Dispelling the Big Government Myth

[Tehon]

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

I guess your vision is that democracy will give the People more power over that wealth if it is in the hands of government, but that's an even bigger fantasy. Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that the US isn't set up as a democracy. Let's pretend we have a perfectly functioning, direct democracy, where everyone gets to vote on every issue. Even under such an ideal setup, the individual consumer has less power than they do in a free market, not more. Here's why:

In democracy, majority rules. If the Bureau of Entertainment is trying to decide what movies to make this year, and 51% of voters love war movies and hate documentaries about global warming - what are we gonna get? And almost half of the voters are going to be disappointed. They'll be powerless to demand anything beyond what the majority will authorize. In a free market we'll still get more war movies, but capitalists aren't going to leave money on the table. They'll still make global warming movies for the 49%. And they'll be chasing the profits available in catering to any niche audience with money to spend. The Bureau of Entertainment has no such incentive.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

There is some truth to that, but socialism is more tyrannical since you merely transfer all power to a small corrupt elite running the nation.

As a proponent of a socialist system I would never give control to the state. You do not understand the possibilities of a socialist system of production.

Is this where you tilt all anarchist?

You've been indoctrinated. You clearly believe things you have not attempted to understand.

Free state — what is this?

It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

 

[Boss]

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

Socialism has never rectified ANY problem... except over population. Free market capitalism has nothing to do with coercive power of state. It is coercive power of state that destroys free market capitalism. I think what you're talking about is a form of capitalism known as "corporatism." Corporatism is the collusion of capitalists and government and it's fostered by having large powerful governments. This is precisely why the framers gave us small limited government.

Don't confuse corporatism with free market capitalism. It's actually a bigger threat to free market than Socialism. Capital accumulation does not lead to tyranny, if it did, we would live in a tyrannical country because there is more capital accumulation here than anywhere on the planet... and Chairman Mao would've been the least tyrannic ruler in history... so you're just plain wrong. What leads to tyranny is unchecked power. Again, I will repeat... When you strangle your capitalists, power becomes the prime motivator. What you're saying would "rectify" the problem would actually bring about tyranny faster as power then becomes the only thing that matters.

 

[dblack]

As a proponent of a socialist system I would never give control to the state. You do not understand the possibilities of a socialist system of production.

Is this where you tilt all anarchist?

You've been indoctrinated. You clearly believe things you have not attempted to understand.

I'm just wondering how you achieve your dreams without giving control to the state. What would prevent people from accumulating wealth? Can you tell me, in your own words? I couldn't make heads or tails of the quotes you posted.

 

[Boss]

The capitalist system is built on exploitation. Exploitation is a form of oppression.
Besides it's human nature. That's what you people always say about socialism right?

you're just fucking stupid.

Tone it down please. I just taught you what purpose the market served in society. You should be thanking me.

Free market capitalism has nothing to do with exploitation. Exploitation and/or oppression is the result of unchecked power. A free market depends on voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration with competition driving price based on laws of supply and demand. An exploitive free market capitalist, like a greedy free market capitalist, quickly discovers a LESS-exploitive and LESS greedy competitor has taken all his business.

Now, a CORPORATIST will exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over his competition. That's why corporatism is NOT a friend of free market capitalism.

And.. puleeeeze... You're not capable of teaching me anything, moron. You're still stuck on misinterpreting systems of production with overall economic systems like some goofball illiterate. If you believe a socialist production system is a better means of producing your product or service, that's the beauty of a free enterprise system... you can try it! All kinds of various production systems compete with each other for market share in a free market system.

 

[Boss]

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

I guess your vision is that democracy will give the People more power over that wealth if it is in the hands of government, but that's an even bigger fantasy. Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that the US isn't set up as a democracy. Let's pretend we have a perfectly functioning, direct democracy, where everyone gets to vote on every issue. Even under such an ideal setup, the individual consumer has less power than they do in a free market, not more. Here's why:

In democracy, majority rules. If the Bureau of Entertainment is trying to decide what movies to make this year, and 51% of voters love war movies and hate documentaries about global warming - what are we gonna get? And almost half of the voters are going to be disappointed. They'll be powerless to demand anything beyond what the majority will authorize. In a free market we'll still get more war movies, but capitalists aren't going to leave money on the table. They'll still make global warming movies for the 49%. And they'll be chasing the profits available in catering to any niche audience with money to spend. The Bureau of Entertainment has no such incentive.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

There is some truth to that, but socialism is more tyrannical since you merely transfer all power to a small corrupt elite running the nation.

As a proponent of a socialist system I would never give control to the state. You do not understand the possibilities of a socialist system of production.

Is this where you tilt all anarchist?

You've been indoctrinated. You clearly believe things you have not attempted to understand.

Free state — what is this?

It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

Mor Marxist CLAPTRAP!

 

[Tehon]

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

There is some truth to that, but socialism is more tyrannical since you merely transfer all power to a small corrupt elite running the nation.

As a proponent of a socialist system I would never give control to the state. You do not understand the possibilities of a socialist system of production.

Is this where you tilt all anarchist?

You've been indoctrinated. You clearly believe things you have not attempted to understand.

Free state — what is this?

It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

Mor Marxist CLAPTRAP!

You're too dumb to understand him also, huh?

