An irate Libertarian lashes out at U.S. socialists, communists and collectivists.....

[Osborn F Enready]

“There's a strange contradiction lurking in all this revisionism: the United States is arguably farther along the road to Marx's communist Utopia. After all, the major means of production are collectively owned, thanks to the stock market and mutual funds. The country certainly boasts of an informed proletariat. And, as Mr. Cheek noted, `With our social security system and Medicare, we are far more socialized in practice than China, which has neither.'” -Craig S. Smith, in "Workers of the World, Invest!", in the New York Times, 2001-Aug-19 “By any reasonable measure, the United States today is a little over fifty percent socialist. That is to say, more than fifty percent of the total resources in the country, of the total input, is directly or indirectly controlled by governmental institutions at all levels - federal, state and local. Yet we in the United States have the highest standard of living of any country in the world. We are a very rich and prosperous country. It is an extraordinary tribute to the productivity of the market system that, with less than fifty percent of the resources, it can produce the kind of standard of living and the kind of society we have.” -Milton Friedman, from The Drug War As A Socialist Enterprise

Ok folks....

Libertarians are pro-individually owned business.

Collectivists, Communists, Socialists are pro-collectively owned business.

I can't help but notice the obvious, and I would like to take you on a little trip down the road of logical self-evident truths that exist.

Fortune 500 companies, mostly large multi-national corporations, are in large part publicly owned and traded, meaning the shareholders (public) are in charge of corporate charter, direction and goals.

Why aren't Collectivists, Communists and Socialists putting their collective money, where their collective mouths are, and working to own these corporations so they can "rectify" these companies supposedly "anti-collective" policies, directions and impacts on societies?

Could it be they really aren't smart enough to see the world for what it really is?

Could it be they really don't, and can't grasp economics?

Or is it more likely they already are, but aren't doing what they CLAIM when they have the power to change what currently IS a large source of the worlds problems?

Fortune 500 companies that are collectively owned by the public, should be showing a clear progression towards "social goals" right? Isn't that the "supposed" logic used in the good of collective ownership?


I would like to see some of the more outspoken collectivists address this issue, directly, with coherant, logical lines of argument if possible.

I look forward to your replies.....

[Sandy]

This should be the start of a very active thread. So do we all even understand the basis of Capitalism? I have been personally booted off of many discussion forums for promoting capitalism and the open market. I’ve been labeled as selfish and wealthy and a user of other people’s money.

I figured out back in the 50s that I did not have a brain for product development or for choosing a subject in college to help me attain wealth if only for just enough to keep me solvent with a retirement plan.

I lived very frugally and paid off my debts quickly and learned to live without the cost of television or expensive household items. I was a single mother with two kids when my husband moved out of state leaving us without even a house or car. My grandmother gave me a small cabin in the mountains that I worked to make improvements and learned to live off the land itself. I eventually paid off the property and was able to sell it for a good profit. I kept this up until I was able to send the kids to college and finally buy a decent car and move to a decent home. I bought some stock in a couple of corporations and they too showed me a profit.

I may not be a large investor but I am a Capitalist! Defending my profits has been a constant battle with others. I have never had a well-paying job as I did not go to college. But living on the verge of poverty allowed me to invest proving that investing and making a profit does not require a large original monetary investment. I did not even have a television until 1982,

Where else except through Capitalism can an uneducated American end up without owing any money and without taking a dime from the American government? I have given up telling people that I’m a Capitalist because it rebounds with comments like I’m a selfish pig and they demand a redistribution of wealth, especially mine.

40 years ago I began reading Ayn Rand who described exactly how I looked at the power of the government. My husband bought me a small gold dollar sign ($) that wear every day around my neck and a couple of times people will understand what that symbol represents. Most laugh at me for being simple minded.

The reason the collectivists will not invest in the corporations is that they feel the corporations are the enemy of American people. I ask many who criticize me, who signs their paychecks and they have to admit some Corporation made up of Capitalists.

Every 4 years we read the whining and rude comments from people too lazy to look into American Economics. I was lucky and found the books suggested by Lew Rockwell carefully described the best economic systems versus what we have at this time. Every 4 years the voters elect government officials who will hand them perks (government controlled handouts) and a totally dysfunctional school system and we lap it up as we know no other way to live.

