WTF is a "free market socialist"?

[Superdog]

Don't Fool yourselves...

It's "Chromium Communism"... Polished to the reflective Gloss, very nicely!

Not so much, at all.

Here's Proudhon criticizing communism: (stolen from wikipedia)
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, some of whose philosophy has influenced social anarchists (social Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy was heavily influenced by Proudhon), was critical of communism, "whether of the Utopian or the Marxist variety, [believing] that it destroyed freedom by taking away from the individual control over his means of production." At the time he wrote most of his works, the word "communism" was typically used to refer to the views of the Utopian socialists, whom Proudhon accused of attempting to impose equality by sovereign decrees. In opposition to the communist maxim "to each according to need", Proudhon said "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained".

 

[acptulsa]

Where the hell did you hear this goofy term? Sounds to me like someone's euphamism for 'fascist'.

"I hate all free enterprise, but I love my big fat corporate contributors. So, I'll be a free-market socialist and give taxpayer money to big banks so they can buy all the small banks." In other words, a free-market socialist is a Hank Paulson.

 

[Superdog]

Where the hell did you hear this goofy term? Sounds to me like someone's euphamism for 'fascist'.

"I hate all free enterprise, but I love my big fat corporate contributors. So, I'll be a free-market socialist and give taxpayer money to big banks so they can buy all the small banks." In other words, a free-market socialist is a Hank Paulson.

Did you even read the thread?

Historically, fascists and socialists hate each other so that wouldn't even make sense.

 

[acptulsa]

Historically, fascists and socialists hate each other so that wouldn't even make sense.

Of course they hate each other. They're way, way too much alike. That always causes friction.

P.S. Surely you're educated enough to know that fascists have hidden behind the term 'socialist' before.

 

[bojo68]

I guess I'd call it a non sequitor, and wonder why anybody would listen to whoever was spreading such manure. This HAS to be the technical definition of "Manure Spreader".

 

[orafi]

Someone who donates to charity willfully?

Bit Orwellian, really.

err, philanthropists

 

[Superdog]

Of course they hate each other. They're way, way too much alike. That always causes friction.

P.S. Surely you're educated enough to know that fascists have hidden behind the term 'socialist' before.

Their ideologies merge on certain points, as most all non libertarain philosophies do. But the fascists pro-big business, anti-union, and anti-communist stance is a pretty big divergence.

P.S. The term socialist, like capitalist, is too broad to speak of without qaulifications. Socialists can be harcore Statists or total anarchists, similiar to capitalists.

 

[acptulsa]

Their ideologies merge on certain points, as most all non libertarain philosophies do. But the fascists pro-big business, anti-union, and anti-communist stance is a pretty big divergence.

Many socialists are anti-union. After all, if mama government is taking care of you you don't need a union. Technically, being a citizen puts you in The Big Union and you don't even need to pay dues--except, of course, for your hefty tax bill.

P.S. The term socialist, like capitalist, is too broad to speak of without qaulifications. Socialists can be harcore Statists or total anarchists, similiar to capitalists.

Socialistic anarchists are either fascists or oxymorons. Think about it. Socialism without some form of central control is--what? It doesn't exist. So, if there's central control yet no government... Hello?

 

[dannno]

Means you tax for social programs but don't intervene in the markets otherwise. So you would have little or no business regulation, no tax money to assist the private sector, and no Federal Reserve Bank.

This.

 

[Superdog]

Many socialists are anti-union. After all, if mama government is taking care of you you don't need a union. Technically, being a citizen puts you in The Big Union and you don't even need to pay dues--except, of course, for your hefty tax bill.

That would be true of state socialists. Anarcho-syndicalists, on the other side, propose the union/syndicate as the essential core of free society.

Socialistic anarchists are either fascists or oxymorons. Think about it. Socialism without some form of central control is--what? It doesn't exist. So, if there's central control yet no government... Hello?

Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[acptulsa]

Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So, tell me where else the central control could reside. Or do you propose voluntary redistribution of wealth?

I realize that just because you can't or won't articulate something is also no proof it doesn't exist, but hey. Let's have it anyway. Why not?

P.S. I suppose you could also call a 'free market socialist' Amish. Considering how devout they are, I wonder if that could be considered voluntary? In any case, it's as close to voluntary as socialism will ever get in the real world...

And if it works for them, fine, but I have no desire to participate in a theocratic centrally controlled system.

 

[acptulsa]

Doubt not that there is a reason the powers that be place such faith in the shams they call elections and want a bigger turnout. This is the only way they can classify their robbery of us as voluntary. It gives them a legitimacy that their actions do not earn.

 

[Superdog]

So, tell me where else the central control could reside. Or do you propose voluntary redistribution of wealth?

There is no central control.

I realize that just because you can't or won't articulate something is also no proof it doesn't exist, but hey. Let's have it anyway. Why not?

Someone up thread gave a very articulate and succint summary:

A free market socialist (aka Mutualist) is someone who believes that in a pure free market that people would organize from the bottom-up through mutual aid societies, mutual banking (credit unions), community ran schools, worker cooperatives, and small family business rather than organizing in large hierarchical, top-down entities.

P.S. I suppose you could also call a 'free market socialist' Amish. Considering how devout they are, I wonder if that could be considered voluntary? In any case, it's as close to voluntary as socialism will ever get in the real world....

The best example off the top of my head is the worker co-ops in Argentina. After their economy collapsed, workers seized control of their workplaces and ran on them on democratic basis, dividing the profits in a fashion decided amongst themselves. They have doctor and nurse owned hospitals, journalist owned newspapers and worker owned factories. They are building networks of these; the printing shop will print the hospital's documents in exchange for free healthcare. Un-employed people build food kitchens and schools for their children, without any governemnt control or funding. That's one example of something that's happening in the real world right now.

