Free market means free of social responsibility. Unregulated markets mean no consumer protection. They want to keep the regulations that benefit business such as copyrights, intellectual property laws, patents, trademarks etc. A truly free market is the unregulated black market. Business doesn't want a black market. They want to be free of responsibility, free of consumer protection and regulated only in ways that funnel money into their pockets.
Daddy AF theres no need for black markets if you have free markets Whenever you have black markets you dont have free markets... Look at drugs, guns... All available on black markets. The more state intervention you have and set prices or banned products, the bigger your black markets
2000 years of the UCC and history Prove beyond a shadow of doubt the benefits Of socially endemnified corporations that literally fed and kept from starving to death thousands of generations and Billions of human beings for 2000 years since the Roman Republic.
mka2qg2s in this case, it was better... Bcs it is a bunch of nonsense. A biased man. Lifelong socialist who never valued the freedom of ppl to vote with their money, work, ideas etc. He may like free speech, may like democracy but hates the freedom for ppl to do business without constant intervention from state power. Such a hypocrite. Why do socialist states always turn to dictators in the end Why do they alway end up ending free speech? Bcs socialist are opposed to freedom, in the end
Long story short, everything has its externalities. The market didn't take away your choice to ride the subway. It just never provided it, and that's an important difference. In a mixed economy, you can petition the government to stem some of the profits away from the firm and use them to build a subway. The company never would have spent money on it themselves, but it might make life easier for some of its workers and help them to be more productive. Profits increase, rinse and repeat. And the self should always be a primary concern. Think about a road. If everybody always acquiesced to other drivers and worried primarily about what's best for the road as a whole, things would be slower and probably more dangerous to boot. Playing fair on the road isn't just due to our concern for others, but also because it's in our self-interest.
Noam Chomsky faults capitalism in isolation, ignoring the laws democratic governments enact to control, however imperfectly, capitalism's excesses. That is an ongoing process and democracy is our only hope. Britain's and America's world ambitions are somewhat of a separate issue that go to the heart of who we are. We live with the resentments of past poltical systems and their blunders: slavery, land clearances, communism, imperialism and other adventurism by powerful countries. You can't fix rapacious human nature; all you can hope to do is delay the next Armageddon through NATO, the UN and other diplomacy. So we need to know what is Chomsky's recipe for a better world; it's probably around somewhere.
Gary Jessop sound like u just stumbled upon Chomsky. He favors an anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian socialist (libertarian in the sense of European not Robert Nozick) supported by someone like Rosa Luxemburg.
Well, they tried something very close to that in the UK after WW2. Amid free teeth and glasses, the unions ended up ruling the roost. The result was a form of anarchy causing strikes that severely impoverished the country when it was already suffering the aftermath of war. It took Thatcher to retrieve the situation and make conservatism respectable again. I'm not suggesting you agree with Chomsky and, yes, I discovered him only recently on youtube.
Gary Jessop Can you elaborate more on his this type of anarcho-syndicalistic government action? I seem to doubt that it was in line with what Chomsky is preaching. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I don’t know if it is the same as what Prof Chomsky advocates for. I wouldn’t use this one instance which may not even be a correct categorization to label an entire group of people. Also, I don’t see how Thatcher saved these so called anarchists who were rioting. If anything she caused more rights and unrest for working class people by taking away milk from poor children as one of her first actions as PM, and deregulating social programs and completely neutering the mining industry in the north. There’s a reason why people in the north hate her to this day. Regardless, enjoy your endeavors perusing Chomsky books and videos. I remember my first time discovering him. There’s a reason why he’s called the modern-day Socrates. There’s nobody quite like him today. He completely opened my mind up to the way the world works. I highly recommend his book on neoliberalism.
Nationalisation was a major feature of the post-WW2 economy in Britain, which voted in a party they called Labour in 1945. They nationalized the mines, the railways, electricity boards and I don't know what else. A vote for Labour was automatically a vote for the local of the union. Even after nationalisation of major sectors of the economy the strikes continued, and had the effect of a coup d'etat each time -- the country was paralyzed. Inflation went rampant. Taxation for the rich was at 19/6 in the pound (the pound had 20 shillings). It was nothing short of a social revolution and as I grew up cemented me as a social democrat for life (in other words a mixture of socialism and conservatism). To this day I'm a floating voter. I don't know much about Thatcher. She must've caused resentment among members as she sought to break the unions and restore incentive to the economy. Overall, she succeeded, but I doubt if many Brits would admit it. It was too painful while it was happening.
Gary Jessop I think you're talking about a period that came somewhat later when the left had gone overboard. But the social programs, health service and housing for example, were hugely productive in the early decades after WW2. Churchill was against that investment unfortunately, which I guess was down to excess conservatism, and so the wartime hero who was expected to lead the nation's recovery lost out. BTW I don't think Chomsky is against democracy at all, rather he seems to bemoan the lack of true democracy.
Markets are trade. Trade is not force. Force is not a part of markets, by definition. When you try to show that historically force took place as a part of then existing markets, what you're saying is that in that instance, they were not markets. Meanwhile those who advocate for markets, advocate for the elimination of force, and you who advocate for various forms of "socialism" (clearly a shallow euphemism for compulsive impressment into a working collective), you advocate for more introduction of force into the market. Continually, mealy mouthed politicians on the right wing are compromising with politicians and ideologues on the left wing by giving them what they ask for, more force and more market distortions. As a result, there is force and our ideologues' vision of markets does not come to fruition. Then you blame those pro-market ideologues and claim that markets are impossible. This is idiotic. No, it's disingenuous.
You obviously have no clue what socialism is. You could start with a textbook definition or go to various basic socialist sources which describe it as economic democracy, or democratic control of the means of production by the workers who produce. Nothing 'compulsive impressment' about it; if you work somewhere, you are naturally and obviously part of a collective enterprise. Socialism just means you're a participant and have a say in what goes on where you work.
What you're describing is literally not illegal under theoretical capitalism or in the United States today. If you and 20 other people want to sign a contract and pool money together to start a business with equal ownership spread among you, there is nothing involuntary about that. However you can't, by non-coercive means, bar other companies with a more traditional capitalist model which is proven to be more effective, from competing with you, and you can't non-coercively prevent consumers from going to them rather than you, and you can't claim it as your political right to continue to operate your business at a loss when you run out of money. Socialism in most of its conceptions involves coercion as the essential means of making un-competitive business models which are based on primitive economics and false moral ideals possible. Otherwise it is just pie in the sky.
Tariffs were an important factor in the development of US, if it were you free market types running things back in the day, US would still be basing its international trade on the comparative advantage in some primary products.
A real, truly socialist 'conception' has never been tried on a large, society wide scale that I'm aware of, so the idea that capitalist models are more efficient is unproved. Other than a few months in Barcelona in the 1930s or maybe within a small kibbutz somewhere, capitalist authoritarian and/or pure authoritarian controls have always dominated state economies. Authority-centric controls (brute power, leader-follower paradigms, prior land and resource conquest) have so dominated economic activities since antiquity up until yesterday that it's a little like saying, 'no one is stopping you from setting up your own system' when the basic building blocks for any new system are completely controlled by and demand rule adherence to the the current established system. Btw, there are some examples of worker-controlled companies operating within the orbit of capitalist economies that have done just fine. But, 'efficiency' doesn't have the same meaning to a CEO and a janitor who work in the same company, nor does it to a group of people who know what democracy is, believe in it and know how it works in real time in real life work interactions.
We need to see what works in reality not theory. Complete free market would be a disaster, no market would be a disaster. Anything can work in the right theoretical model. The economy is very complicated system
