Comments by "BlackFlagsNRoses" (@blackflagsnroses6013) on "Republican City Opens Gov. Run Grocery Store" video.
-
11
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
NeanderthalRetardo wah. Tell me when Capitalists want to abolish the state and hierarchies and then I’ll take Capitalism seriously as a system of freedom.
You like Ludwig Von Mises must be happy the Fascists ended anarchist revolutions. I swear when Capitalist supporting fools act like they believe in greater freedom and autonomy than Anarchists just makes me laugh. Comeback when you find capitalism without government. Orwell is rolling in his grave the way they have successfully demonized socialism as he said authoritarians will change language to rule.
“The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
“I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy ‘proving’ that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this. The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the ‘mystique’ of ‘Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before. Partly, perhaps, this was due to the good luck of being among Spaniards, who, with their innate decency and their ever-present Anarchist tinge, would make even the opening stages of Socialism tolerable if they had the chance.” — George Orwell
3
-
Expendable4 H00 capitalism is based off certain property rights and owners of capital accumulating more capital and wealth through the exploitation of labor and an underclass of labor, selling labor for WAGES. It is based off profit motive.
Socialism has had liberal and libertarian/anarchist forms since the 19th century. The socialist Owenites were the first advocates of worker coops. The Paris Commune was a liberal democratic socialist short lived revolution. Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia was the largest anarchist revolution. Maybe don’t speak if you don’t know.
Here’s what Free Market Anarchist Benjamin Tucker had to say about the classical liberal roots of socialism:
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
2
-
2
-
@expendable4h002 completely misinterpreting. If you want to know how it works look up the revolutions and material. Start with classical liberalism and move on to Proudhon, Mikhail, Kropotkin, Tucker, Spooner, Warren, Luxembourg, Goldman etc...
There is no individual choice in starving and haven't capital so you sell labor to survive. The underclasses are just propagandized and subjugated by the ruling elite and their apparatus of control, the State. Successfully demonize socialism, anarchism, and make them see what you want them to.
capitalism isn’t synonymous with markets. Markets existed long before a socioeconomic system of proprietors relying on wage work for the accumulation of wealth and capital. Capitalism is very much a system of the primacy of capital, the rule of wealth, plutocracy.
Classical liberals were even critical of capitalism, the word capitalist was a pejorative for those merchants and owners of capital whom received privileges and favors from State authority, so that they maintain monopolistic practices.
Early liberals advocates for industrial democracy and what today is called Market Socialism. David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Thomas Hodgskin etc... several were self proclaimed socialists, as socialism was understood as those who hold the labor theory of value, and against the primacy of capital over labor, or a ruling business elite. Hodgskin’s “Labour defended against the claims of Capital” is one of the earliest works of class struggle and socialist principle. Such sentiments continued in liberal circles unto Abraham Lincoln and the modern socialist movements.
As Lincoln said: "And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
Or...
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
2
-
1
-
1
-
Maxwell Seltzer tell that to the worker’s exploited in “third world countries”. Even in your own country you’ll find homeless, and working poor. Capitalism is not responsible for advancement in the sciences and technology. Even the autocracy that was the USSR were advancing technology so much the US bulked up their publicly funded military-collegiate-government research and development to keep up. Hence the birth of internet, computers, satellite phones, cell phones etc... Today that complex goes on with medicine. Einstein, a fellow socialist, explained why capital is not what drives advancement, but brilliant minds given the resources and space to do what they love. Hence the socialist belief in individualism, that the greater the equality of material resources and free time, the greater individualism flourishes. Community socioeconomically, Individualist all other times. “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” as Oscar Wilde called it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1