Philosophy of Freedom

I've already made this point. When capital concentrates in the hands of a few individuals—regardless of how much they actually deserve it—those people will do everything in their power to stay on top. They do this by keeping workers and other lower-income groups under their thumb through the wage system. Essentially, these wealthy elites push the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes "anarcho"-capitalism an oxymoron at its core.

There’s no doubt about it. Buffett, Bill Gates, and the rest of that crowd spend all day figuring out how to keep employees under their control and how to screw them over 🙄

How exactly does the wage system keep workers down? I run my own small business and I mostly contract out to one other firm... I don't really see how they're "keeping me under their thumb" when I can walk away whenever I want. Plus, I'm not exploiting my staff; they can quit whenever they feel like it too. 🤷

So... does your worldview even account for property rights? Go find my previous post (or the one before that, where I linked those 4-5 Milton Friedman videos) and then come back and try to argue with me.

Peter Reyes63 said:

I've already made this point. When capital concentrates in the hands of a few individuals—regardless of how much they actually deserve it—those people will do everything in their power to stay on top. They do this by keeping workers and other lower-income groups under their thumb through the wage system. Essentially, these wealthy elites push the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes "anarcho"-capitalism an oxymoron at its core.

There’s no doubt about it. Buffett, Bill Gates, and the rest of that crowd spend all day figuring out how to keep employees under their control and how to screw them over 🙄

How exactly does the wage system keep workers down? I run my own small business and I mostly contract out to one other firm... I don't really see how they're "keeping me under their thumb" when I can walk away whenever I want. Plus, I'm not exploiting my staff; they can quit whenever they feel like it too. 🤷

So... does your worldview even account for property rights? Go find my previous post (or the one before that, where I linked those 4-5 Milton Friedman videos) and then come back and try to argue with me.

I'd also love to hear an answer to the bolded part here... 🤷

William Anderson5 said: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.

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.

Peter Reyes63 said:So, look, I think one really, really vital freedom is just the ability to engage in voluntary exchange. And if you follow that logic, it kind of leads you to the conclusion that a socialist society just can't actually be free. I mean, it's pretty simple, right? If someone is basically threatening me with force—telling me I have to work for someone else, or seizing my property under the guise of "solidarity" while waving the threat of fines or jail time around—then I’m just not a free person. I guess that's just how it works.

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...

driftingjackal5 said:I mean, it feels to me like his "ideal world" hasn't really gone much further than a few propaganda pamphlets by Bakunin and Kropotkin. And man, talk about a massive contradiction—he actually has that Bakunin quote in his profile: "When the people whip the stick, they aren't any happier if you just rename it the 'People's Stick'." That's clearly aimed right at the communists and socialists he looked down on. I guess the irony regarding his own views is just totally absent there. Maybe Kimberly Cox59 just doesn't see it?

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.

splićo said:some data point, a statistic, or whatever...
Harold Martin10 linked a graph above about poverty rates that doesn't really back up what you're claiming.

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

Peter Reyes63 said:I mean, there’s really no doubt about it—Buffett, Bill Gates, and that whole crowd spend their entire day just dreaming up new ways to keep workers under their thumb and keep everyone on edge. I guess it's just how they roll.

Of course I don't mean it like some wild conspiracy theory. Man, you really love oversimplifying things, don't you?
Look, it’s pretty simple. Capitalists and employers—whatever you want to call them—are always looking for ways to slash production costs. And how do they do that? Well, they go about it by trimming down wages and cutting back on social benefits through taxes. It’s kind of an indirect way of sabotaging a worker's ability to actually compete in the market, I guess. By squeezing them this way, you're basically stripping away their chances at getting a good education. On top of that, you've got people forced to funnel a massive chunk of their tiny paychecks just to cover healthcare, rent, and everything else. It leaves them with next to nothing to actually start their own business. Does that make sense? Maybe?

