So what form does the resistance take?

dudalb said:
THIS.
This is the problem I have with a lot of "Anti Capitalists" you ask them what they would replace a market based econcomy with and you don't get a good answer; usually a lot of glittering generalites.
Also there are vareity of capitialism; too often the Anti Capitialist seem to think that only Lasseiz Faire caitalism exists.
Click to expand...
You are just plain wrong that Capitalism has ANYTHING to do with a Market Economy.
Those are completely different things. A Market Economy exits in the presence or absence of Capitalism, and Capitalism can exist with or without a Market Economy.

This is just plain propaganda you have internalized that Capitalism=Free Market, when historically, the opposite is the case: if not held in check by strong institutions, Capitalism won't stop until it has created a monopoly or a monopsony - Adam Smith was fully aware of that.

Please be intellectually honest and see that you can be 100% pro-Free Market and 100% Anti-capitalist at the same time; that's actually a lot more congruent than being pro-Market And pro Capitalism.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
You are just plain wrong that Capitalism has ANYTHING to do with a Market Economy.
Those are completely different things. A Market Economy exits in the presence or absence of Capitalism, and Capitalism can exist with or without a Market Economy.

This is just plain propaganda you have internalized that Capitalism=Free Market, when historically, the opposite is the case: if not held in check by strong institutions, Capitalism won't stop until it has created a monopoly or a monopsony - Adam Smith was fully aware of that.

Please be intellectually honest and see that you can be 100% pro-Free Market and 100% Anti-capitalist at the same time; that's actually a lot more congruent than being pro-Market And pro Capitalism.
Click to expand...
Thats completely, laughably wrong.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Thats completely, laughably wrong.
Click to expand...
Nope - your indoctrination is showing.

Do you think that Markets didn't exist before Capitalism?
Can you name a Capitalist system that didn't require regular bailouts?
Adam Smith was horrified about the money the British government wasted on keeping the East India Company going, and was critical of Capitalism all his life.

I think you are confusing Capitalism vs Marxism with Market Economy vs State Directed economy.

Of course, a fully vertically integrated Company IS a State Directed economy.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Nope - your indoctrination is showing.

Do you think that Markets didn't exist before Capitalism?
Can you name a Capitalist system that didn't require regular bailouts?
Adam Smith was horrified about the money the British government wasted on keeping the East India Company going, and was critical of Capitalism all his life.

I think you are confusing Capitalism vs Marxism with Market Economy vs State Directed economy.

Of course, a fully vertically integrated Company IS a State Directed economy.
Click to expand...
Yet again (I think this came up in another thread). What you are advocating for is not what you think it is.

www.investopedia.com

Capitalism vs. Free Market: What’s the Difference?

Capitalism and a free market are two complementary economic theories, but in practice, many nations borrow elements of each system.
www.investopedia.com www.investopedia.com

Free market theory goes further. It maintains that the exchange of goods and services should be largely unhampered by government interference or regulation.

Theoretically speaking free market economies can only exist under capitalism. Its a pre-requisite. OTOH Capitalism exists in mixed economies. Most of the world is in a partially planned economy.
 
what a BS source. Pure Libertarian propaganda.

we have clear definitions:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers.

that is all.

Your source is plainly WRONG when it claims that "In both, the law of supply and demand is allowed to determine the goods and services that are produced and the prices that are charged for them."
The clearest, most basic expression of Capitalism is the Company Town. It's what happens when Capitalists get to make their own society, and what Musk &co want to bring back.

Let me ask you: in a place where a Single Capitalist provides all the goods and services, without any government, and is the single employer: is the Market setting the prices and wages, or the Capitalist? According to your source, such a system would be a Free Market.
And Capitalist System.

I suggest you read "A Libertarian walks into a Bear" to understand what happens when people think that "Free Market" means "no government".
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
what a BS source. Pure Libertarian propaganda.

we have clear definitions:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers.

that is all.

Your source is plainly WRONG when it claims that "In both, the law of supply and demand is allowed to determine the goods and services that are produced and the prices that are charged for them."
The clearest, most basic expression of Capitalism is the Company Town. It's what happens when Capitalists get to make their own society, and what Musk &co want to bring back.

Let me ask you: in a place where a Single Capitalist provides all the goods and services, without any government, and is the single employer: is the Market setting the prices and wages, or the Capitalist? According to your source, such a system would be a Free Market.
And Capitalist System.

I suggest you read "A Libertarian walks into a Bear" to understand what happens when people think that "Free Market" means "no government".
Click to expand...

Thats what happens in a free market! A free market is one free from regulation! You want a regulated market/mixed economy.

BTW you quoted wikipedia for your definition. Read the NEXT sentence.

Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority.

What do you think happens when there is no government or external authority intervention?
 
Last edited:
No, freaking NO!

A Free Market is not one that is free of regulation, but one in which each buyer and seller has the same access and protection, information and transparency, and there are so many agents that no one can achieve price fixing ability through market dominance. If a market, once established, could regulate itself, it would be a perfect free market.

