Posts by William Anderson5

Ten years behind bars. Sentence served. What a complete circus...

This is what it looks like when someone gets convicted solely for the events in Hrtkovac. They’ve probably already served their time by now. A classic Solomon-style ruling...

nimblemarlin6 said:Right... so, in your book, a specific way of organizing production that you happen to dislike is somehow equivalent to—well, let's be blunt—genital mutilation?

Let's look at some hypotheticals here. Imagine a country holds an election and a party wins that runs on a platform of supporting worker cooperatives and self-management.
Say the Green Party wins in America. Their platform isn't about seizing assets; it’s about fostering community-run cooperatives.
Who exactly are they stealing from?

It honestly feels like you're attacking even those kinds of hypothetical scenarios.

And then there's a real-world example—the Democratic Party in Greece is clearly a leftist organization.
In your view, is the Democratic Party just as evil as those extremists in Africa who mutilate children—meaning, would it be considered "moral" to invade Greece and liberate the Greek people from their legally elected government?

But what are you actually talking about? We basically live in that kind of system already. The government has every right to organize state-owned enterprises however they see fit. You can leave my private business alone, but when it comes to federal agencies, they do whatever they want. So, really, we're on the same page...

nimblemarlin6 said:Any individual out there who's a true believer in capitalism and free markets will tell you that nobody actually minds if people choose to manage themselves.

Nobody is stopping anyone from starting a business and running it however they see fit...

but...

here's the thing... if you had an election here in the US and a platform won that argued for reorganizing the entire national economy toward that model, what do you think would happen?
Suddenly, every major media outlet in the West would be painting that country as some kind of rogue dictatorship—they'd be rooting for its total collapse. And to make sure that actually happens, you'd see full-blown economic warfare, isolation from the global market, sanctions, or even worse—intelligence agencies orchestrating "grassroots" protests by "concerned citizens" to trigger a coup and topple the democratically elected government.

Why do you support certain corporate governance models while trying to ban others? Isn't it more democratic to let people run their businesses however they see fit? If someone wants the government to manage their company, they can sell it to the state. If workers want self-management, they can organize and manage it themselves...

Besides, where exactly would the money come from to compensate for the nationalization of private companies? Or are you just assuming you can strip me of everything I spent over ten years building without any compensation at all? Just walking in and seizing my business, I suppose...

Rachel Roberts6 said:I’m 100% with the bolded part here.
Looking at it that way, it makes me wonder why American capitalists always seem to target companies that used to operate under worker-management systems.
Like, why didn't Luke Rajic just start his dairy empire from scratch? Instead, he was basically handed Gold coin on a silver platter because of some "merit." Who knows, maybe a worker-run Gold coin would’ve ended up being even more successful than Rajic's version.

That’s the fundamental issue with restructuring and privatization. These messy processes are a byproduct and a symptom of socialism, not capitalism. You don't see this kind of thing happening in the USA, France, or the UK, yet it's everywhere in places like Ukraine and Russia.

Essentially, we're seeing how socialism paved the way for systemic corruption during periods of transition. In truly capitalist nations, there was no "transition" period, so there was no transitional crime to speak of...

Gary Martinez2 said:Just a quick question here.
Why does the capitalist class seem so threatened by worker cooperatives acting as competitors, yet they don't have any real issue with competition coming from other private corporations?

Well, why don't you try running things with some workers? Nobody is stopping you.

Actually, it’s quite the opposite—back when worker self-management held a monopoly on the economic order, private entrepreneurship was strictly forbidden. In a capitalist system, there's no ban on worker management. In the USA, you actually have several small to mid-sized companies successfully operating on cooperative principles. They decide on business direction through voting, elect their own supervisors for set terms, and things like that.

Under capitalism, worker self-management is just one way to run a company, and anyone can choose to do it. However, under socialism, entrepreneurship is prohibited. Your question assumes there are inherent restrictions on how a business is managed within capitalism, but those kinds of restrictions were mostly a feature of our old system of worker self-management.

So, really, the real question is why socialists and worker-managed systems find capitalists and entrepreneurs such a threat that they outlaw them, whereas capitalists don't mind self-management enough to ban it...