Osborn, I gave up political interests as there is no political party that offers me individual freedoms, a limited government and hint that they have even read the Constitution. Freedom is a lost cause in America and collectivism always wins when the voters are not academically prepared for individual rights. We have been told that God gave us these rights and we have no choice other than to follow what the voters claim as a National God to be followed. Not for me!

We are sheep! Orwell defined us very well in many of his writings and few bothered to read his works. Until his message is a television show, we might as well give in, give up and follow the sheep off the cliff.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thank you for the well thought out, and on point response Sandy.

I too share the views made famous by Rand, as well as I too have been burdened with unjust labels of cruelty, callousness among others simply for expressing the fundamental opinions that built this nation at its founding.

How ironic is it that the concepts considered revolutionary in 1776, the very concepts we built our nation around, have been placed on the same mantle of "revolutionary thoughts" once again, in the country created by that concept?

I think Washington was far more prophetic than he ever believed possible, in his farewell speech ending his presidency. The power of partisanship, the fools gold of patriotism, used to usurp the power from the very people which rightfully own, operate and drive the worlds largest, most productive society in the world.

I agree on Orwell, and his definitions and characterizations for the most part, I suppose I am just disheartened by the inestimable free-will choices the people have made to allocate and foster complacency instead of independence, a trade of labor for a promise that is never kept, a sacrifice of multiple freedoms for false promises of security and growing dependence on the very ideological enemies we have fought against since our inception and establishment.

Who is John Galt?

[SoylentGreen]

The trouble with Rand is she paints to black a picture of socialism.
Take a look at some of the countries that are socialist and you will find that capitalism does quite well there.
There is no reason why the two cannot work together.
There are areas of conflict but it is not an insurmountable conflict.

Privately owned medium-sized companies are valuable contributors to the New Zealand economy with an estimated 3500 of them contributing an estimated $110 billion a year in revenues. small businesses would account for 121,884 businesses in New Zealand, also representing 97 percent of all businesses.

Those numbers might seem small to you but remember that NZ population is only 4,000,000.
We have a socialist government and yet small and medium size business that is privately owned is growing.
Osborne you have mentioned a few times the term " a level playing field" , Socialism is better at creating a level playing field than your countries method of economics. And until your country creates a level playing field your dreams will remain just dreams.

[grandpa]

First of all, I don't see why becoming a Fortune 500 company is a decent aim.

Second, you seem to maintain that capitalism is not at all a "collectivist" thing. That view is impossible to defend, because, when we discuss economies we are in fact discussing collectivist entities. Under capitalism, these entities are encouraged to be hierarchical in nature.

Fortune 500 companies are not democratic in nature. It is not one person one vote, nor are considerations aside from short-term profit often encouraged. That's why people are relucant to join such companies. That and their anal retentive, class-distinction-inducing, mind-numbing nature.

Grandpa h.

[Alive]

Are you really making this argument, Osborn?

First of all, libertarians are not against shareholding. Libertarians are in favor of free markets, which means that people are allowed to sell shares of their company for whatever price they want. In fact, stocks and bonds are a (perhaps even the) basis of capitalism. You want to get money from the people who have it to the people who can use it most efficiently, and that's what the capitalist system does through the stock system.

Second, socialists/communists/etc. aren't just in favor of any kind of collective ownership! They want collective ownership by the workers. Stockholding is ownership by the investors. That's a big difference!

Third, consider what would happen if some group tried to take over a supposedly nasty corporation and use it for the public good. They buy up the company, pursue social rather than profit aims. That will decrease their income obviously; they'll go bankrupt. Profitmaking is necessary in the corporate world; if you take a loss you have to have some other income source to cover it up. That's the way our system works. The socialist/communist goal isn't to take over our system but to reform or overthrow it.

Socialism/communism are very wrong philosophies, but this has to be the silliest attack against them I have ever seen.

[ZNFYRH]

I'm inclined to agree with Alive.

The way I understood it, the Libertarian perspective is that citizens should be free to do whatever they want with their business.

Public ownership simply means that the public can own shares in the company. Nothing anti-Libertarian about that.

I think the overall policy is that there should be no government regulation, control, or interference in the market.

Though I did read some interesting proposals where the government had its own competing companies in certain markets.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think everyone but Sandy missed the point of my original argument....

Collective ownership ALLOWS workers to invest in their own companies..... thereby, they can chart their own course once owned by the workers if the workers make that a goal..... SO, why aren't all the collectivists, socialists and communists in this country DOING THIS?!?

Perhaps because they can't get their collective asses together?