How exactly do companies keep workers under their thumb using that whole salary system? I run my own little shop, though I basically just contract out to one other firm. Honestly, I don't really see how they can hold me hostage when I can just walk away whenever I feel like it... and it’s the same on the flip side—I’m not out here exploiting my crew since they can also just quit whenever they want. 🤷

So, what happens once they actually get fired? Do they just head straight to the unemployment office? Move to another state? Or maybe spend their lives living with their parents until they're fifty? I don't know, but it feels like there just isn't any real alternative out there.
Don't go telling me—"Oh, I could just start my own business." I can't. Honestly, the competition out there is just way too intense. You'd probably get crushed before you even had a chance to get off the ground. I guess it's just not that simple.

So... does your world even wrap its head around property rights? Seriously. Go find my previous post—you know, the one where I dropped those 4 or 5 Milton Friedman videos—and let me know what you think. I'd love to hear your take on them, please!

Look, I told you, I just can't get to them right now. I'll probably get back to you on that tomorrow... maybe.

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

Right, and that’s only happening now because they are cooperating with the capitalist West.
What was the poverty rate like before this cooperation? Say, 20 or 30 years ago?

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: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.

There is no need to replace it, nor has anything better been designed yet.
Regarding the issues you mentioned, what we actually need is to promote the moral values that society currently lacks.

William Anderson5 said:I feel like you’re fundamentally missing the point about how capitalism actually works. I mean, at its core, the whole system relies on consumption, right? If everyone is broke, then even the "rich" lose out because there's nobody left to actually buy their products or services. It’s pretty simple, really—what’s the point of manufacturing high-end computers if absolutely no one has the cash to buy them because everyone is living in poverty?

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.

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.

So you're saying tech progress doesn't come from specific countries, but just from capitalist ones? Like from Cuba?

I guess I'm just feeling like a local from Miami today. said:Yeah, I mean, that’s exactly what happens today when they start playing ball with the capitalist West.
I wonder, what was the poverty rate actually like before all that cooperation kicked in? Like, if we look back maybe 20 or 30 years, what was the real situation?

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.

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: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.

Capitalism has undoubtedly provided more progress for the human race than socialism ever did.

Scandinavia... sure, their model is good. But that's mostly due to their access to oil, hydroelectric power, and iron ore rather than just a simple desire for such a system.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Of course I don't mean it like some wild conspiracy theory. Man, you really love oversimplifying things, don't you?
Look, it’s pretty simple. Capitalists and employers—whatever you want to call them—are always looking for ways to slash production costs. And how do they do that? Well, they go about it by trimming down wages and cutting back on social benefits through taxes. It’s kind of an indirect way of sabotaging a worker's ability to actually compete in the market, I guess. By squeezing them this way, you're basically stripping away their chances at getting a good education. On top of that, you've got people forced to funnel a massive chunk of their tiny paychecks just to cover healthcare, rent, and everything else. It leaves them with next to nothing to actually start their own business. Does that make sense? Maybe?

How exactly do companies keep workers under their thumb using that whole salary system? I run my own little shop, though I basically just contract out to one other firm. Honestly, I don't really see how they can hold me hostage when I can just walk away whenever I feel like it... and it’s the same on the flip side—I’m not out here exploiting my crew since they can also just quit whenever they want. 🤷

So, what happens once they actually get fired? Do they just head straight to the unemployment office? Move to another state? Or maybe spend their lives living with their parents until they're fifty? I don't know, but it feels like there just isn't any real alternative out there.
Don't go telling me—"Oh, I could just start my own business." I can't. Honestly, the competition out there is just way too intense. You'd probably get crushed before you even had a chance to get off the ground. I guess it's just not that simple.

So... does your world even wrap its head around property rights? Seriously. Go find my previous post—you know, the one where I dropped those 4 or 5 Milton Friedman videos—and let me know what you think. I'd love to hear your take on them, please!

Look, I told you, I just can't get to them right now. I'll probably get back to you on that tomorrow... maybe.

