The problem of Capitalism

First, that's nonsense. There are plenty of heterodox journals, including ones sympathetic to Georgism. Second, you can't as you've just made a load of bobbins up. You can't support your position because it is guff.

 

But as you know, I'm not a Georgist.

No, I identified the relevant facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications.

 

You have opinion that you cannot back up with any economic evidence. That's because your opinion isn't worth bob!

 

I already backed it up, as you know.

 

Please stop fibbing. I asked you repeatedly to give economic evidence in support. You've given none. Put it right if you can. Send over the DOIs or references...

[None will be provided]

 

No one is ever going to 'deliver market socialism'. Not as long as democracy still stands.

Remove the freedom to collect, and you remove the social from the ism.

 

So go ahead and start your own worker-owned firm.

 

Theft of what thing, specifically?

 

You have a peculiarly naive outlook. That might he encouraged by pandering to the right wing peanut gallery.

If you were attempting to construct proper critique you would focus on feasibility. You would, for example, challenge the Austrian economic ideas embedded within market socialism. You would then attempt to compare with an anarchist alternative focused on removing hierarchy through cooperative means. Of course that's assuming you're a lefty and not just a right winger without any knowledge of economics

 

Hilarious, considering that I pegged him as an anarcho-Communists quite a while ago simply by asking him relevant question and not by commenting through looking down my nose at him.
Then, he clarified his position and made the case.

Try it sometimes. It really opens the line of communication.

 

This amused me. When do anarcho communists just peddle supply side economics?

 

He didn't. This was our conversation, irrelevant part snipped:

To which I responded:

To which he replied:

There is an old joke:

The point of the joke as related to this:

My estimation is that your determination of his economic belief system went with very little genuine inquiry and more jumping to conclusions. If you wished to genuinely pursue conversation, you may have then started a line of questioning that actually went to the heart in the differences of your philosophy, which at my best estimation is the utilization of the free market within a voluntaryist system, that is based upon Marxist ideas. Instead of beginning with some pompous statement like "We know Marxism defines..." (which does little to drive a conversation forward, as illustrated by the joke) you should actually discuss the traits of a free market. The thing is, it is the perceived differences in these traits that drive the different economic schools. Instead of trying "left wing economics" and "right wing economic" perhaps you should just try "economics" because if you do not you inject your own bias into the study of the field, and usually without even knowing it.

 

Crank has repeatedly referred to supply side economics. I appreciate you fellows look for exotic labels to try and disguise your homogeneity, but the application of right wing economics is in full knuckle drag.

 

Because goods and services don't need to be supplied?

 

As I said, he didn't in my conversation with him as quoted above

So, this is precisely to which I was referring. You aren't interest interested in listening, only interested in dictating. You jump to conclusions. I doubt that you even read my previous post in it's entirety.

I don't think it is "right wing economics" that "is in full knuckle drag" in these conversations, as I think it is a better description of your behaviour. You remain willfully ignorant. Like any other partisan hack on PF, conversing with you outside of your echo chamber is an exercise in futility.

Can't say I didn't try though.

 

Some posters aren't really interesting in any sort of discussion of ideas. Pretty much just dedicated to jargon and pontification. No real thought.

 

What a load of ramble! I can only go by their use of economics. It is just factual to note that supply side ecoonmics delivered neoliberalism. That guaranteed coercion towards inefficient Dickensian inequalities and a shift to inequalities in opportunity. To support such economics is not consistent with any left wing outlook. Of course its not also consistent with libertarianism, but that doesn't stop the yanks on here supporting such guff...

Perhaps you need to brush up on your economics? You wouldn't be getting yourself in this untenable position where you indirectly support rentier capitalism

 

That would actually be rentier statism. Economic rents can only exists because of state interference with the market.

 

Good comment. I agree with you on many points.

 

But what about the question? An alternative to capitalism?

It arguably comes down to two forms of feasible alternative, anarchism or socialism. I go with the latter, given market socialism embraces the importance of the entrepreneur and also the importance of equality of opportunity. An approach which brings together Austrian Economics and Marxism has already achieved the seemingly impossible...

 

The alternative to capitalism is totalitarianism.

 

Within the conversation that crank and I had that I quoted in my previous post, where precisely did @crank refer to "supply side economics"?

 

Why would I care about your conversation with crank? I'm referring to their use of economics. We can all play pretend with our "I am" titles. You do that yourself. This is about what economic comment reveals. That crank uses supply side economics informs me, without any doubt, that they aren't left wing. I know nothing about you, except that you hug right wingers more tightly than talking economics. Its as if you have something to hide...

 

And you're not a fan of goods being supplied by producers?

 

Because I used probing questions to inquire about his actual belief system, instead of making invalid assumptions about it like you have.

Now, please answer the question if you are able.

You can not conclude what "economic comment reveals" unless to request clarification, otherwise you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

You may sling your back-handed insults and attack passive-agressively all that you wish, but that certainly is not economic content.

If you wish to know my stance, all you need is to but ask proper, probing questions without innuendos and passive aggressive behaviours.