Perhaps because they can't agree with each other once they have a STAKE in the decisions?

Perhaps, you know, or care to attempt to answer those questions?

[Technosoul]

It is kind of odd that American corperations have started adopting socialism and in China they are starting to enjoy a little capitalism.

I have always believed in 'turning a nickle over before spending it". Something I learned from this book about Ben Franklin.

I am not sure what I am relative to those titles such as socialist or capitalist. I guess sometime people have to work together and sometimes you gotta do it for your self. I do not like conforming to establisments and so was forced to be more of a capitalist then I was a joiner. Athough I have done both.

Once I got laid off and could not pay rent and was homeless with my family, I hated dealing with unemployment lines or welfare people and refused to get help to survive. My wife still had a job but her check was not big enough to afford rent payments. We could only afford a motel a couple of times a week so she could take showers and keep clean. While she was at work I would sneak into a swapmeet and I walked around and would buy something from one dealer and re-sell it to another dealer. I met one fellow who sold phonograph records at the swapmeet and he was overstocked and so he gave me some supplies to sell so that he could expand, half the profits for me and half for him. I got a booth and started selling them like hot cakes, using a record player to promote sales. (something he did not do).

Then I got him to sign a letter stating that I earned a thousand dollars a week selling his records (which was a lie - only sold half that much) along with his phone number. I used that phoney paperwork to prove my income in order to rent a house to live in. Out foxed the system.. ha.

With a house I could also have yard sales (no overhead costs) instead of renting a place at the swapmeet every week. All this without paying income taxes. I would buy stuff at other garage sales and up the price when I had a sale. Dealing in all kinds of collectables or useful stuff.

I could also buy stuff for my personal use at a cheap price without sale taxes added at garage sales. None the less, my line of work is not possible if it was not for the fact that Americans over-buy and end up with lots of left-over items they no longer want.

[Alive]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Collective ownership ALLOWS workers to invest in their own companies..... thereby, they can chart their own course once owned by the workers if the workers make that a goal.....

Only if they can afford to buy the company! Some workers have indeed done this, but I don't think they are communists. Like I said, the communist goal isn't to take over the system but to overthrow it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Alive said: Only if they can afford to buy the company! Some workers have indeed done this, but I don't think they are communists. Like I said, the communist goal isn't to take over the system but to overthrow it.

Fair enough. My point is about collective ownerships "inherant goodness" being bunk.

I am simply frustrated and upset at the disconnect between these issues in AMERICAN collectivists.

This country offers one of the best alternatives "from their perspective" to control the "evil corporations" they are always railing against.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Fair enough. My point is about collective ownerships "inherant goodness" being bunk.

No collective organization is "inherently good." However, one would be a fool to miss just how diabolical elitist organizations tend to be.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Big]

Hey Osborn,

A couple reasons why workers/socialists/communists don't take control of corporations through share ownership:

1. Many workers may not have the class consciousness to do so, or may not realize what is in their own best interest. The corporate-rightest propaganda machine (as opposed to the socialist-leftist propaganda machine) seems to be very effective at keeping people from knowing what is in their own best interest. You can see this time and time again, as the working poor vote for parties such as the Republicans, or in Canada the Conservatives.

2. Even if they did have the idea to do this, there is no way that their financial resources would allow them to do so; take a look at the average value of an American corporation, and the average amount it spends on wages. Assuming all these wages were available for discretionary spending, it would still take years and years for this to happen. In reality only a small fraction of these wages are available for discretionary spending, so your idea that they should just 'buy the companies' is more than a little far fetched.

Sandy,

Thats a great story about fighting back to succeed. You definitely overcame some tough obstacles. In a strong welfare state (as opposed to a weak welfare state like the USA) you would have probably had access to socialized housing (or at least subsidized housing), you children could have gone to college for free, you would have had access to free retraining/skill building, all of which would lead to a better quality of life for you and your children.

As for the first post in this thread:

“There's a strange contradiction lurking in all this revisionism: the United States is arguably farther along the road to Marx's communist Utopia. After all, the major means of production are collectively owned, thanks to the stock market and mutual funds.

While it is true that the majority of the American public owns business through pension plans, stocks, and mutual funds, the majority of the ownership is held by a small number of people. This is not at all "Marx's Socialism". This is ownership by the few.

The country certainly boasts of an informed proletariat.

Debatable.....

