Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thought sure seems about as anti-freedom as one can possibly get to me...
Why?
If you produce (most don’t as investors don’t create wealth) something and you use it, fine.
But if you cannot store it or consume (use) it, why should you have invisible authority over that good? Such a thing requires state police, it weakens the freedom of those who encounter it, and it has no basis in physical existence.
Uh I just did. "Extreme Poverty" dropped by nearly 80% world wide. What more proof do you want? That wasn't because of Communism because the poverty rates in those countries literally flat lined (or increased) until economic freedom was expanded (Perostroika). China and Russia actually came to embrace Capitalism.
Do you honestly think China's wealth comes from "Communism"? Have you ever done business in China? My guess is no.
Can you actually prove that capitalism did not lead to a decrease in extreme poverty over the past 200 years? Do you have any data at all? (I'm guessing no since all credible data disagrees with your stance)
China did not become rich from free market capitalism, see the difference between Russian reforms in the 90s and those of Deng.
Yeltsin’s reforms were actual free market reforms and lead to bankruptcy, more hunger, and the rise of Putin.
As I have repeatedly said, the sort of egalitarian social control you favor breaks down once the group reaches a significant size. Above that size, some sort of more hierarchical control is required to ensure everyone will cooperate in the best interest of the group. You have repeatedly failed to address that point. But ignoring that reality doesn't make it go away.
And no, only some native chieftains ruled on social character (specifically, those who led small hunter-gatherer bands or very small villages). Most of the native people in the northeast and southeast had more elaborate political structures than that. And the Mesoamericans absolutely did. Cahokia, Mexico City, and the Inca Empire weren't run by a chieftain who ruled on the basis of his social character. They were all far too large for that style of governance to work.
No, your favored form of organization won't allow the development of stable groups large enough to permit the degree of specialization needed to produce a highly technological society.
The answer to our current problems (which do indeed exist) won't be found by trying to go backward and re-introduce methods of social organization that we already know from 10,000 years of experience fail when they are scaled up.
Any squirrel or fox knows the answer to that question: because it increases your chances of survival when the hard times come. But if you're going to build a surplus to get you through hard times, you need to be able to defend it from raiders who'd find it easier to steal from the cache than work to produce their own stores.
And violence is an integral part of any social system, don't kid yourself about that. You don't generally see it used much because most people are reasonably pro-social and generally follow the rules of their society - but make no mistake about it, even small hunter-gatherer bands occasionally use violence when necessary to curb especially bad/destructive behavior when other modalities (such as Tit-for-Tat) fail. They have to, for allowing the problematic behavior to continue will destroy the group (and thus kill everyone in it).
1. I know all these, and I never called the Incas or the Aztecs tribal societies as they were empires in the traditional sense.
And social hierarchies will always form, but that should not equate political hierarchies.
2. And who said I want a 'a highly technological society'. If that requires economic inequality, the pursuit of profit over well being of people, and the power of money over freedom, is it really worth it?
3. Here we are again to your main-point. today regardless of scale, all large groups whether they be companies or states, are made up of smaller parts. Even in Unitarian systems and deal of autonomy has to be given to these smaller parts as they can function based on their own independent needs. This does not mean a larger network shouldn't be formed between these individual parts, but that they should be sharing power rather than having it collectivized by one power source.
And Before You Go On, the infrastructure for these smaller groups already exist. We don't have to disband society and go back into tribes with political tension between one another, just disallow the collectivization of power (just like wealth) so each independent group would have to work with one another on their own terms rather than be forced into an agreement by one central power.
4. You return to the question of theft and crime. People can store more goods and accumulate wealth in that sense by their own capacity. That is radically different from investing in capital you don't use or operate under and forcing others to pay you for its usage, and then taking the labor output of others to buy up market space. That can only be done through the authorization of state force.
5. I know this and I don't claim to be creating a utopia, I just want people to be free to the greatest extent which requires equality. If people have some level of equal opportunity, then at least that force would be limited to cooperation, which changes the social dynamics of how people act.
He didn't, and that is why the outcomes were radically different, heavy state subsidies, nationalization of large industry, control over the stock market, and protection over capital within China has nothing to do with free market capitalism.
In fact the reforms were praised in the west for structurally letting in some large western multinationals but that is closely related to political power influencing economic planning, not the free trade of goods and labor.
