[quote]Erasmus wrote:What do you mean with development of capitalism? I thought it was based upon the peaceful exchange of goods and services. If that principle is applied here and now, or 500 years back, it’s essentially the same.
I think what you mean is that the policies of the governments towards the economy has changed, and for the worse.[/quote]
No, this is the simplistic conspiracy theory that the Libertarians fall into. Many things about the economy change with progress, such as the size and importance of various industries, employment levels, levels of mechanization, concentration of capital, the extent of the financial sector, etc. It is these things to which I am referring.
[quote]First I must remind you that in this world, there is NO FREE TRADE! (in general) If you think that capitalism has broken down, or that “free trade” as trade is conducted right now, has failed the world, look again. We live in a time of economical fascism. The state making rules and regulation to benefit the big business and to fuck over the little guy.
I’m not going in to detail here, but because of government regulations and taxation, they have perverted the structure of production.[/quote]
And you continue headlong into the conspiracy. Denying the palpabl truth about the situation, and pretending that the market cannot fail leads you to say some very silly things. You totally ignore the fact that the reason for government intervention is market failure in one form or another. Regulating society via the market mechanism is not conducive to stability, and so populations resist it. The fact that pure capitalism does not exist anywhere is precisely due to this reason–you cannot run a society in a pure market fashion, and attempts to do so quickly fail, or are watered down. When the market was much freer of regulation, we had 16+ hour days for subsistence wages, child labor, numerous deaths due to poor workplace safety, and frequent depressions. This is all conveniently glossed over anf forgotten by Libertarians.
[quote]I’ll give you another example.
The bank-bailouts. In a free society, those who fuck up, need to pay the price and lose a bunch of money.
In this bullshit country, and your bullshit country, the big boys who fuck up can lay the check at the taxpayers feet!
The ONLY REASON that is possible, is because of economical fascism![/quote]
Sorry to tell you, but there is no way to remain consistent in your view here no matter which option you pick. If you bail them out, then your criticism applies–taxpayers must foot the bill for the bankers’ short-sightedness (actually, bankers’ screw-ups had less to do with it than you might think). If you don’t bail them out, you plunge into depression and millions more are thrown out of work and have their lives disrupted. Wall Street really is correct when they say that their health is critical to the health of the economy as a whole, even if not for the reasons they say.
The point is, either way a bunch of people are punished for the mistakes of the frew. The obvious solution is not to let the banks run things, but seize that property and manage it democratically for the good of the public.
[quote]This is not free market!
This is economical fascism!!
The STATE IS UNSUSTAINABLE! Perverting the structure of production is UNSUSTAINABLE! I think your error, and Marx’s error lies here.
Free trade is sustainable as hell, only if you let it be free. ( my brains are working hard to look for proof that the free market is sustainable, don’t worry, i hope i will find some proof for it haha)[/quote]
The reality is exactly the opposite. Look at the 50s and 60s in the US–they were much more stable and delivered better growth than the 80s and 90s, because the state maintained stability. The loosening of restrictions on financial institutions and business in general brought about a new era of instability. This is readily reflected in statistics, and the volatility of recent decades. In truth, a pure free market stopped being sustainable a long time ago, and you will continue to see more state intervention to stabilize capitalism, at least in the short to moderate term. Think about it: why are there no free markets, if they are so obviously superior? Especially since everyone abhors state control and interference, why is there so much of it? It is because, despite the rhetoric, when push comes to shove, the state will forsake ideology and do what is necessary to save the system. Witness the bailouts–Republicans (and Democrats too, but they are known as lovers of government) decried them and are using them as a political cudgel against Democrats, but they voted for them, too.
Marx’s insight was that capitalism itself undermines its stability and distorts the production process.
[quote]Here is a continuum.
Free market --------------- fascism --------------communism (total state)
good --------------------really bad--------------really really bad and unsustainable[/quote]
Actually, communism is the absence of any state at all.
There is no way to empirically show that socialism doesn’t work. There are very few examples of actual socialism, and all that I know have been successful. The closest argument you could make would be that government-controlled economies don’t work, but that’s a no-go too, since the Soviet Union progressed far faster and more efficiently than we did, as did Japan and other Asian economies, and China is currently embarrassing us.
I’ll give you a chance to correct yourself, since it sounds like you just parroted this from Rush Limbaugh’s show today–it certainly has no empirical strength.
The Post Office has made a profit for years. Internationally, single-payer health systems are more efficient and produce better outcomes. These are just two examples of how you’re wrong. Try again.
What you don’t understand (or rather, probably never even bothered to think about) is, either way, government-run or privately-owned, it is the owners who have the financial incentive, but it is not the owners who do the work. In both cases, the vast majority of the actual organizing and work is done by workers who are paid a salary or an hourly-wage. “Fianncial incentive” does absolutely 0 for the day-to-day operations of the company.
Oh yes, the system that says “you should be entitled to the product of your labor” is coercive and vile, but the system that says “you can’t earn a living unless you agree to fork over a part of your paycheck to a guy who does nothing” is just peachy.
Socialism “blackmails” people who don’t think for themselves, but here you are spouting off asinine arguments that were disproven over 50 years ago. Who’s really lying to himself here?
But you have no way to explain why this intervention has ocurred, other than your laughable conspiracy theory. “Those politicians want to CONTROL EVERYTHING YOU DO!! They’re evil and they wear black capes and have secret lairs!”
As do I, because the faster free market reforms are put in place, the faster capitalism will collapse.
Oh, you’re very deluded. However, you have a chance to exchange error for truth. But you have to be so honest with yourself that it hurts.
