You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Socialism Sucks #1
Simple economic principles prove this point over and over again
Most of the attempts have been bombed into submission by crapitalust bombs.
https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/
Capitalism is not a system of governance. It is simply a word used to describe a free market system working without interference. It is naturally anarchistic. There is currently no capitalism present anywhere in the world, because there is not a place where a free market currently exists.
Anarchism works, as long as people know that capitalism is not the problem. In an anarchist society, anyone is free to form a commune, as long as that commune is based on voluntary principles and doesn't strip people of their liberties (as they have done in the past). In an anarchist society, anyone is free to start a business, and create wealth and capital that will benefit all who take part in free trade. The failures of so-called "anarchism" have been due to the fact that anarchism has always been founded under socialist principles, which is why they have never succeeded. Socialism is an involuntary system, and it will never obtain the full support of the people.
Those markets inevitably devolve into rule by force.
The havenots are at the mercy of the haves.
Not historicaly accurate.
Proudhon and bakunin both originated anarchism and hated socialism because it required rule by force and therefore contradicted anarchist principle.
If you care to do the reading go here: theanarchistlibrary.org, look for the author link at the bottom, pj proudhon and m bakunin.
Yep, socialism sucks, for sure.
Communism is much better.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
This is entirely false. Free trade is not free trade if the deal does not benefit both parties. Like I said in a previous post a few months ago;
There will be wealth inequality, guaranteed, however the rich person still relies on the poor for trades and services, and the poor still rely on the rich for trades and services. If force is applied by either party, it is not capitalism, it is not free.
Also, how have communists come to relate imperialism and trade by force with capitalism? Just something I don't understand. They are completely incompatible.
You have a warehouse full of food.
I have hunger.
How long do the other crapitalusts let you stay in business if you give me food?
The choice between exploitation through wage slavery and starvation is not freely made.
What happened in russia wasnt communism.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
A capitalist has a warehouse full of food. There is demand for food. The capitalist sells the food because he know he is making a profit. But wait, there is a competitor! The food retailers lower their prices to compete with each other, to make more profit. The people are now supplied with massive amounts of food at very cheap prices, they are no longer hungry.
I don't see how you can't understand this extraordinarily simple concept. Who wins in this situation? The capitalist food retailers are making a profit, therefore giving them the opportunity to invest in their own business and continue to supply food to civilians. The civilians are able to easily afford food now, not to mention apply for new jobs that have been created in the food retail industry. Its called free trade, and no one ever loses.
Lol, the worker and the consumer both lose, the crapitalust takes profits from both.
https://steemit.com/economics/@freebornangel/3ha4aa-keep-working-stop-paying-17
How is it losing if someone profits from providing a good/sevice to the people who now have what they need. If the capitalist wasnt there, there would be less jobs also. Competition keeps prices low, and drives technological advancement so that the good can be provided at an even cheaper price.
The capitalist is incentivised to do all of this because he is chasing the profits. He can't afford to rip off his customers, because they wont buy from him. The capitalist relys on the people, and the people rely on the capitalist. We cant just all work in a rice field and expect a better result.
The work exists outside the management style.
Try this on for size, it was excluded from your education because the crapitalusts dont need you getting uppity.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Just a note here that wage rates are a social construct. Therefore 'wage slavery' is inherently a leftist construction that exploits.
I dontbcare about the who or how we label things, just a more equitable distribution of efficiency gains.
The average worker turns out far more stuff and still lives in hovels.
There hasn't been anything more equitable distribution efficiency gain than having each produce own what they produce. Everything is less equitable if that is modified.
How does that work in a car factory or slaughter house?
Individual shops are too inefficient to mass produce consumer economy levels of goods.