Eran wrote:I would love to disagree with you, but am having trouble finding any statement with enough content and reasoning.
Why do you think free market capitalism cannot be a major economic policy of any free society? What do you mean by "money becomes a sort of skewed false idol"?
Thank you for being honest. I hope I can give you something to work with here- So, "Why do I think free market capitalism cannot be a major economic policy"
Its simple for me. If someone wants to make a lasting free society, that said society needs to abolish all corrosive elements. What I see when "Anarchists" favor Capitalism is the Lassie-fair system of capitalism, which may be the best suited for anarchism. Still, what the anarcho-capitalists are essentially arguing for is hierarchical society based upon collectivity dominated by class distinction.
Notice that capitalism is based on unlimited growth which in turn is fueled by periods of growth followed by collapse. Every capitalist state eventually has to provide more and more regulations so their state does not collapse during the periods of economic disparity. Sure, competition breeds exponential rises in production and discovery, but the world we live in is ready for transformation. Its the principal of humanity to eventually live where everyman is free. Free from the state and free from anything that limits individual's decisions.
This is where the invisible hand plays a crucial part in limiting individual's decisions. Once everyone is labeled with monetary value, they become (like I said earlier) part of a collective society that they unknowingly joined. Followed by the reasoning that this was not part of their own intentions, they are typically forced into a labor market dominated by hierarchical thinking and martial wealth. That labor market... yet before I dive into wage labor and human commodity.
I know that the argument for capitalism is that it gives the individual more capability in decision making. The money earned empowers them in the market to make decisions based on personal gain. I just thought I'd clarify that I understand that notion. I just can't agree with it at all. See, if the money earned empowers me, that power can only be played within the market, or within the "Box" and usually regulates personal gains. Where/how can such immense individual empowerment within a single market promote free society? The key turnoff here, for me, is the budget that every person who lives in the market economy is given. That budget is the skewed false idol, it dictates the decisions from the top down. Priorities are no longer at the benefit of the free society or community- let alone in some cases- family. Instead, we are forced to make decisions according to our wealth, according to our bills, and according to our market. That ploy on human interest can not be sustained in a direct participatory democracy that a free society yearns for. Hence why capitalism itself is not a sustainable system. Unlimited growth by rule, playing its game on a board with limited resources. Capitalism & Earth. oh the irony.
Anyways, the labor market- Lets start with wage labor, a favorite amongst private ownership. Wage labor is a form of slavery. Thats not extreme in context, hear me out if you will... Instead of the steel mill workers owning the steel mill, the private owner (employer) rents human capital to preform the work at the mill. At a set rate and wage, each person employed is given market empowerment once they finish their shift. Yet, Those employed don't share the responsibility of the steel mill, because private ownership ensues the primarily investment. which should suggest that wage labor is temporary slavery. Once our slaves end the shift they now have to contend with a market, one that has given them priorities. They use what wage they earned at the mill to make decisions. These decisions are based on market enforcement and personal gains. The proletariat, if you will, is forced by a market to make what people call rational or irrational decisions. If they fail to abide by the demands of their market, they fall between the cracks and gather less and less freedom of choice. (this may be why a black market is so profitable. you don't have to abide by the demands of a traditional market) So where is the free society? How can a society be free if one has to meet the demands of the market to be a part of that society?
Next, human commodity. I am a firm believer that capitalism builds imaginary wealth, hence why the U.S. is in favor of a complete fiat currency. So if the wealth accumulated is imaginary, wouldn't you suppose products and services will become imaginary? By imaginary I assume it not as invisible, but rather something not tangible. For instance- Western stardom in Hollywood became so big that an imaginary product emerged. Not only did we have movies to sell, now we have starlight to sell. The paparazzi (for a crude example) made an industry out of antagonizing and exploiting actor and actresses privacy. Anything that they can capitalize on will be capitalized. This is how out of control capitalism can get. They can make products out of thin air. So, human commodity will not exist within a free market, human commodity will come with a price because it shall be capitalized. Even our inter-workings of the United State's Republic have been capitalized. Politics is a game of monopoly. This is what Capitalism becomes and this is why a free society can't have it as its major economic policy. Let alone, I wonder even a minor economic policy. It just seems to engulf the human spirit and "buys" out everything that should be held by principle. It corrupts and destroys free society.
My ideas- Maybe all of that (above) was a bit of a jumble, lots of "this is bad and thats bad" but let me state what I think can be good for a free society. of course, we need to abolish the state. That is first on an Anarchist's to-do list.
1. I'd like to see some sort of implementation of ancient Confucianism. A modern twist if you will, where family and community is held by core principles. Also, I've always been fond of having the merchant class be at the bottom of the social ladder. People who do not create, and only shuffle around goods and money should not be rewarded as handsomely as they are, in- say- WallStreet. Why do we allow a class of people who only play the market by investing and dancing to make heaping piles of money, that only empowers them more to make decisions that cater to their own class.
2. Before the Europeans came to North America, many Native American tribes had peaceful and harmonious ways of living. Sure, they did have wars between tribes from time to time, but respect for human life and the earth was profound... Why can't we share some of these ideals in a newly invented free society. I do not claim to be an expert on tribal living, but from what I have studied, it seems as though they understood that community and respect for one another is something humans should take as a given. Hence why they did not have the scientific achievement of the white man, because they did not dwell in competition at all times. Also, geographically there was less competition. if not their scientific achievements, Their societal achievements should be a lesson for any free society
- By QatzelOk
- By Doug64
- By JohnRawls