Anarchists...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
What do you get when you have consumers and capitalists planning their private economy, and economy of their corporations? Democratically planned economy. Of course, capitalists are always the minority and consumers the majority because of social competition going on in a society. The votes are determined by shareholding - shareholding is determined by individual's success. So, you don't get full democracy, you sacrifise that "perfect equality" in favor of freedom that free market allows.

No, Shai. It´s nothing even remotely democratic about it, cause in the end it´s the person/corporation with the most cash that´s calling the shots. Several comparisons can be made to recent events in Sweden: Continental in Gislaved, Ericsson, Lear Corp. in Bengtsfors, etc, etc. Factories shut down and entire villages killed off, despite the fact that the factories actually generated a substantial profit! However the profit wasn´t high enough to please the shareholders... And this is what you call democratic, please...

[Shai-Hulud]

Individuals/Corporations with most capital have most votes in economy and the right to those votes is received in fair competition against other individuals and corporations. Isn't it funny? The more freedom you give to people and more people turn rich and more people end up being poor. Maybe some of that is due to lack of those individuals? Capitalism is efficient and the efficiency is in require of described actions, side-effect which society should take care of. Not by denying the right to capital but by making it possible for those people to remain as a part of the society.

Not so. In an planned economy it´s the supply that sets the demand ie nothing gets produced if there isn´t a demand for it. That´s why it´s called planned

I believe that people are always in demand of higher standard of living. Supply never meets demands, if we consider all consumer producst and services, demand is always higher. That's why everyone can not be rich in capitalist society. Of course we have enough food and shelter for everyone, enough of many other things as well. But it's not enough for people. To think that supply and demand could ever meet...that's REALLY optimist

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not so. In an planned economy it´s the supply that sets the demand ie nothing gets produced if there isn´t a demand for it. That´s why it´s called planned

Sorry, but "Say's Law" (Supply creates its own Demand) has been proven to be false.

And a worker owned economy wouldn't be planned. For an example of a planned economy where supply never met demand in some areas and went over demand too much in other areas, look at the Soviet Union.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Without law and stable goverments, the rich and powerful could aquire enough mercenaries and obliterate the anarchist and other groups they do not like relatively easily.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
Individuals/Corporations with most capital have most votes in economy and the right to those votes is received in fair competition against other individuals and corporations. Isn't it funny? The more freedom you give to people and more people turn rich and more people end up being poor. Maybe some of that is due to lack of those individuals? Capitalism is efficient and the efficiency is in require of described actions, side-effect which society should take care of. Not by denying the right to capital but by making it possible for those people to remain as a part of the society.

But the capitalism-in-reality (not the lofty theories in books by political philosofers/economists) is a rigged game. The strong almost always win in the end. It´s not fair play IMNSHO

I believe that people are always in demand of higher standard of living. Supply never meets demands, if we consider all consumer producst and services, demand is always higher.

But why is that? Is it genetic, which some claim? Or is it a behaviour that is tought to us through the capitalist system?

That's why everyone can not be rich in capitalist society. Of course we have enough food and shelter for everyone, enough of many other things as well. But it's not enough for people.

Enough food and shelter?? There´s people dying in the streets in the metropolises of the US, dying because of a capitalist system that benefits the rich and punishes the poor. To an lesser extent this can be applied to every western country including Sweden an Finland

To think that supply and demand could ever meet...that's REALLY optimist

Well, you have to be an optimist to be a raving commie these days...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not so. In an planned economy it´s the supply that sets the demand ie nothing gets produced if there isn´t a demand for it. That´s why it´s called planned

Sorry, but "Say's Law" (Supply creates its own Demand) has been proven to be false.

And a worker owned economy wouldn't be planned. For an example of a planned economy where supply never met demand in some areas and went over demand too much in other areas, look at the Soviet Union.

Well, no one said it would be easy to create a new world order... Paul C o c kshott from the university of Glasgow and AlainCotrell from Wake Forest University in North Carolina wrote a book called "Towards a new socialism" in 1993 where they sketched the outlines for a planned economy that would actually work. I´ve read the book in Swedish so forgive me for not translating it into english (it IS kinda late)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I'd like to read that, but no planned economy can be efficient as the capitalist economy. Supply and Demand cannot be determined by governmental bureaucrats, but the people.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

First of all, libertarian capitalism for any decent amount of time is a fairy tale.

The northern and northwestern US up until the late 19th century.

Anarchism is inimical to the ruling classes of most societies. So it has been not only avoided, but attacked by Communists, Fascists, Mercantilists, and Capitalists through the state.

"Capitalists"? Don't you mean anti-capitalists? It isn't capitalism to use government (violence) to shut down competition.

Kamrat X -

A (democratically) planned economy also does away with several other not-so-nice features of capitalism like over-production, waste and the destruction of the enviroment for profit.

First, the USSR was notorious for long lines just to get the basics, and there wasn't a whole lot of product diversity. And capitalism is democratic, the most democratic, with consumers voting with their dollars rather than an elite class of politicians trying to control an immense economy.

[Ramo]

The northern and northwestern US up until the late 19th century.

That would be socialism. These areas mostly consisted of small farmers, not large agri-businesses.

Note that the replacement of this system coincided with massive state intervention designed to supplant it, and that this in turn brought more state intervention.

"Capitalists"? Don't you mean anti-capitalists? It isn't capitalism to use government (violence) to shut down competition.

*Shrug* They'd call themselves capitalists, they're just a more authoritarian variant. Would "almost-capitalists" be better?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That would be socialism. These areas mostly consisted of small farmers, not large agri-businesses.

Uhh... you know little about libertarian capitalist utopia, right?

The utopia of libertarian capitalism is the small farmer, the small business man. Not the large corporation.

[Ramo]

Which is also socialism.

It's just that us socialists also recognize the existence of economies of scale, while these Lockian people you speak of apparantly don't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The idea of economies of scale was invented by these Lockian people .

It also led to the creation of the small corporations.

[Ramo]

Not very consistent with the "libertarian capitalist utopia," is it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really.. hence the term 'utopia'. I don't think you understand that word much, if at all.

But the farmers of the US were profoundly anti-government and anti-collective, so socialism no .

I also fail to see how you can speak about economies of scale and put inefficient collectives ahead of relatively efficient corporations .

[Ramo]

Not really.. hence the term 'utopia'. I don't think you understand that word much, if at all.

Eh? What's there to understand? They're comprimising their ideal.

But the farmers of the US were profoundly anti-government and anti-collective, so socialism no .

The workers generally owned the means of production, so socialism, yes.

I also fail to see how you can speak about economies of scale and put inefficient collectives ahead of relatively efficient corporations .

Yep, the collectives that are more inefficient than average are ahead of the corporations that are more inefficient than average.