Kimberly Cox59 said:And then there was that whole period where she was actually working alongside the capitalist West. It’s kind of like how India has been collaborating with the West for the last few centuries, but now they've decided to pivot and redirect some of that revenue toward social welfare programs. I guess things just shift like that sometimes.
The Green Revolution was this massive turning point in how we handle food, and honestly, it’s pretty wild to think about. It wasn't just some small change; it was a complete overhaul of global agriculture through high-yield crops and better tech. I guess you could say it changed everything about how we feed billions of people. It really centered on things like new varieties of wheat and rice that were basically engineered to grow faster and bigger. They also leaned heavily into synthetic fertilizers and advanced irrigation systems. I mean, before this, farming was much more traditional, and suddenly, science stepped in to supercharge the whole process. There’s definitely two sides to it, though. On one hand, it prevented massive famines and boosted productivity like crazy—which is obviously a huge win. But on the other hand, maybe there are downsides we didn't see coming? Like the environmental impact or how it changed the way small farmers operate compared to big industrial operations. It's complicated, I suppose. Just a lot to wrap your head around!

I mean, things work so much better in places like Scandinavia, and honestly, they seem to be doing alright for themselves. I’m just saying, maybe a welfare state is a bit better than pure laissez-faire capitalism. Just my two cents, I guess! 🤷

I mean, look, where does actual technological progress really come from? Is it from some planned economy, or is it coming from capitalist ones? Like, what are we talking about here—Cuba? I guess you have to wonder.

There used to be the Soviet Union back in the day, too. Now, almost every single country has gone capitalist, so it feels like there isn't even an alternative left. But honestly, I guess that argument doesn't really hold much water just because of that.

I guess you could say those folks from the Kuban region have a pretty stellar pharmaceutical industry going on. It really seems like they're doing their part to push things forward.

Of course they do, because it's their primary export. They don't manufacture drugs because they're innovators; they do it because those products sell incredibly well in foreign markets, especially in developing nations, China, and Russia. If you look at the top 12 pharmaceutical giants globally, half of them are American, followed by two from Switzerland, two from the UK, and one each from France and Germany.

Jack Smith5 said:I wasn't talking specifically about America, which isn't exactly a capitalist stronghold anyway; I was talking about wages within the capitalist world at large.

I definitely need a computer, internet access, and an Android phone. And, what am I supposed to do now? I probably need a laptop too.

So? Go ahead and get them. There's zero issue there, especially if they're tools for your job. But let's call it what it is: pure vanity to swap out your phone every few months just because you can, without any actual reason, especially when we aren't seeing massive technological leaps or meaningful upgrades.

But what if people just... want to? Are you going to step in and ban them from doing that?

Kimberly Cox59 said:In the most absurd scenario, only the wealthy will be buying them, and honestly, that’s enough. I mean, the poor will just grab something cheaper that they actually need to survive—you know, stuff like food, housing, clothes, land, water, and all that. Capital will keep circulating, so don't sweat it. I guess it works out.

Whatever you say, man, but look—fifteen years ago, the average middle class family didn't have high-speed internet, a laptop, a smartphone, a DVD player, or hundreds of other gadgets sitting around. Nowadays, the typical American has all that stuff, and I guess it really does make life a whole lot better.

It’s wild to think that just 15 years ago, hardly anyone actually owned a personal computer, and DVDs felt like some distant future technology. I guess computers and smartphones would have become part of everyday life regardless of capitalism, much like how TVs and cars eventually did. Maybe things just move that way naturally.
I guess you could go on forever talking about how much those gadgets actually affect our quality of life... it's a huge debate, really.

The average person's material life is actually getting better. I mean, sure, there are plenty of problems—don't get me wrong—but the typical American has seen a real improvement in their living standards over the last 15 years. And honestly? It was the same story in the 15 years before that, and I guess it’ll probably stay that way for the next 15 years too.
There’s really no philosophy involved here. I mean, honestly, there isn't.

I mean, there isn't much philosophy to be found here, but I don't think capitalism is actually to blame. It’s more like technological progress itself, you know? Regardless of whatever political system we happen to be running, technology just moves on its own. Maybe it's just how things work.

But let's be real: technological advancement is almost always the direct result of capitalist entrepreneurship.
If you want proof, look at any major industry. Are they pulling their tech from old Soviet-era blueprints or Western innovation? Are smartphones being built with some hybrid Eastern bloc tech, or is it Western-driven?
Capitalism is what actually drives technical breakthroughs. The USSR could launch a rocket into space, sure, but they couldn't build a decent car to save their lives.
There’s a reason everyone wanted a Sony over something coming out of Moscow. Capitalism has undeniably fueled technological growth; that's just historical reality. Even back in the Middle Ages, the very foundations of what would become modern capitalism saw the rise of the Renaissance and humanism, unlike in places like Russia or the stagnant Ottoman Empire...