 

[Tehon]

All kinds of various production systems compete with each other for market share in a free market system.

I know. The market is independent of the means of production. Capitalism is a means of production. Socialism is as well. Free market socialism! See?

 

[dblack]

All kinds of various production systems compete with each other for market share in a free market system.

I know. The market is independent of the means of production. Capitalism is a means of production. Socialism is as well. Free market socialism! See?

What keeps people from accumulating wealth?

 

[Tehon]

All kinds of various production systems compete with each other for market share in a free market system.

I know. The market is independent of the means of production. Capitalism is a means of production. Socialism is as well. Free market socialism! See?

What keeps people from accumulating wealth?

Cooperative production.

 

[dblack]

Tehon, it's a "tale as old as time", but you've fallen for the caricature of a capitalist as a greedy, fat-cat who does nothing of value, who simply 'extracts wealth' from hapless employees. But, unless they're in bed with the government, capitalists can't accumulate our wealth unless we give it to them.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, it's a "tale as old as time", but you've fallen for the caricature of a capitalist as a greedy, fat-cat who does nothing of value, who simply 'extracts wealth' from hapless employees. But, unless they're in bed with the government, capitalists can't accumulate our wealth unless we give it to them.

Marx was right. We can't realize true freedom as long as we organize society with an economic system built on exploitation.

 

[dblack]

Tehon, it's a "tale as old as time", but you've fallen for the caricature of a capitalist as a greedy, fat-cat who does nothing of value, who simply 'extracts wealth' from hapless employees. But, unless they're in bed with the government, capitalists can't accumulate our wealth unless we give it to them.

Marx was right. We can't realize true freedom as long as we organize society with an economic system built on exploitation.

Which means what exactly - how do you accomplish this "true freedom" without giving power to the state?

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, it's a "tale as old as time", but you've fallen for the caricature of a capitalist as a greedy, fat-cat who does nothing of value, who simply 'extracts wealth' from hapless employees. But, unless they're in bed with the government, capitalists can't accumulate our wealth unless we give it to them.

Marx was right. We can't realize true freedom as long as we organize society with an economic system built on exploitation.

Which means what exactly - how do you accomplish this "true freedom" without giving power to the state?

Cooperative production.

 

[Tehon]

It is coercive power of state that destroys free market capitalism. I think what you're talking about is a form of capitalism known as "corporatism." Corporatism is the collusion of capitalists and government and it's fostered by having large powerful governments. This is precisely why the framers gave us small limited government.

It's capitalism, plain and simple. Capitalist ideology is that of individualism. Self interest as a guiding principle. It's only natural that capitalists are going to look after their own interests and using the power of the state serves those interests. Madison's goal was to protect wealthy interests. A primary function of the state is protecting private property. The military is used almost exclusively for that purpose.

 

[dblack]

Tehon, it's a "tale as old as time", but you've fallen for the caricature of a capitalist as a greedy, fat-cat who does nothing of value, who simply 'extracts wealth' from hapless employees. But, unless they're in bed with the government, capitalists can't accumulate our wealth unless we give it to them.

Marx was right. We can't realize true freedom as long as we organize society with an economic system built on exploitation.

Which means what exactly - how do you accomplish this "true freedom" without giving power to the state?

Cooperative production.

And for those who won't "cooperate"?

 

[dblack]

Tehon - An instructional video for your consideration:

 

[Boss]

I know. The market is independent of the means of production. Capitalism is a means of production. Socialism is as well. Free market socialism! See?

No, I don't see. "Free Market Socialism" is an oxymoron. You keep ignorantly conflating production system with economic system. A free market economic system has nothing to do with systems of production. There are all kinds of production systems, some are much better than capitalist or socialist... slavery, for instance. It's unconstitutional as hell and illegal in this country, but it's a very efficient production system.... that's why it took so long to get rid of it here.

We're not discussing types of production systems. We're talking about economic systems. So get your finger outta your nose, dummy... get with the program and stop acting retarded. I'm not going to keep on debating nonsense with you.

 

[Boss]

It is coercive power of state that destroys free market capitalism. I think what you're talking about is a form of capitalism known as "corporatism." Corporatism is the collusion of capitalists and government and it's fostered by having large powerful governments. This is precisely why the framers gave us small limited government.

It's capitalism, plain and simple. Capitalist ideology is that of individualism. Self interest as a guiding principle. It's only natural that capitalists are going to look after their own interests and using the power of the state serves those interests. Madison's goal was to protect wealthy interests. A primary function of the state is protecting private property. The military is used almost exclusively for that purpose.

But it's not FREE MARKET capitalism. Those two words are VERY important. You're right that it's natural for capitalists to serve their own interest of pursuing profit at any cost. That's why a "system" is needed to ensure FREE MARKET capitalism. Madison understood that it's dangerous to have too much power vested in central government. One reason is because power can be exploited by the wealthy.

The military is not exclusively used to protect private property... China has the largest standing army in the world but no private property rights. The military protects the sovereignty of state. The state may or may not protect or ensure private property rights... ours does.

 

[Tehon]

That's why a "system" is needed to ensure FREE MARKET capitalism.

What "system" ensures free market capitalism? How does it work?

 

[there4eyeM]

'Free market' is like zero unemployment; a term that exists, but not a condition.