how convenient for those people?

Once again millions have done it why haven't you? What is your excuse your arguments remain destroyed and you continue to dodge the question because you have no answer Enough of the means of production are still available to anyone who has the balls to take the reins take some risks and go for it. Some of those millions have created employee owned businesses there is no reason why it can't be done despite your long winded convoluted non-sensical excuses. All your excuses have been proven bogus! But I am sure they will continue.

You guys are hopeless crying about the few in Europe that have land tied up for generations Even in America the government and a few of the wealthy have the majority of land tied up however that has not stopped millions of people from doing it anyway. You have no excuses you people do not live in the real world it is pointless trying to have a meaningful discussion with you go drink some tap water and watch xfactor...

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK

 

So you falsely define terms and claim until i agree with your false definition I don't know what I am talking about or don't understand... Ah ok... Apparently thats all you got? LOL!

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder whether you're actually trolling here.

There's nothing false about these definitions. They are definitions agreed and understood by economists and political theories from all over the political spectrum. There's a massive difference between whether people think things are viable concepts and can work in any particular place at any particular time, and whether people think the definitions exist. Even right wing political theorists accept that terms mention above are 'true' rather than 'false' in their definition, it's just that they believe that these aren't the right way to create/perpetuate healthy economies or solve labour problems &c as the very nature of these things run counter to their ideologies. You don't even seem to be at that point.

I'm bowing out because, no offence, this is #ing ridiculous.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK

 

So you falsely define terms and claim until i agree with your false definition I don't know what I am talking about or don't understand... Ah ok... Apparently thats all you got?

Yeah I'm not sure what else to say either.

I have proven over and over again what socialism is. I'll do it one more time, if you don't understand why this is proof then I can't do any more...

Yet in a time when capitalism is encroaching upon almost every aspect of life, Bookchin ironically claims that the left today has little understanding of capitalism. This can be seen in the current "anti-capitalist" movement, which often confuses the ideology of the free market with capitalism as a whole. To Bookchin, who has been involved in revolutionary leftist politics since the 1930s, the tradition of revolutionary socialism seems lost...

Rediscovering the Socialism in Anarchism

Using your definition of terms how can we 'rediscover socialism in anarchism'? If you don't know who Murray Bookchin is, before you blow him off, read...

Murray Bookchin (January 14, 1921 – July 30, 2006)[5] was an American libertarian socialist author, orator, and philosopher. A pioneer in the ecology movement,[6] Bookchin was the founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist and ecological thought*. He was the author of two dozen books on politics, philosophy, history, and urban affairs as well as ecology. In the late 1990s he became disenchanted with the strategy of political Anarchism and founded his own libertarian socialist ideology called Communalism.[7]

Murray Bookchin

"Anarchist, libertarian socialist"; all those "contradictory" terms must have your head spinning.

Then there is Mikhail Bakunin, probably the most famous Anarchist there is. He worked along side Marx until they had their little tiff....

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

Anarchism's Greatest Hits NO.1
Mikhail Bakunin

The anarchist movement throws up many men and women, who become famous because of their actions, ideas and writings. Perhaps the best known of them all was a Russian, Mikhail Bakunin. Anarchists do not have god-like leaders, nor all-knowing prophets. Nobody gets it right all the time and nobody is above criticism. Whoever does not make mistakes is either (a) not human, or (b) someone who never does anything at all. It is possible to take inspiration from the actions and ideas of others without falling into the trap of uncritical hero-worship.

www.spunk.org...

I know I've posted all this before, not just for the hell of it, but to get you to use some logic instead of your emotions. You might not know who these people are, but they are very important in the socialist movement.

Socialism is simply an economic system whereby there is no economic private property, and the means of production are owned in common by the workers. That is why is can be either anarchist, or have a state. But the state under socialism would not be the same as the one we have under capitalism. The state we have now is dominated by the economic power of the capitalist class.

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, there is a lot of great information here.

I appreciate it guys, really.

Well their you have it folks they don't have any answers so they just avoid the real issues with wordy non-responses...

i'll leave you all with some definitions:

so·cial·ism noun ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of SOCIALISM

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

www.merriam-webster.com...

cap·i·tal·ism noun ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-

Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a FREE MARKET

www.merriam-webster.com...

These types of folks want to steal the fruits of your labors and not allow you to own property. Without property rights there is no freedom. You have a right to the fruits of your labors and if you work harder and smarter then others and gather more fruit of your labors then others they want you to redistribute to them. It's nothing more then the same old socialism/fascism/communism wrapped in a different package don't be fooled by their obfuscation and false characterizations... Lenin Stalin Hitler Mao Castro etc. all preached the same rhetoric in the name of freedom and power to the people fomented revolution and then seized power when they saw the opportunity and oppressed their people and killed millions

We have already been taken over by these socialist/fascist/communist who have subverted the free market and that is why we are in the mess we are in today and heading off the cliff!

reply to post by hawkiye


I already explained that the dictionary does not give a very good definition of socialism.

Is does not take into account anarchism, which is socialism. I asked you to explain how that can work, not show me a dictionary definition of socialism.

The dictionary also says capitalism is free markets, but clearly it is not. The dictionary definition is simply a result of decades of misunderstandings and outright lies about what socialism, and capitalism, actually is.

Again the term capitalism was coined by a SOCIALIST, Louis Blanc, a French socialist. Proudhon was an anarchist, the first SOCIALIST to use the term anarchist. These left-wing terms have been misappropriated by those seeking power.

In 1850, Louis Blanc defined capitalism as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." Proudhon later defined it as an "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour."

resurgence.opendemocracy.net...

Both of those definitions work but Marx defined it as 'the workers ownership of the means of production', which is still the accepted definition.

In 1840, in his controversial "What Is Property", French political writer and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon became the first person to call himself an Anarchist.

www.spunk.org...

Some socialists called themselves anarchists because they apposed the political path to socialism and wanted direct action.

This is a far better explanation of socialism from a respected site that is far more trustful and accurate than the dictionary. The dictionary did not define the term, left-wing socialists did...

Why "Socialism"?

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability...

flag.blackened.net...

Socialism was created by workers as an alternative to capitalism, the term was created by socialists. Just like our history, the dictionary was written by the victors. If you want to accept the dictionary over real history then you'll never understand the reality.

So once again, regardless of your dictionary, how do you explain anarchists being socialists?

This is where your logic fails you. The only true definitions are the original definitions.

reply to post by ANOK


Like I have said you have to falsely redefine terms including anarchy to try and posit your false argument... Nough said