And, as Mr. Cheek noted, `With our social security system and Medicare, we are far more socialized in practice than China, which has neither.'”
-Craig S. Smith, in "Workers of the World, Invest!", in the New York Times, 2001-Aug-19"

If you take a look at the mix of socialized versus private services, the United States is very far right compared to other western nations (which are the nations it should be compared to in the first place, since it is a western nation its self). While your medicine is certainly advanced, the medical coverage for your citizens is laughable. I am not sure what social security systems you have, but I guarantee they are not up to par with the majority of western states.

Yet we in the United States have the highest standard of living of any country in the world.

As measured by average annual income? This distribution is skewed, as wealth in your country is highly concentrated. A better measure of standard of living would be to look at the United Nation's rankings of the best places to live. Canada (which is somewhat right of center), and Scandinavian countries (which are usually strong welfare states - left of center) consistently top the list.

We are a very rich and prosperous country.

No debate here.

It is an extraordinary tribute to the productivity of the market system that, with less than fifty percent of the resources, it can produce the kind of standard of living and the kind of society we have.”
-Milton Friedman, from The Drug War As A Socialist Enterprise

Sorry, your wealth was created on the backs of black Americans during the period of slavery, and by selling weapons at inflated prices to both sides of the conflict during WW2. Free markets have little to do with it. While they can be wildly efficient, and are able to produce a very large amount of consumer goods, more can be said about ww2 and slavery.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr Big said: Hey Osborn,

Hello, and welcome to Volconvo. I see you have made 61 posts already, yet I don't think we have crossed paths yet, so I thought a formal hello was in order.

Mr Big said: A couple reasons why workers/socialists/communists don't take control of corporations through share ownership: 1. Many workers may not have the class consciousness to do so, or may not realize what is in their own best interest. The corporate-rightest propaganda machine (as opposed to the socialist-leftist propaganda machine) seems to be very effective at keeping people from knowing what is in their own best interest.

I would agree on both points, and say most of the problems, in all shards of political, social, economic division spawn from a general apathy toward sincere self-education on the subjects.

I forget the author, but a quote I posted recently, which adequately sums it up:

"The average American today cares more about their lawn, than the national debt."

Our educational system is failing, and would have long ago completely folded if not for the persistence and good will of the majority of actual teachers out there, held back by the public school system, and the lack of intrest by many parents to check up on that education, and consciously supplement it at home.

Mr Big said: You can see this time and time again, as the working poor vote for parties such as the Republicans, or in Canada the Conservatives.

Excuse me, but that sounds a bit biased, am I mistaken?

I am what would be considered an American citizen who is part of the "working poor", and I don't, nor could validate many issues the left puts forth both in Canada, and the United States.

I am closest to Libertarians on both economics and social law. (left socially, right economics)

Mr Big said: 2. Even if they did have the idea to do this, there is no way that their financial resources would allow them to do so; take a look at the average value of an American corporation, and the average amount it spends on wages. Assuming all these wages were available for discretionary spending, it would still take years and years for this to happen. In reality only a small fraction of these wages are available for discretionary spending, so your idea that they should just 'buy the companies' is more than a little far fetched.

It is only far fetched because the market of workers aren't demanding it.

They have been distracted by national labor unions, and consolidated labor unions which are for all purposes and effects corrupted corporations, who fight for the worker as little as possible, yet collect from them religiously, while still rarely having enough funds for strikes, or other necessary actions of union activities. I am pro-INDIVIDUAL business unions, but anti-big unions, like the UAW, Service Employees International, or trade unions concepts.

Workers have individual rights just like all individuals, and one of those rights is the right to communicate with one another, and take stands against injustice collectively, whether civil or employment based.

The reason wages have been kept down for laborers is two-fold, but most of it hinges on nations trading with one another that differ greatly on the rights of individuals, and by default, workers rights. This type of policy is pro-business, but anti-liberty, anti-individual rights, anti-betterment, while further empowering and isolating power in central governments, and multi-national corporations who control them, overtly and covertly.

Mr Big said: Debatable.....

I agree, one of the main reasons I posted it in the thread starter. I think the subject deserves debate, and the quote serves as a nice framer starter of one side of the debate.

Mr Big said: If you take a look at the mix of socialized versus private services, the United States is very far right compared to other western nations (which are the nations it should be compared to in the first place, since it is a western nation its self). While your medicine is certainly advanced, the medical coverage for your citizens is laughable.