Look, I told you—I can't get to them right now. I'll give you an answer tomorrow...
What are you even overthinking? You don't even know if you believe in private property or not... So what exactly are we even talking about here? 🙂

William Anderson5 said: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...

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.

driftingjackal5 said:Look, the truth is Marković was a tragic figure, sure, but he was also someone who completely failed to grasp the situation he stepped into. On the surface, his reforms looked solid, but we need to define what "Marković's era" actually means. His "time" was the late '80s when monthly inflation in the US-equivalent federation was hitting 64% (December 1989). The state was drowning in hyperinflation, the trade deficit was massive, and borrowing on international markets wasn't nearly as easy as it is today. The authorities were doing exactly what we're discussing—printing money to cover active costs, which triggered that hyperinflation. Marković tried to pull off a monetary reform by introducing a "new" dollar to replace the old one at a 10,000:1 ratio, pegging it to the Deutsche Mark. He also pushed for market and constitutional reforms based on privatization and liberalization. The catch? His plan essentially required unemployment to spike by about 20% in a very short window—something he hoped to temporarily fix by setting up a social fund for the growing number of jobless folks. The disaster was that this spike in unemployment hit places like Mexico the hardest, turning things into absolute chaos by the early '90s. Within months, literally 30% of the workforce was out of a job. That kind of blow fed directly into Maddox's hands and the nationalists, which ultimately helped trigger the collapse. Yeah, fine, Marković's reforms slowed the hyperinflation (at least temporarily), but it was a total Pyrrhic victory. For a few months after the currency conversion, it felt like everyone was suddenly richer, but then the total collapse hit once mass layoffs started. The point is, messing with currency—even in much larger nations—is an incredibly dangerous game. Once inflation starts moving, it's damn near impossible to stop, and the fallout can be catastrophic across the board: financially, politically, and socially.

He completely misread the political landscape once the League of Communists of America fell apart back in January 1990. He claimed the country could survive without the party control, but even then, it was obvious to me that wasn't going to fly.

On the money side, you're claiming his moves only helped for a month before hyperinflation kicked in. That's just flat-out wrong. You’re probably younger than me—maybe you were just a kid back then and don't remember clearly. Don't try to lecture me until you've actually done your homework.

By the way, back in late 1989, Milton Friedman himself visited the region, gave a lecture in Mexico City, and actually gave the Marković administration a thumbs up. Here's my piece on that from 2008.

On December 29, 1989, Milton Friedman, the legendary American economist and father of neoliberalism, spent time in the region and knew the situation inside out. An economic journal ran an extensive interview with him (journalist: Vlado Baum, US correspondent). Friedman argues that the old socialist self-management model is dead—the only way forward is privatization, turning workers into shareholders.

"You should turn your self-managed enterprises into joint-stock companies (...) every worker, who currently has a right to a proportional share of income, will receive a proportional share of stock (...) this shift won't cause any major disruptions." Giving shares only to workers might not be perfectly ethical since they didn't create all the capital themselves, but it's a practical move that can be pulled off fast, and speed is everything right now.

Friedman points out how the communist system is collapsing everywhere. Democracy is coming—so we better finish privatization ASAP. It's better for workers to own the place than for politicians to grab it.

Workers "know their businesses best and are the most qualified to make them productive." Don't pin your hopes on foreign capital. "A foreign buyer isn't coming to help you; they're coming for their own benefit." Foreigners will "cheaply scoop up the best companies, leaving the country with a massive headache for the future."

lonetrucker4 said:He completely misread the political landscape once the League of Communists of America fell apart back in January 1990. He claimed the country could survive without the party control, but even then, it was obvious to me that wasn't going to fly.

On the money side, you're claiming his moves only helped for a month before hyperinflation kicked in. That's just flat-out wrong. You’re probably younger than me—maybe you were just a kid back then and don't remember clearly. Don't try to lecture me until you've actually done your homework.