Kimberly Cox59 said:I mean, in a truly socialist society, nobody would actually be threatening anyone. It’s just that the whole idea got completely trashed by Lenin and his successors with their whole Gulag and Secret Police routine. A socialist society should work pretty simply, I guess, because people would actually see the fruits of someone else's labor for their own work. They’d realize that if they don't pull their weight, nobody else is going to work for them either. It's like a pure self-regulating system—you work for others, and others work for you. Honestly, the worst thing that could happen is that things stay just about the same. Free riders... man, they're everywhere, aren't they? I guess you could say they're just part of the deal, but still. It’s funny how that works. Maybe it's just human nature or something, who knows? Anyway, just a thought.But honestly, that’s just a tiny fraction of what the economy actually has to deal with. I mean, it's really just a small weight on the scale, if you think about it. Maybe it seems big, but compared to everything else? It's peanuts. I guess it's just one little part of the bigger picture.

Take the Spanish Civil War, for instance. In a few small communities back then, they actually managed to set up this incredible food distribution system based entirely on volunteers. It only took them a couple of months to get it running. I mean, according to that text—and I’m not even exaggerating here—it was so simple that if you needed supplies, you could basically just walk into the warehouse and grab what you needed. It sounds wild, but it happened.

I guess I’m assuming that Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't really account for property rights, which, you know, are pretty much the bedrock of freedom. Or am I totally off base here? Maybe I'm wrong. 😉

I mean, you're mistaken there. Personally, I don't think anyone should touch private property like your house, your car, or a vacation home. I guess individualism is actually a super important part of socialism—especially anarchism, for that matter.

I can't get around to watching that Milton Friedman video right now (my speakers are acting up). 🤣Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for now and catch you guys tomorrow...

So, why do you think I put that signature there, genius? I guess it's just my way of showing how much I can't stand those Stalinists and that whole crowd. They always seemed to have this weird fetish for anything labeled "people's." 😉

I probably could have gone with, "Freedom without socialism is just a privilege and an injustice, while socialism without freedom is nothing but slavery and brutality." I guess that fits pretty well with anarchist philosophy, anyway.

Whoops, you guys might have a point there. Sure, the poverty rate in India is dropping, but I guess that’s mostly thanks to government handouts for the poor rather than capitalism doing the heavy lifting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17441347

But where does the government get that money from? 🙄
Did they just print it? 🙂

And what happens when they lose their jobs? Head to the unemployment line? Rely on immigration? Live with their parents until they're fifty? There just isn't an alternative.

So you're saying there's no middle ground between working or being unemployed? Heh. I suppose you're right. There really isn't much of an alternative to those two options...

Jack Smith5 said:Aside from a few essentials, you don't really need much stuff in life. Honestly, you just need a house with the basics—closets, beds, tables, a bathtub, things like that—plus a car. That's pretty much it.

If you want a better quality of life, you might add a vacation spot, maybe a small plot of land, a computer, and a smartphone every few years when technology actually takes a significant leap forward, rather than every single month.

Everything else is just keeping up with the Joneses.

Capitalism provides way too many distractions that actually lower our quality of life; it makes people less satisfied with themselves and less communal, less human. Even if you can't ignore the overall rise in living standards, it’s about time we replaced capitalism with something better.

Do you know why a crisis is possible?
Because wages are low—way lower than the actual value of the labor being provided. If wages were higher, there would be more room for consumption, which stimulates production and helps avoid crises.

So, aside from other factors, crises are primarily caused by the greed of individuals and profiteers who pay the absolute minimum for others' labor while hoarding the lion's share for themselves and their shareholders. Consequently, the vast majority of people lack the funds to consume, leaving them entirely dependent on debt and the banks.
When the banks turn off the tap, that's when you get a crisis.

Everything would be fine if wages were realistic—meaning employers took a smaller cut, or at least the same amount as everyone else.

In my specific case, I'm paying lower wages because the government hammered me with taxes and surcharges, not because I’m greedy. If the state didn't meddle in my business so much, and if I didn't have to pay so much "for the good of society" (which is just code for about 120 different types of para-fiscal levies), wages would be higher. So, in my situation, lower wages are a byproduct of socialism (the state profits off my business) rather than capitalism (I'm not even making a massive profit here; I'm just trying to stay afloat)...

aside from a few essentials, you don't really need much material stuff in life. Honestly, all you need is a house with things like closets, beds, tables, tubs, and so on, plus a car. That's it.

