4 ms·

Nothing about abolishing capitalism implies that people will not be free. Arguably they could be more free. Not every socialist state needs to (or should) emula

Nothing about abolishing capitalism implies that people will not be free. Arguably they could be more free. Not every socialist state needs to (or should) emulate the USSR. You should try reading The Conquest of Bread.

erulabs 8y ago
Everything about abolishing capitalism implies that people will be "less free". All capitalism means is ownership and voluntary exchange. Not allowing ownership or making exchange involuntary can _only_ be accomplished via coercion. I want to be very clear - this is not a matter of opinion but of tautology - capitalism requires freedom and freedom implies capitalism. In no way is this countered by comparing hypothetical systems with the USSR.
- kjdndisneinj 8y ago
  This is absolutely not true, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialist systems of government. There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... That is, acquiring enough capital to run a personal business. What is not allowed is owning collective means of production, and the consequential rent-seeking and extraction of surplus value that business owners and landlords engage in. Your comment is obviously propaganda, so I doubt this will help, but I strongly recommend reading some anarchist literature before making claims like that. The Conquest of Bread is a good starting point, but a bit outdated at this point.
  - erulabs 8y ago
    You're confusing two topics. I'm not talking about "socialism", and I don't want to get into definitions of that word, and frankly I don't disagree with anything you've said at all regarding socialism. However, I wasn't talking about socialism. Rather, the OC said "abolishing capitalism". Abolishing capitalism _means the same thing_ as abolishing voluntary activity. In order words, limiting individual freedom. So there is no way to construct "abolishing capitalism" as to not meant "violent coercion". None of this has anything to do with socialism or social programs or anything like that. I've read plenty of anarchist literature, and studied economics extensively. I would, ironically, label myself something of an anarchist as well. You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. You're confusing my tautological deduction for ideology. That's fine, but golly does it make me sad. You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. Edit: Also, none of this even makes a value judgement about the worthiness of abolishing capitalism or infringing on personal freedoms. Perhaps it's a worthwhile calculation? That's not an opinion I'm bringing up - but the word "capitalism" has a simple meaning: trade and property. Abolishing the ability of humans to own things or do certain categories of things _is exactly the definition of limiting freedom_. Socialist philosophers are not unaware of this and their entire philosophy is built upon the calculation of limited personal freedoms to enable potentially greater net happiness. This is not a controversial opinion, is my point.
    - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
      The OP was obviously referring to abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism. So either you're being so overly pedantic it's impenetrable, or you're just very obtuse. > You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. Glad you brought up your study of anarchist literature, because surely you've read Chomsky. Propaganda does not require the individual to be aware of their complicity in spreading it. You can very well assume you've come up with this on your own, but rational thought doesn't result in this kind of bootlicking drivel. > You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. I'm seeing exactly how you are presenting yourself; a pedant far more interested in the definitions of words and meaningless civility than humanity and moral righteousness.
      - erulabs 8y ago
        > bootlicking drivel Who's boots? What are you talking about? I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! Be civil! > abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism > There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... Socialism and capitalism are not opposite ends of a yardstick. I am _not talking about socialism_. Limiting the ability to own property or trade _is the same thing_ as limiting freedom. One has literally limited the abilities of another. These are not opinions, but rather _pure deduction lead to a non-controversial point_. You can keep insulting me or you can engage. Have a good day!
        kjdndisneinj 8y ago
        The boots of the oppressive global capital class. > I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! You asserted that the abolition of capitalism would result in depravation of freedom. That is a value judgement. It is also not true. It is a rephrasing of a line that anti-socialsts have been using for over 100 years. Therefore, propaganda. I don't care that you're trying to hide the structural violence of capitalism under a veil of civility.
        8y ago
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  While I support the argument you are trying to make, I want to disagree slightly. Capitalism does not require freedom, and China is proof of that. But we have not seen freedom without capitalism and I do feel like the inverse relation is true: freedom requires capitalism. (Feel free to replace capitalism with free enterprise if you don't like the term "capital".)
ahmedalsudani 8y ago
Capitalism means free enterprise. It means being able to start a business. It means being able to compete with someone if you think you can do a better job. It means being able to choose from multiple options as a customer. If it means something else to you, I'm sorry about that.