By the way, back in late 1989, Milton Friedman himself visited the region, gave a lecture in Mexico City, and actually gave the Marković administration a thumbs up. Here's my piece on that from 2008.

On December 29, 1989, Milton Friedman, the legendary American economist and father of neoliberalism, spent time in the region and knew the situation inside out. An economic journal ran an extensive interview with him (journalist: Vlado Baum, US correspondent). Friedman argues that the old socialist self-management model is dead—the only way forward is privatization, turning workers into shareholders.

"You should turn your self-managed enterprises into joint-stock companies (...) every worker, who currently has a right to a proportional share of income, will receive a proportional share of stock (...) this shift won't cause any major disruptions." Giving shares only to workers might not be perfectly ethical since they didn't create all the capital themselves, but it's a practical move that can be pulled off fast, and speed is everything right now.

Friedman points out how the communist system is collapsing everywhere. Democracy is coming—so we better finish privatization ASAP. It's better for workers to own the place than for politicians to grab it.

Workers "know their businesses best and are the most qualified to make them productive." Don't pin your hopes on foreign capital. "A foreign buyer isn't coming to help you; they're coming for their own benefit." Foreigners will "cheaply scoop up the best companies, leaving the country with a massive headache for the future."

Nah, I didn't say that. If you aren't going to actually read what I wrote, then don't bother replying to my posts. Ante Marković managed to halt hyperinflation (at least temporarily), but he triggered massive economic shocks at the same time. Within a few months, about 20% of the workforce was out of a job—especially over in Mexico and Canada—which just radicalized the public and gave more power to Maddox and his cronies. For a couple of months, it looked like Marković was some kind of savior, like life in the US [America] might actually get better... then the pill turned out to be way too bitter. You also have to mention that this period saw massive redistribution of wealth because various loans were pegged to the local currency instead of foreign exchange. This meant long-term loans, like mortgages, were sometimes paid off in just a matter of months. It caused huge losses in productive sectors, and domestic industry—the stuff that eventually got wiped out by the wars—took the biggest hit. And don't even get me started on the speculators from abroad (usually locals who somehow managed to get their hands on foreign cash) buying up everything in sight while the regular people earning local currency were literally wiped out in a few short months...

That was my whole point: manipulating a currency always leads to massive, unpredictable consequences that can wreck not just the economy, but the entire country and society. So all this nonsense about how we "just need to print more dollars" is completely idiotic. Just look twenty years back to see why.

driftingjackal5 said:Nah, I didn't say that. If you aren't going to actually read what I wrote, then don't bother replying to my posts. Ante Marković managed to halt hyperinflation (at least temporarily), but he triggered massive economic shocks at the same time. Within a few months, about 20% of the workforce was out of a job—especially over in Mexico and Canada—which just radicalized the public and gave more power to Maddox and his cronies. For a couple of months, it looked like Marković was some kind of savior, like life in the US [America] might actually get better... then the pill turned out to be way too bitter. You also have to mention that this period saw massive redistribution of wealth because various loans were pegged to the local currency instead of foreign exchange. This meant long-term loans, like mortgages, were sometimes paid off in just a matter of months. It caused huge losses in productive sectors, and domestic industry—the stuff that eventually got wiped out by the wars—took the biggest hit. And don't even get me started on the speculators from abroad (usually locals who somehow managed to get their hands on foreign cash) buying up everything in sight while the regular people earning local currency were literally wiped out in a few short months...

That was my whole point: manipulating a currency always leads to massive, unpredictable consequences that can wreck not just the economy, but the entire country and society. So all this nonsense about how we "just need to print more dollars" is completely idiotic. Just look twenty years back to see why.