Well, I personally need a computer, the internet, and an Android phone. And, what am I supposed to do now? I also need a laptop...

Kimberly Cox59 said:First off—you're quoting Marx, an anarchist, which just feels super fuzzy and confusing to me, I guess.
And another thing—you’re kind of forgetting that Marx and Engels actually believed all those measures you mentioned were just a temporary phase. They thought it was all leading toward eventually getting rid of the state entirely, along with all that central planning stuff. I guess they saw it as just a stepping stone.

Look, every single one of these points has already been tested out in one way or another across all those "non-communist" countries you keep talking about. Honestly, some of these ideas are actually being used right now in modern social-democratic nations. So, I guess maybe just stop nitpicking over stuff when it’s pretty clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about.

You haven't got a clue, honestly. I mean, if you had just taken a second to look up the actual dictionary definition of communism, you'd realize it’s supposed to be an idea for a society without... Class, the State, and Money.. ☕

I see the words popping up on the screen, but I’m honestly not seeing a single actual argument to back them up. Just saying "because I said so" isn't really an argument, I guess.

I feel like I've already laid this out before. Look, whenever capital—you know, the cash—starts piling up in the hands of just a few people, it doesn't really matter how much they actually earned to get there. Once they have that kind of weight, those individuals are going to do everything in their power to stay on top. And honestly? They’ll probably do it by keeping workers and everyone else struggling just to get by trapped within the wage system. Basically, these wealthy folks end up pushing the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit for themselves. To me, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes the whole idea of "anarcho"-capitalism feel like a total oxymoron at its core.

So, I mean, does being an anarchist actually mean you have to push back against every single hierarchy out there? Is authority really such a bad thing on its own? I guess we should think about experts and people who actually know what they're talking about. Even your favorite guy, Bakunin, writes that we should probably trust authorities that are actually justified. I mean, you wouldn't exactly ask a carpenter to fix your laptop, right? Or would you really want to listen to a psychologist when they start lecturing you on math? Probably not.

Thank God that’s not the case. I guess you might be having a little trouble distinguishing between legitimate authority and unjustified authority. To me, legitimate authority comes from actual expertise—think of a professor in a classroom, an architect overseeing a construction site, or a conductor leading an orchestra. You know, people who actually know their stuff. Unjustified authority is totally different. That’s just someone holding power because of their position, like a king, a priest, or some boss at a factory. They aren't necessarily experts in their field; they’re just sitting in a position of power and trying to hang onto it. Maybe that makes sense?

You fundamentally misunderstand how capitalism works. Capitalism is driven by consumption, and widespread poverty actually hurts the "wealthy" because there’s nobody left with the money to buy their products and services. What’s the point of manufacturing computers if everyone is too broke to buy them?
Whatever your argument may be, fifteen years ago, the middle class didn't have high-speed internet, laptops, smartphones, DVD players, or hundreds of other gadgets at their fingertips. Today, the average person owns all of this, and it significantly raises their standard of living. The material reality for the average American is improving. Sure, there are plenty of problems, but the typical person has seen an upgrade in their material conditions over the last fifteen years, just as they did in the fifteen before that, and just as they will in the next fifteen...
There isn't really any philosophy to be found here.

Jack Smith5 said:Look, the state would just have a specific agency dedicated to the task, and we’d still have independent judicial bodies to step in if subsidies started being handed out based on nepotism.

Plus, the way they handled funds would eventually come back to haunt them—especially regarding things like tax evasion or election interference. But I've said this before: I'm fundamentally against politicians running the show. They are quite possibly the least qualified people to be making these calls.

The moment the government starts spinning up specialized agencies and commissions to manage specific issues, you already know the outlook for those activities isn't great.
All those systems you're bringing up basically stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how an economy actually functions. Even if they managed to pull it off, it would just look like standard socialist central planning—which, as history has shown us repeatedly, is vastly inferior to a capitalist system...

Man, you sound just like Kim Jong-Il.
The idea that crowds of people would happily spend hours every week fixing roads with a smile on their faces... give me a break. Who’s actually going to force me to do that? If I have to do the work myself, then what am I even paying taxes for?

Sorry Jack Smith5, but you clearly haven't grasped the basics of economics.
You’re asking me questions that you could easily answer yourself if you had any genuine interest in the subject or had bothered to pick up a single introductory textbook...
First off, you don't seem to grasp how markets actually function, what money is and its purpose, how production works, or the nature of entrepreneurship. You lack an understanding of the role of banks and their operations—basically everything one picks up in an entry-level econ class.
You don't even realize that central planning has no place in economics; every system that attempted to operate that way has inevitably collapsed...