Speaking of which, that is why China isn't any closer to free market capitalism now than back then, because the system is heavily controlled and planned.
It's a silly thing for you to say. You're not more enlightened than other people. You are most likely just young, and read some book on communism or anarchism and are parroting what you read without thinking it though. Again, I understand what you're saying. It is a poorly thought through idea.
"Why should you be able to won more than you can store/consume". Why not? What incentive is there for me to work and produce if I don't realize a gain from what I am doing? If my labor, and me putting my assets to use does not get me anything, but rather is simply given away, why on earth would I keep producing? In that case, I want to work less, and simply live off of what others produce for me.
What incentivization structure are you creating by saying I cannot keep what I create? Why should power be in the hands of the worker and not the investor? Outside of workers being jealous of people who own businesses (as well as too lazy to start a business themselves) you have yet to address that.
Ask yourself why, if ownership cannot be practiced, how does it exist.
And in terms of practical affects, people will work more realistically and cooperatively, unlike now where most of the personal output of one worker is insignificant alone since wage employment based on the needs of corporate profit drive work.
Think about it this way, when you work to improve your house, you work on something you have ownership over and to see the effects. When you work for a wage job you do not care about the output, just the compensation.
He didn't, and that is why the outcomes were radically different, heavy state subsidies, nationalization of large industry, control over the stock market, and protection over capital within China has nothing to do with free market capitalism.
This is just being extremely dishonest. You're pointing out hindrances that have hurt the Chinese economy for decades. That's why China has laws on capital flight, due to all the things you're pointing out. It's not an economic benefit.
The "capitalism" part is why China's economy has grown, not the government interventions into their market economy. You have it completely backwards (either unintentionally, or just outright dishonesty).
Exactly. In the sort of small, radically egalitarian societies the OP fetishizes, what you gain by working harder than you need to simply to provide for you own needs is social capital. You become a very valued person of high status, and a lot of other people in the group now owe you favors, which you will be able to call in when you should find yourself in need in the future. By working hard, you are directly improving your own chances of survival. You're not doling out the fruits of your hard work to total strangers, but to kin.
As for me, well if I cheat you by not returning the favor I owe you, not only will you have nothing to do with me in the future, you'll tell everyone you know (which is pretty much everyone in the group) what I did. I'll rapidly become a persona non grata, and now when I need help I won't get any. Oops! Bad choice on my part!
Try running a large community in which a significant percentage of the group are strangers to each other using that model of social organization. It just doesn't work (as the history of every Communist country has amply shown). The available tools for social control just aren't strong enough to rein in the cheaters. An actual legal system with enforcement powers is now a necessity.
You still see things in terms of self-gain, but there cannot be any self gain without cooperation. If those are the requirements to benefit one's self, that is what even the most greedy individual will do. If you implement power and freedom into money, those same greed individuals would cheat anyone because it is not the labor that matters, but the legal power of the green.
And it is natural in existence so it does not need central planning. People working with people they share something with are not strangers, or very soon will become acquainted. Work by proximity is the basis by which people interact without a wage system.
This is just being extremely dishonest. You're pointing out hindrances that have hurt the Chinese economy for decades. That's why China has laws on capital flight, due to all the things you're pointing out. It's not an economic benefit.
The "capitalism" part is why China's economy has grown, not the government interventions into their market economy. You have it completely backwards (either unintentionally, or just outright dishonesty).
Controlled capitalism is not free market capitalism. If what you said was true, then Yeltsin would have made Russia far richer than China rather than bankrupting it.
The difference with China is that economic growth in the global market wasn't the central plan of the government. After Mao that changed, it had nothing to do with implementing a freer market meant to help individuals control the economy in their own right through capital ownership (something you love).
If you produce (most don’t as investors don’t create wealth) something and you use it, fine.
But if you cannot store it or consume (use) it, why should you have invisible authority over that good? Such a thing requires state police, it weakens the freedom of those who encounter it, and it has no basis in physical existence.
Says you.
So let's say that I have more of something in my home (am I allowed to have that at least: a home?) than you've determined is necessary - limiting which would somehow make me more free. You propose to stop me from having more than my needs as determined by you, and posit that in doing so, you actually make me more free from the state. Now how do you propose to ensure that I don't have more of whatever than is allowed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