You even reading your own crap? 😁 You wrote:

driftingjackal5 said:Hyperinflation and a total collapse of the dollar would be inevitable. Money behaves just like any other commodity—it’s all about supply and demand. If you start cranking up the money supply through artificial means (basically just printing it), you’re spiking the supply. Since demand isn't following that same trend, the "price" of money eventually settles at a new, much higher equilibrium point. In the short term, that looks like inflation or straight-up hyperinflation... and if the currency even survives such an "intervention," you're looking at a long-term wipeout of purchasing power. Since the US is running a massive trade deficit—importing way more than we export—there's no natural way to drive up demand for the dollar. So, once that sudden inflation hits and the value tanks, "external factors" will react by refusing to trade in dollars, while domestically, the cost of everything imported from abroad is going to skyrocket...

Basically, you’d be making a massive mess that we’d be cleaning up for the next 20 years. Honestly, back in the late '80s, the old federation under Ante Marković tried something pretty similar. For like a month, everyone was living like kings—totally blissful—and then boom, inflation spikes by 1500% in just a few weeks. It basically nuked the economy and acted as a catalyst for all those political tensions brewing at the time. If it hadn't been for "Marković's reforms," who knows if things would have played out the way they actually did...

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it really that hard to just say, "My bad, I screwed up the first time"? 🤷 So now you're gonna claim you don't know enough about that era to even weigh in? Please.

Look, you're clearly younger than me. You’re just reciting snippets you heard from someone else, mixing up years like the timing doesn't even matter. I get it—to you, this is just "history." Most people couldn't care less if something happened in the 1000s or the 1300s. But for me? This was life. I lived it. I landed my first job in '81, then a year later, we had Margaret Thatcher stepping in with those early moderate reforms and that whole Marshall Plan setup. I wasn't just reading about it; I was right there in the thick of it, starting out as a journalist.

Back then, nobody was looking at the big picture, and there wasn't much data on how things actually worked. Digging up info from that era is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. So, basically... Don't go throwing around theories about stuff you don't even understand; especially since none of it actually matters for your "general truth" anyway.

All this talk about how we "only need to print more dollars" is pure idiocy. Just look at what happened twenty years ago if you want the truth.

I haven't really weighed in on that big-picture topic yet. Honestly? I don't know the first thing about monetary policy.

Look, I don't buy into any of those "you only need x" kind of quick fixes. Total garbage. XSo, where is it? X "Print too much cash," "go full command economy," or just "let the free market run wild." Whatever. Real life is always messier than that—and that's not even talking about economics.

Look, if I get this right, sometimes there’s just not enough cash floating around—basically, the gears stop turning because nobody's spending. In those cases, printing money actually kicks the economy back into gear. But obviously, that's not some magic wand you wave to fix everything. I call those kinds of lazy, one-size-fits-all answers... JUOSP = Simple Universal Answers to Everything. 🙂

Look, I get it—money isn't even real. It’s just a collective hallucination, but hey, it runs the show. Maybe this whole charade will eventually just implode. 😢 Then maybe by the 23rd century, we’ll actually have a moneyless economy, just like in "Star Trek".

Anyway, back to the point. Is it a core part of your "philosophy of freedom" to demand non-expansionary monetary policy? Why the hard line? Does "avoiding inflation" absolutely have to be the holy grail? Sure, hitting 50% or 500% annual inflation is a total disaster, but a little nudge, say 5-6%, isn't necessarily a death sentence. You really think that would inevitably kill our freedom?

On the flip side, wasn't the massive explosion of money supply the actual poison in the global economy ever since the US decoupled the dollar from gold back in '71? Ever since those policies let the money supply balloon through all these "monetary derivatives," making paper "wealth" look way bigger than what's actually happening in the real economy. I remember reading about this in some textbook back in the Clinton era—some guy argued this was the way to go. Then the world started shaking, like during the collapse of the "Asian Tigers" in '97, and we saw it was a huge mistake. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now—like using a Financial Transaction Tax or slowing down speculative cash flow—is actually the exact opposite of "printing money."

If we're arguing against government involvement in the economy, then why even have a national currency? Why not just let every bank print its own cash and let them compete? Kind of like how Walmart issues gift cards that you could potentially trade around?