Jack Smith5 said:Yeah, well, value is generated by having capital to work with...

The government funds forward-looking projects to kickstart production, and from there, the market takes care of itself automatically.

Who’s going to know the government conjured that cash out of thin air, and how exactly is the market supposed to revolt against a move like that?

The market. It’ll eventually adjust to the influx of unbacked cash...

Jack Smith5 said:Alright, let's tweak the question slightly: what actually happens if money suddenly appears without any backing—basically, if nobody knows where it came from or how it was printed, obviously excluding the people who actually pulled the lever on the press?

I wonder what would actually happen if the market was suddenly flooded with ten times the amount of PlayStations currently in existence—all appearing out of nowhere, with nobody knowing where they came from, except for the people actually selling them...
I'm leaning towards thinking their value would drop, but what’s your take on it?...
A banknote is just another commodity, much like a PlayStation, and it’s subject to market forces that simply can't be controlled the way you seem to think they can...

The government essentially holds the right to manufacture and distribute capital by subsidizing whatever specific direction they want the economy to take. For instance, if the US decides to pivot heavily toward electric vehicles, they might just dump $3 billion into subsidies for the companies manufacturing them...

So, where exactly are you going to source the technology and machinery required to actually manufacture cars? That’s the real issue here. Even the massive global powerhouses, like China and Russia, are forced to hit the open market to buy Western tech. Russia isn't pulling oil out of the ground using its own proprietary tech, nor are Chinese factories churning out machines designed solely by Chinese intelligence. Without outside assistance, Russia wouldn't even be able to handle basic gas reserve research, and foreign corporations are constantly bringing their own specialized technology directly into China...
Go ahead, enlighten me then—how exactly do you plan on using that printed-up currency to build factories and churn out electric vehicles that actually stand a chance in the market, especially when almost everything you need has to be imported from overseas? Or are you going to waste everyone's time and money trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch, only to likely end up producing nothing but overpriced junk that wouldn't sell even here in the States? In other words, it’s pretty obvious your plan would fall apart before you even get started, and given how much money was just printed to fund it, the fallout would be catastrophic...

The state should exist above the individual, acting as a safeguard to ensure that those who actually work and earn a living aren't just being bled dry by banks focused on nothing but their own greed. Instead of looking out for everyone, the state needs to act more like a neutral moderator between its citizens and corporations...

Look, banks operate and they turn a profit. If you honestly think running a bank is some kind of impossible feat, nobody is stopping you from stepping up and doing it yourself. Go ahead—issue someone a mortgage with a 25-year term and start collecting interest. Besides, who else is going to lend money if banks didn't exist? Don't just sit there and tell me the government would step in. We both know the government would just hand out those loans based on political connections, family ties, or whatever other favoritism is currently in vogue. It’s much better to have a private bank professionally assessing risk and issuing credit than to leave it to the state, which would inevitably just burn through capital and create massive losses...

Jack Smith5 said:It’s wild to think that just a century ago, people didn't have even the basics, yet today we actually possess everything required to provide a comfortable life for EVERYONE on the planet. And what are we doing with that advantage? We’re just sitting here letting tyrants run the whole show.

Who exactly has enough to provide a comfortable life for everyone? Who am I supposed to get money from? Bill Gates? And based on what logic?
No thanks, I'll handle my own finances. As soon as I hear some hype about there being enough money for "everyone on Earth," I know exactly what that implies. I have no interest in being part of that. What I earn, I want to keep for myself and my family.
The reality is that a huge chunk of that wealth would just be "wasted" if you tried to redistribute it to everyone, because 99% of people wouldn't know how to manage the money they received. Within a few years, you'd just end up back where you started—with massive inequality and those "who rule over everyone."
They're just more capable...

People aren't actually capable of living autonomously in freedom. There needs to be some kind of guarantor for it, and that role ought to belong to the state. Freedom is little more than an illusion.
I’m convinced a significant portion of people would gladly sell their own freedom if slavery wasn't illegal. But to outlaw slavery, you first have to restrict someone's freedom to sell themselves. Therefore, limiting liberty is a necessity, and that requires a state presence.

Ah, yes, 21st-century human capitalism, featuring the widest wealth gap in history 🙄

Of course this is nonsense. The lower classes have never lived better than they do today. That's just a fact. Go back a hundred years and look at how the poor actually lived compared to how they live now...