In the United States, people have individual rights, as well as individual responsibility. Part of individual responsibility is ownership and maintenance of your own body. This is not a job of government, not a role for our government, nor a Constitutional derivation of authority for our system of government.

Many also fail to notice that our lifestyle choices are very wide here in the U.S. in ever category, from choice of sports to choice of junk-foods, choice of activity or complete and total inactivity. This is part of self-ownership, and having individual rights to pursue happiness in whatever form you may seek that does not infringe the rights of another.

Statistically, the most individually free nations will have the worst "medical statistics", since they have the most choices available, and the most legal freedom to exercise and or attempt to exploit those choices to their own undoing.

Isn't that kind of "common sense"?

If one nation is allowed to make and consume deep-fried twinkies, and one nations uses physical force to prevent its citizens from doing so, won't the nation exploiting force to appease statistical betterment win everytime?

Mr Big said: I am not sure what social security systems you have, but I guarantee they are not up to par with the majority of western states.

Why would this be a role for U.S. Constitutional Federal government?

Mr Big said: As measured by average annual income? This distribution is skewed, as wealth in your country is highly concentrated. A better measure of standard of living would be to look at the United Nation's rankings of the best places to live. Canada (which is somewhat right of center), and Scandinavian countries (which are usually strong welfare states - left of center) consistently top the list.

You forgot to say "in your opinion".

Rarely are statistics presented, or sought for non-biased puposes, or done well enough to conclude anything of value.

Mr Big said: No debate here.

To what do you attribute that "fact" in your opinion?

Mr Big said: Sorry, your wealth was created on the backs of black Americans during the period of slavery, and by selling weapons at inflated prices to both sides of the conflict during WW2.

Really? I am sure after making such an accusation you would have loads of evidence to support that statement, as well as to show the "clear" ties to that wealth, and where it now lies.

Mr Big said: Free markets have little to do with it. While they can be wildly efficient, and are able to produce a very large amount of consumer goods, more can be said about ww2 and slavery.

Then why are so many socialist nations failing when cutoff from the free market economy of the global markets, yet benefitting when part of them?

[Mr. Big]

Hi, thanks for the hello.

Excuse me, but that sounds a bit biased, am I mistaken?

Biased.... hm. Well, some issues that directly relate to the poor and working poor, that would directly benefit that demographic, put forth by left of center parties, seem to be ignored by that demographic. Specific issues would include subsidized ("affordable") housing, stronger worker's rights, a more progressive tax system, better social benefits --such as proper healthcare, higher-level education/retraining-- cheap and plentiful public transit, and even daycare. Like the policies or not, these initiatives would directly help the poor and working poor, but are none the less ignored or brushed off as "socialist schemes".

It is only far fetched because the market of workers aren't demanding it.........

This doesn't speak to my point about the vast sums of money that would be needed to take control of these companies, and generally speaking, this demographics lack of financial resources. Whatever the cause of this lack of resources is irrelevant; they still do not have the funds to take over companies.

I believe the rest of my post was directed towards the quotes, and not at your original argument... so I will not respond to much of your rebuttal. That being said...

You forgot to say "in your opinion".

Well, by standard of living within the United States I assume that it is meant the standard of living for all individuals within the United States, not just a minority of citizens. It is true that some people in the USA have a very good quality of life... but then if we measure other nations the same way, some people in Bolivia have a very good quality of life... they are a small minority within Bolivia, but are still there. The same can be said about Brazil and perhaps Peru. So by the same logic (depending on how big of a minority you want to include), Brazil, Peru, and Bolivia all have very high standards of living.

Also... free markets are a different thing than international trade. International trade involves swapping goods between states. Free markets happen largely within countries. Command economies do, and often have, traded with other nations, and have done well. Examples include South Korea, prior to the late 80s (they are arguably less command-and-control now), North Korea before the collapse of the Soviet Union (their main trading partner. During this time, the north was neck-in-neck with the south with regards to economic output, etc.), the Soviet Union (their economy exploded under sound economic management during the 1950s and into 60s) which was more or less self sufficient.

But this last bit gets away from your question as to why collectivists don't own the means of production.

[Mr. Big]

Sorry, I was wrong about ww2... it was ww1, and the citation for that is (in bad apa style):

Gilbert, F., Large, D. (eds) (2002). The End of the European Era, 1890 to the Present, fifth ed., Norton, NY, pp. 143-5

I don't have time to dig the rest up, and I don't think its relative to your first post, so I wont provide citations for that. Sorry.