erulabs 8y ago

Everything about abolishing capitalism implies that people will be "less free". All capitalism means is ownership and voluntary exchange. Not allowing ownership or making exchange involuntary can _only_ be accomplished via coercion. I want to be very clear - this is not a matter of opinion but of tautology - capitalism requires freedom and freedom implies capitalism. In no way is this countered by comparing hypothetical systems with the USSR.

kjdndisneinj 8y ago
This is absolutely not true, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialist systems of government. There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... That is, acquiring enough capital to run a personal business. What is not allowed is owning collective means of production, and the consequential rent-seeking and extraction of surplus value that business owners and landlords engage in. Your comment is obviously propaganda, so I doubt this will help, but I strongly recommend reading some anarchist literature before making claims like that. The Conquest of Bread is a good starting point, but a bit outdated at this point.
- erulabs 8y ago
  You're confusing two topics. I'm not talking about "socialism", and I don't want to get into definitions of that word, and frankly I don't disagree with anything you've said at all regarding socialism. However, I wasn't talking about socialism. Rather, the OC said "abolishing capitalism". Abolishing capitalism _means the same thing_ as abolishing voluntary activity. In order words, limiting individual freedom. So there is no way to construct "abolishing capitalism" as to not meant "violent coercion". None of this has anything to do with socialism or social programs or anything like that. I've read plenty of anarchist literature, and studied economics extensively. I would, ironically, label myself something of an anarchist as well. You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. You're confusing my tautological deduction for ideology. That's fine, but golly does it make me sad. You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. Edit: Also, none of this even makes a value judgement about the worthiness of abolishing capitalism or infringing on personal freedoms. Perhaps it's a worthwhile calculation? That's not an opinion I'm bringing up - but the word "capitalism" has a simple meaning: trade and property. Abolishing the ability of humans to own things or do certain categories of things _is exactly the definition of limiting freedom_. Socialist philosophers are not unaware of this and their entire philosophy is built upon the calculation of limited personal freedoms to enable potentially greater net happiness. This is not a controversial opinion, is my point.
  - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
    The OP was obviously referring to abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism. So either you're being so overly pedantic it's impenetrable, or you're just very obtuse. > You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. Glad you brought up your study of anarchist literature, because surely you've read Chomsky. Propaganda does not require the individual to be aware of their complicity in spreading it. You can very well assume you've come up with this on your own, but rational thought doesn't result in this kind of bootlicking drivel. > You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. I'm seeing exactly how you are presenting yourself; a pedant far more interested in the definitions of words and meaningless civility than humanity and moral righteousness.
    - erulabs 8y ago
      > bootlicking drivel Who's boots? What are you talking about? I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! Be civil! > abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism > There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... Socialism and capitalism are not opposite ends of a yardstick. I am _not talking about socialism_. Limiting the ability to own property or trade _is the same thing_ as limiting freedom. One has literally limited the abilities of another. These are not opinions, but rather _pure deduction lead to a non-controversial point_. You can keep insulting me or you can engage. Have a good day!
      - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
        The boots of the oppressive global capital class. > I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other! You asserted that the abolition of capitalism would result in depravation of freedom. That is a value judgement. It is also not true. It is a rephrasing of a line that anti-socialsts have been using for over 100 years. Therefore, propaganda. I don't care that you're trying to hide the structural violence of capitalism under a veil of civility.
      - 8y ago
ahmedalsudani 8y ago
While I support the argument you are trying to make, I want to disagree slightly. Capitalism does not require freedom, and China is proof of that. But we have not seen freedom without capitalism and I do feel like the inverse relation is true: freedom requires capitalism. (Feel free to replace capitalism with free enterprise if you don't like the term "capital".)

ahmedalsudani 8y ago

Capitalism means free enterprise. It means being able to start a business. It means being able to compete with someone if you think you can do a better job. It means being able to choose from multiple options as a customer. If it means something else to you, I'm sorry about that.