But it's a fiction, but one that needs to be aspired to in order to reach and Price that is actually Market generated.

That is why competition needs to be encouraged, established actors penalized in favor of newcomers and big companies split.

Markets cannot exist outside a framework set up and maintained by a State like authority. They don't happen spontaneously.
 
Last edited:
What do you think happens when there is no government or external authority intervention?
Click to expand...

I don't need to think: we know exactly what happens from countless examples in history or the news.

But what do you think happens?
 
Last edited:
The fundamental problem is that All economic theory comes from Models, not real life.

A Free Market can only exist if everyone, forever, plays according to the same rules and everyone tries to maintain the system, even if that would be disadvantageous for them.


It's the legacy of economists' delusion that what they are doing is a science just like physics.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Eventually monopolies and cartels form.

You keep making up your own definition of a free market.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! As every good libertarian knows, there are an infinite number of entrepreneurs willing to lose an infinite amount of money providing an infinite amount of goods and services, thereby preventing the creation of monopolies.
 
dann said:
And when children are no longer vaccinated with the MMRV vaccine (the V is what's important in this context!), the story of you, your grandma and the whole school is bound to repeat itself even though the tools to prevent it exist nowadays.
Click to expand...
I haven't suggested not vaccinating kids for MMRV, but don't let that stop you from killing that dragon, Mr. Quixote.
 
Blue Mountain said:
What I thanked Emily's Cat for was actually posting a list that could be discussed. As subsequent posts show, many of her points have been rebutted.

Thank you for providing a comprehensive response, especially with regards to Marxist underpinnings. I actually did put her response into an LLM (lumo.proton.me) and read its analysis, which mostly mirrors yours. But I still don't trust LLMs enough to take them at their word, so I didn't summarize the analysis and post it here. Instead I chose to critique the points themselves instead of assessing their roots in Marx's writings.
Click to expand...
I made a whole thread for this off-topic discussion
 
lobosrul5 said:
Eventually monopolies and cartels form.

You keep making up your own definition of a free market.
Click to expand...

since we both agree that a Free Market is just a fiction, the question is: what is the closest approximation, and what does it require?

you agree that capitalism leads to cartels and monopolies: ergo, the State has to have the power and mandate to stop any such attempts. Government interference is necessary in even the most free markets that can actually be implemented.
 
dann said:
English isn't my first language, but I don't think language is your problem.
Your claim that vodka "didn't ever lack in shops aisles" was wrong, plain and simple, and it was never your point, apparently.
Your point, as you state it now, is "that vodka was always available even when the rest wasn't." It doesn't make it any more true than the first time:
1) Vodka wasn't always available.
2) The second half of it is your actual point: that "the rest wasn't," i.e. that the USSR made sure that people could get drunk in order to forget the troubles caused by the regime (that's the word that one is always supposed to use, right?!). As it turns out, the USSR actually tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent alcoholism - with both prohibitions and anti-alcohol campaigns. You overlook this because it ruins your narrative, the one about a regime intent on getting people drunk.

In other words, it's the good old anti-Socialist propaganda disguised as irony because you think that my objection to lies about the USSR (or the GDR) implies that I must have been a fan. I never was. To counter what you imagine is my point of view, you come up with another lie.


No, my statement is not the same as Fio's. Maybe you should read it again!
The article shows that shop aisles in the USSR did indeed lack alcohol - prohibitions require the lack of alcohol in shops - which means that "it wasn't true that shop aisles in the Soviet Union never lacked vodka."Fio claimed that vodka "didn't ever lack in shops aisles," i.e. that it was always there, but It wasn't.

You should both begin to respond to stuff that people actually write instead of to the stuff you imagine they write.
It seems to be incomprehensible to you that some people object to lies even when those lies are meant to criticize things that they aren't personally invested in or even things that they object to.

By the way, for what it's worth, I have watched anti-alcohol (as well as anti-tobacco) campaigns on Cuban TV. Nevertheless, I have heard the same criticism directed at Cuba: that rum is always available even when 'the rest' isn't. It's the kind of stuff I usually hear from the people who also claim that the U.S. blockade has nothing whatsoever to do with Cuba's problems.
Click to expand...
There hasnt been a US blockade on Cuba since 1962. And insofar as I can tell there are no US sanctions on them. Ie the USA doesnt take any measures against any other country trading with Cuba. Do I think the embargo should be relaxed? Yes. Probably everything except weapons.
 
lobosrul5 said:
There hasnt been a US blockade on Cuba since 1962. And insofar as I can tell there are no US sanctions on them. Ie the USA doesnt take any measures against any other country trading with Cuba. Do I think the embargo should be relaxed? Yes. Probably everything except weapons.
Click to expand...
Obama greatly relieved sanctions on Cuba and allowed direct access to the island from the US. Cruise ships started coming loaded with US tourists and US cash. Trump reversed all that and reinstated sanctions and the blockade during his first term. Biden continued it.

https://www.bellyofthebeastcuba.com/documentaries Watch The War On Cuba.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom