Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

I am not against you. You make some good points.

But work is never entirely voluntary and most of us, if we could get our basic needs met, would work as little as possible. People don't work well unless they feel responsibility and reward for their work.

Capitalism is currently failing because the work force is losing both a feeling of responsibility and a loss of reward for the work they do. They are being replaced by machines and slaves.

But socialism is not a quick fix, we have more people than we need, and if the planet is to survive we need to do much less, produce much less, consume much less, reproduce much less. People don't do well in this scenario.

 

I agree with this. And to clarify, I don't believe my preferred system is perfect or the solution to all our problems. I'm not that naive. I just think it is a preferred system,

 

If that were the case, Id say socialism is the solution.

 

Voluntary Socialism can only exist in a capitalist free market. Cohersive capitalism is an oxy-moron.

As in my Voluntary Socialism thread, like minded socialist can and are free to practice their socialism freely in a free country. Run your businesses how you wish, establish your comunities how you wish, redistribute your incomes as you wish, but stay the hell out of my business.

 

There is nothing contradictory or incongruous about 'coercive capitalism'. The essential elements of capitalism are private ownership of the means of production and the production of goods and services for profit. Nothing more is necessary, and nothing found in the definition is prohibited. Henceforth, I see no reason why people attempt to denounce claims that capitalism is coercive when voluntary transactions is not an imperative factor. Furthermore, I see no reason for supporters of capitalism to do so. After all, Columbia University Political Science Professor Tanisha Fazal states that the most prosperous and stable of societies possess both capital and coercion. In other words, for a polity to avoid death, these two elements need to be maximized.

 

Did god himself create capitalism or something? It sure as hell sounds like it.

"Capitalists, make mistakes? Poppycock!"

Ah, but you capitalists will not allow us to remove our communities from your capitalist framework, will you?

 

So a farmer shouldnt sell his produce at a profit? Then why should he farm? Ditto a doctor? The only thing Adam Smith points out in his book is how wealth is created. At some point you can no more remove yourself from a capitalist frame work that you can remove yourself from the imperative to breathe and yet remain alive.

 

He should farm so that he and the community can eat. The doctor should be a doctor so he might keep himself and the community healthy.

The universe existed before profit. It will exist without it.

The only way for that to be true is if capitalism is inherent in the universe, and guess what?

It isn't.

 

Ah but it has been around as long as sapience. So the farmer and the doctor are but the community's slaves and all members of the community are no better than slaves of the all encomapssing community. Works great if you are not self aware.

 

Uhm...no it hasn't? How ridiculous.

Wow, that's so totally exactly what I said.

 

???? Voluntary transactions is a fundamental and required element of capitalism. Cant have a free market when exchange is mandated or prohibited

 

Any governing body is a 'state.' In primitive times, the 'state' may have been a tribal leader. It's still a governing body, even if not a modern one. The state isn't unique to modern times, but rather the MODERN state is a relatively recent development.

Top left of the post says the member's name. Top right says join date, and below that, their place of residence (I bounce around, but my country - the o'er here- stays the same.

 

I've notice you and some of the other socialists trotting the "capitalist framework" out a number of time. Basically someone will point out that in our system you are free to start a socialistic enterprise or commune. The USA at least has laws explicitly facilitating the co-ops and similar models. In some niches, there are employee owned enterprises operating today. Further in the past, especially in the midwest, there were many co-ops as family farms banded together create silos, power plants, health insurance companies, etc. Also at least in the past there were genuine communes here and there. In both of those cases people eventually decided they prefired the capitalistic system and would move out or sell their stake.

This indicates that, when given the freedom to choose, people choose capitalism. Although again it would seem if their preferences were truely otherwise, they would simply move toward socialistic/communistic models of living within our society.

Your response is then the "capitalistic framework". What do you even mean by that precisely? Especially in regards to people prefiring to sell their stakes when they already are in control of the means of production and are not in financial distress?

 

Not really. If you actually want to start your own voluntary socialist commune, you are free to. The Amish generally don't pay taxes, because they generally are self-sustaining and don't earn wages outside of their communities. Those who do earn wages outside of their communities (in American dollars) pay taxes. You can't have a voluntarily socialist commune and still expect government benefits.

On a sidenote - Amish generally don't believe in social security and other safety net programs, meaning that their taxes are signficantly less than that of normal citizens. The few Amish who do work outside of their communities tend to only pay individual income taxes (not social security, medicare, payroll taxes, etc.), all or most of which they get back anyways. But, of course, those who work outside of their community aren't actually living an entirely voluntarily socialist lives - they are choosing to work within our capitalist society.

So no, you are wrong. If you wish to live in a legitimately voluntarily socialist community, you are welcome to. I would even applaud you for it. The only socialist communities that are truly admirable are the ones that are voluntary, and I hold them in the highest regard.

 

The first sentence is incorrect. The second sentence requires clarification. A free market need not be capitalistic. The terms are not synonymous with one another. At the same time, a free market, or free market capitalism, is not devoid of coercion. In fact, the only descriptive element necessary for a free market is regulation of prices through supply and demand, rather than government regulation. In other words, there must be a free price system, but beyond that, coercion may exist.

Of course, there are variants of a free market and free market capitalism that require the minimization of coercion. We can call these economic systems 'laissez-faire'. With regards to capitalism, there are only two necessary elements: private ownership of the means of production, and production of goods and services for profit, nothing more, nothing less.

 

You guys can make "socialism" mean anything you want it to mean, but capitalism has a real world meaning. Competitive markets where people are free to make voluntary exchanges is a fundamental part of capitalism

 

No, nobody can, because - like capitalism - socialism has a set meaning. I gave it in this thread. I even gave an example of an actual socialist country that I disagreed with.

Why you keep ignoring this is beyond me.

 

Voluntary competitive market are essential to maximizing freedom within capitalism, but they are not fundamental to capitalism.

 

I'm not advocating anarchic capitalism. We are supposed to have a fairly regulated free market with rule of law.

This does not justify redistribution and improper government intrusions(F&F,FHA,Sallie Mae,Medicare,Obamacare,CRA). These intrusions have caused massive distortions, over-sized homes, low savings rates, a work force not suited for the needs of society, massive debts(student loans, mortgage) and excessive regulations costing us massive market share.

We have a massively tainted(by government) market place which is failing and the governments reaction is to twist the knife more.

 

*sigh* Redistribution of wealth is inherent in every economic system.

 

Well there is the redistribution that occurs through individuals freely engaging ion commerce and then there is the redistribution mandated and implemented by government. Reiver and Burczak's wealth tax is one mandated and implemented by government.

 

BINGO!

The OP is engaged in a false dichotomy.

he is comparing isolated socialism to state wide capitalism.


you need to compare both on a state wide basis or niether.

voluntary isolated communes like the omish or menonites are the product of a free capitalist system. so really the termanarcho-communism is redundant. you might as well just say anarchism.

 

actually they are. very much so. it is probably THE most fundamental aspect of capitalism....