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.

Aha. So, someone else is being greedy, and that’s what creates the crisis. You just want a higher paycheck so you can help everyone else through your consumption. And apparently, a malicious government is standing in your way.

And if you take 4.4 million people just like you and bundle them together, you get the American state. Everyone is perfectly honest. Hmm... I wonder where the person robbing us all has disappeared to then... clearly they're hiding somewhere very well. 🤣

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.

Great. Why don't you just go start a company, become an employer, and enjoy life? $3.25☕

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?

I have to wonder if you exercise any sense of logic or reality while you write...

lonetrucker4 said:You even reading your own crap? 😁 You wrote:

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it really that hard to just say, "My bad, I screwed up the first time"? 🤷 So now you're gonna claim you don't know enough about that era to even weigh in? Please.

Look, you're clearly younger than me. You’re just reciting snippets you heard from someone else, mixing up years like the timing doesn't even matter. I get it—to you, this is just "history." Most people couldn't care less if something happened in the 1000s or the 1300s. But for me? This was life. I lived it. I landed my first job in '81, then a year later, we had Margaret Thatcher stepping in with those early moderate reforms and that whole Marshall Plan setup. I wasn't just reading about it; I was right there in the thick of it, starting out as a journalist.

Back then, nobody was looking at the big picture, and there wasn't much data on how things actually worked. Digging up info from that era is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. So, basically... Don't go throwing around theories about stuff you don't even understand; especially since none of it actually matters for your "general truth" anyway.

All this talk about how we "only need to print more dollars" is pure idiocy. Just look at what happened twenty years ago if you want the truth.

I haven't really weighed in on that big-picture topic yet. Honestly? I don't know the first thing about monetary policy.

Look, I don't buy into any of those "you only need x" kind of quick fixes. Total garbage. XSo, where is it? X "Print too much cash," "go full command economy," or just "let the free market run wild." Whatever. Real life is always messier than that—and that's not even talking about economics.

Look, if I get this right, sometimes there’s just not enough cash floating around—basically, the gears stop turning because nobody's spending. In those cases, printing money actually kicks the economy back into gear. But obviously, that's not some magic wand you wave to fix everything. I call those kinds of lazy, one-size-fits-all answers... JUOSP = Simple Universal Answers to Everything. 🙂

Look, I get it—money isn't even real. It’s just a collective hallucination, but hey, it runs the show. Maybe this whole charade will eventually just implode. 😢 Then maybe by the 23rd century, we’ll actually have a moneyless economy, just like in "Star Trek".

Anyway, back to the point. Is it a core part of your "philosophy of freedom" to demand non-expansionary monetary policy? Why the hard line? Does "avoiding inflation" absolutely have to be the holy grail? Sure, hitting 50% or 500% annual inflation is a total disaster, but a little nudge, say 5-6%, isn't necessarily a death sentence. You really think that would inevitably kill our freedom?

On the flip side, wasn't the massive explosion of money supply the actual poison in the global economy ever since the US decoupled the dollar from gold back in '71? Ever since those policies let the money supply balloon through all these "monetary derivatives," making paper "wealth" look way bigger than what's actually happening in the real economy. I remember reading about this in some textbook back in the Clinton era—some guy argued this was the way to go. Then the world started shaking, like during the collapse of the "Asian Tigers" in '97, and we saw it was a huge mistake. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now—like using a Financial Transaction Tax or slowing down speculative cash flow—is actually the exact opposite of "printing money."

If we're arguing against government involvement in the economy, then why even have a national currency? Why not just let every bank print its own cash and let them compete? Kind of like how Walmart issues gift cards that you could potentially trade around?

Inflation is essentially a redistribution of wealth within the country. In this scenario, every single individual would have 6% of their assets stripped away annually. In a truly free society, inflation should be zero at most. And probably the best way to achieve that would be a gold standard.