And if it works for them, fine, but I have no desire to participate in a theocratic centrally controlled system.

Neither would I.

 

[pdavis]

Many socialists are anti-union. After all, if mama government is taking care of you you don't need a union. Technically, being a citizen puts you in The Big Union and you don't even need to pay dues--except, of course, for your hefty tax bill.



Socialistic anarchists are either fascists or oxymorons. Think about it. Socialism without some form of central control is--what? It doesn't exist. So, if there's central control yet no government... Hello?

So, tell me where else the central control could reside. Or do you propose voluntary redistribution of wealth?

I realize that just because you can't or won't articulate something is also no proof it doesn't exist, but hey. Let's have it anyway. Why not?

P.S. I suppose you could also call a 'free market socialist' Amish. Considering how devout they are, I wonder if that could be considered voluntary? In any case, it's as close to voluntary as socialism will ever get in the real world...

And if it works for them, fine, but I have no desire to participate in a theocratic centrally controlled system.

You're conflating state socialism (the state owning all means of production) with socialism (the workers owning the means of production, which would include individuals owning the means of production). Read Benjamin Tucker's (a free market socialist) essay State Socialism and Anarchism. Free market socialists (mutualists) believe that absent of state intervention people would voluntarily organize from the bottom-up such as through cooperatives and credit unions rather than through large, top-down hierarchical entities such as we see today with multinational corporations.

 

[acptulsa]

The thing is, either you wind up with someone in charge or you go nowhere fast. So, you entrust the responsibility to someone or you run it democratically--and get two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner plans.

That said, and in spite of United Airlines' experience, I have no trouble at all with employee-run companies. But the control of a company doesn not socialism make...

 

[pdavis]

The best example off the top of my head is the worker co-ops in Argentina. After their economy collapsed, workers seized control of their workplaces and ran on them on democratic basis, dividing the profits in a fashion decided amongst themselves. They have doctor and nurse owned hospitals, journalist owned newspapers and worker owned factories. They are building networks of these; the printing shop will print the hospital's documents in exchange for free healthcare. Un-employed people build food kitchens and schools for their children, without any governemnt control or funding. That's one example of something that's happening in the real world right now.
Neither would I.

Here's a similar example of a company in Brazil:

Part One (video starts @ 1:25)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4xyTpSgRY

Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE3n6wPgoKk&watch_response

Edit: Not a cooperative, but business is ran democratically.

 

[Paulitician]

Socialism without some form of central control is--what?

Well, there are many decentralists in the socialist camp. Socialism must not mean out-right central/government control--however, that's probably been what most people associate it with. Free market, libertarian socialism of which mutualists and some individualist anarchists advocate is completely non-statist. It does not make sense to think of it within the statist paradigm (i.e. it is not a statist philosophy).

Also, socialism does not have to mean "redistribution of wealth," although I'm sure even libertarian socialists would advocate that due to what they believe as the injustices of the current system. Under their system they don't think such economic inequality will result--especially not anywhere to the extent that it does today--making redistribution of wealth unnecessary.

If people think that capitalism--as known anywhere in the world during any period of time--is voluntary than I think you need to check your facts. There have rarely been things what I'd call completely voluntary and free markets--and we could only speculate on the type of outcomes that would emerge. I personally don't think they'd be completely mutualistic/socialistic, but I don't think the outcomes would be completely capitalistic either.


To go on a little tangent, I was thinking about wealth redistribution yesterday. According to Forbes, the top 400 richest people in the United States collectively have 1.54 trillion dollars. Let just say there are a 100 million taxpayers (to keep things simple). If you divide that 1.54 trillion among them, each would get 15,000 bucks. That's more than some poor folks earn in a year. Of course, I'm not saying if we did that, that all of a sudden the 15k would have the same purchasing power it did before the redistribution--there are many economic issues with this hypothetical situation--but it would definitely help a lot of people. Did all of those rich people earn their money (and note, in last year's Forbes 400, you needed 1.3 billion at least to get on the list)? I'm sure they earned some it, but there are also a lot of things like protectionist regulation (and I'm not necessarily talking about trade among nations--anything that illegitimately favors one group over another because of government favor is "protectionist") in the current system that could only make their type of wealth possible.

 

[Paulitician]

But the control of a company doesn not socialism make...

But "collective/worker ownership of the means of production" is socialism. The only reason why government control/ownership is said to be socialism is because supposedly we're all collectively part of the government, and therefore anything the government controls, we control as well. But that's just a farce in my opinion. All governemnts have been oligarchies IMO, with maybe the exception of popular democracies--but those have hardly existed and they can be just as bad.

 

[Superdog]

The thing is, either you wind up with someone in charge or you go nowhere fast. So, you entrust the responsibility to someone or you run it democratically--and get two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner plans.

They usually (sometimes not) have a manager to run things, but s/he is democratically elected. Sometimes they go out and recruit someone. It's up to them. A lot of these places run better under worker control than they did before. There is less labor cost as far as paying managemtn salaries, and usually less risk taking in exchange for moderate growth. But again, it's run however the people running it want it to run.

That said, and in spite of United Airlines' experience, I have no trouble at all with employee-run companies. But the control of a company doesn not socialism make...

That's, like, the definition of socialism. At least the version we're trying to talk about in this thread.

 

[Superdog]

Here's a similar example of a company in Brazil:

Part One (video starts @ 1:25)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4xyTpSgRY

Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE3n6wPgoKk&watch_response

I'll have to watch these later. Thanks.