Nope. But thanks for refusing to acknowledge reality and for trying to annihilate the distinction between the market and a government edict.
Your move.
Never. That’s letting the idiots win.
Ha ha! Boosh! Though in jest, Capitalism is a term made by Marx…we shouldn’t be aggrandizing that Communist crackpot
from a quick google trip :
The first use of the word “capitalism” in English is by novelist Thackeray in 1854, by which he meant having ownership of capital.
The Oxford English Dictionary (Vol II, p 863) locates its first usage in English in 1854 by William Makepeace Thackeray in his novel, The Newcomes.
Karl Marx published, in German, Das Kapital, in 1867 and subsequent translations introduced the word ‘capitalism’ to his readers some years later (Moscow’s ‘Marxist’ editors during the Soviet era ‘interpolated’ the new word of capitalism into his works as if Marx himself had written it).
I’m citing Thomas DiLorenzo’s How Capitalism Saved America
I have a few more nails. One day I will get around to blogging some of them.
Sometimes you know something is wrong but can’t put your finger on it.
That argument you made was a big turning point for me, because it exposed one contradiction that shifted my perspective to see a bunch more.
What do you call yourself? Ancap?
That’s a complete misrepresentation and non-sequitor. Nothing about what I’ve said annihilates that distinction, I’m merely rejecting your semantic obcession that insists on defining all “socialism” as being synonamous with government control.
No, it’s neither. Thanks for playing. Remember: intervention begets intervention, and there’s simply no way to have socialism without a government. Not. Possible. Believing otherwise is delusional at best. And as there’s a government, there will be interventions. And as everything is “socially owned”, there’s really no owner. Thus, no market.
Enjoy your lovely parting gifts.
I wish I could just call myself an individualist anarchist, but I’m really tired of all the baggage that comes with with the label. To hell with their opposition to “usury” and their crackpot banking ideas. Tucker was a good guy, but he lived in the friggin’ 19th century.
So yeah, ancap is probably the most apt label. I’m not against “corporations,” industrialism, or having to work for a living, so I don’t want to be associated with the left-anarchists. Screw egalitarianism. [H]
I would argue that many families have a socialist model - sharing household benefits duties, according to ability and need. The baby gets food and attention, but doesn’t do much else. The ten year old washes the dishes, the teen take out the garbage and uses the car, etc.
To BP’s point, though, there’s nothing in a free market that would prohibit the existence of a firm whose workers own the means of production and all share equally in the profits and losses. Such a firm, of course, would compete with other firms. I have no idea how this model would fair against other firms, but in any event, it would not need a government to create it - simply a number of individuals agreeing to share equally in the profits and losses of their business endeavor.
I somewhat agree; this only seems to remotely work with those that are biologically related to you, as per our genes, our biology influences us (at some level, the influence is not absolute) to help those most alike us (i.e. siblings, cousins, parents, etc.).
This is the only real world example of socialism I can remotely see working at all, but even then it breaks apart under different family organizations, if a family member dies, if a bloodline ends, etc.
Based on this, I hardly see how it would work to extend this sort of socialism (even voluntary) to others not in your genetic family, for even family members walk the line between love & hate, & are not always going to help one another out.
Quite honestly, the fact that the state likes to spout propaganda of “we’re all in this together”, & for the collective good makes me think that it’s to reinforce the familial sense of solidarity one has with siblings, parents, & relatives, but to other people in society you’ve never meet with, & therefore psychologically justifying collectivism where there should be no rational reason for one.
In a sense, replicating the only rational form of collectivism (the family) on to that of society at large, to the point where questioning the support of others in the “state” family becomes taboo.
Perhaps I am bringing forth yet another contradiction of Marxist theory but according to Marxists, the family unit is a source of individualism/egoism.that propogates the institution of private property. Yet here, perhaps the apex of capitalist thought the idea is actually the opposite. A provocative finding.
Well it depends, not every family engages in the same sort of degree of “familial socialism”; biologically, it’s in our nature to ensure the survival of our genes, which would include family to a certain point, & while families may be more forgiving with one another, there is a limit & it’s not always unconditional. There is also that genes provide influences, but not the entire factor (i.e. social influences).
This was one of the earlier ideas I came across that made me question the logic & sanity of forcing that type of familial collectivism (or genetic collectivism) upon people not related to you genetically & assuming it would still be successful. No doubt, some sort of informal socialism or understanding may develop with non-genetically related roomates, but never to the degree of those of familial relations.
(Even within such familial socialism, it is obviously not all wine & roses, & most certainly there are conflicts between siblings such as if Sibling A eats more of a “common” food that has not particular owner that Sibling B wanted more of, but the actual provider of the food may be Parent A or Parent B, & other such possible situations)
I could see that argument would be true in the way that an individual grows & develops with the aid of it’s family kind of way (i.e. the actual way a family unit would be a source of individualism & egoism), but what’s his actual argument?
Note: there’s no reason that this familiar socialism could also not be a familial capitalism, as parents with grown up children play less of the role of providers, and yet, each capitalistic actor within the family may still be encouraged to help one another in a socialistic way. It’s actually rather fascinating how much the family unit reflects the greater structure of The State itself. Not a coincidence, no doubt.
I was thinking earlier thurs that in a sense, family are our closest natural trading partners, assuming that we are all participating in a market every time we interact. They deal with the most intimate trades we make. Security, food, shelter, clothing etc. In this regard, a high level of trust evolves, not disassociated from the genetic aspect but parallel to it.
I would caution that you not paint the family as economic symbols for worry that a Marxist will skulk his/her way from the shadows trying to prove one of Marx’s predictions of the Communist Manifesto. I think family is one of our greatest influences on subjective thought during early years of development. Once you start establishing your own individuality, it is usually on the foundation that your family has established.
Those cranks will find a reason to make themselves known regardless.
I’m not scared of any marxists, I mean, look at you. You turned out alright. [:)]
Praise be to Lysander Spooner’s No Treason. It was presented to me in the Ron Paul Facebook group. I tried to post it there again a few weeks ago and no one even responded. By the way, is anyone’s forums tab screwing up?
Indeed, I didn’t mean do. I was trying to describe the economic activity within families.
Family members engage in market activity with other family members that are not entirely capitalistic, socialistic; in a word, mixed, based on familial collectivism & the inherent influence of genes for family members to look out for their own blood.
Familial relationships involve a level of intimacy & intuition that present such a distortion in favor for altruism (between family members), that it is second nature & hardly is noticed or questioned, except in extreme situations.
Such familial relationships do not exist on such a deep level amid people who are less & less related (i.e. adopted children to parents, neighbors, members of a town, members of a city, & upwards).
However, it’s never static, as children grow up to become individuals (as well as parents eventually grow older, less able, & die; family emergencies or events such deaths, births, etc.), so the economic activity changes to reflect this, methinks.
What on earth are you talking about? Is there some fictional world where Block or Hoppe advocate any of the above?
Amen.