The problem of Capitalism

We all enjoy being told who the anarchists are - by people sitting in their private capitalism-funded armchair, in their private homes, living their very conventional and fully participatory lives

 

Anarchists can share economics with right wingers. Autonomists, for example, referred to globalisation as a reaction to trade union power. Thatcherism celebrated it! However, I do not know any anarchists who support supply side economics. Do you?

 

I don't know any anarchists, period.

 

Do you know any lefties at all who support supply side economics?

 

Do you mean economics?

 

You are trying to divert attention from the massive injustice and evil of privilege by pretending that the comparatively trivial injustice of discrimination is worthy of comparable attention. Shame on you.

 

The state's privilege is indeed evil.

 

That's just puerile, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" nonsense. The state is the source of privilege, and privilege is evil -- in fact, it is the state taking the side of evil -- but history shows a state has to be very evil indeed to be more evil than no state.

 

The state owns all land. It is the ultimate evil landowner.

 

No. Land can never rightly be owned. The state just administers possession and use of land in trust for the people because that is what it IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. You have been told many times that a trustee is not the owner of the trust assets. You just ignore that fact and disingenuously repeat your false claim that administration in trust is ownership. Have you no shame?

 

Oh, I forgot. The state administers possession. That's not owning at all. LOL.

 

<yawn> No, it is not, as trusteeship proves. Ownership is defined as encompassing four rights: control, exclusion, benefit and disposition. The exclusive private possessor of land controls it, not the state. You are therefore objectively wrong. The state also cannot rightly dispose of land -- i.e., it cannot abdicate its responsibility to administer it in the public interest and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to use it.

 

The state has the right to control, exclude, benefit, and dispose.

Oh, and it's also a monopoly.

 

I know plenty of lefties who are fans of capitalism, if that's what you mean. In fact probably every Lefty I know is keen on the filthy lucre.

 

They seem to like their iPhones

 

Oh yeah. And their overseas travel (they love their travel beyond measure. it's as though Greta doesn't even have a message). And their expensive wine. And their hand made Etsy homewares. And their sumptuously catered partays. And their visits to hair stylists. And their late model Subarus. And their investments. Should I go on?

 

I have already agreed with you on the problem that this lack of upper income taxation is imposing, helping to create more and more billionaires and since US is a major participant in the world economy that means the power of the WORLD is falling in the hands of less and less people. And this is exactly what Bernie is fighting against by introducing the concept of wealth tax. SO the upper income taxation issue is solved.
As we know in the system of capitalism, country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
'SO all the interactions in such system is influenced by individual's profit and NOT the society as a whole.'
Using above we can justify all the bad happenings that you discribed.

It seems that you tend to think more literally than figuratively. Capitalists that I refered to were the ones who have power over other people. I having a car obviously doesn't apply to that.
Since you pointed to election, I should say even the election is influenced by this private ownership. HOW?
I saw a comment from @crank implying the concept of capitalist democracy. There is NO such thing as democracy in capitalism.
First an election is about Ads don't you agree? And who will provide the money for these ads? The answer is obvious, the individuals who have the money and have an interest in the nominee's policys. They will fund a nominee because they see that nominee profitable for their pockets otherwise why would they do that. SO this individuals have the power over the elected people.
Second , the ads we talked about have a tremendous impact on the ideas of the public. Our brain will process the informations which were presented to us over and over where ever we turn our heads. SO the people who own the media (private ownership due to capitalism) can present their ideas as fact to the public . So when someone like Reagan will run on such policies he can have the votes because he owns the public through his sponsors.
Third ,thanks to capitalism major industries are owned privately. The industries that are essential to the country and the owners of these industries hold the real power not the government. SO no suprise when Ronnie do sth in favor of these owners.

 

The consequences of any country's "trade and industry" is profit, which stimulates the Income of all capitalists that "own the production of goods/services". (And if not, then economic disintegration occurs.)

You are confusing a very simple relationship between corporate-profit and social fairness. That can happen in countries where the dominant political-power prefers low taxation and the US is the Prime Example of such an economic predicament. In such instances the distribution of Wealth becomes concentrated at the top.

The "trick" then is to balance the necessity of a "profit motive" for any economy with the "fair redistribution of accumulated wealth by means of taxation". It's like having a Speed Limit for the process of obtaining wealth from ownership of business enterprises.

Which is why upper-income taxation rates in the European Union are so much higher than they are in the US. And why Europe has free healthcare and post-secondary education! Which happened in the EU because voters voted Social Democrat parties into power. And the US has not pursued that political-venue.

Well, you got that wrong. I'm a capitalist, you're a capitalist. To the extent that we use money to purchase goods/services WE ARE ALL CAPITALISTS! Money is capital!

You are confusing the terms, which means that such a remark is kinda-sorta stoopid.

Elections happen and whether people are stoopid-enough to believe the junk adverts, the fact that they elect their representatives to govern is the sine-qua-non of any democracy. How well or not that democracy functions is an entirely different matter.

Yes, I understood that. And you are WRONG to think or argue that point.

Capitalists have the power to persuade. Donald Dork proved that in his surprise election (which he first lost and then won). If the people are persuaded by whatever junk-notions he peddles and vote for him, then that is (like it or not) a reflexion of the people's will (and it must prevail).

It may be sorrowful but it is as simple as that ...

 

What is "abnormal" about the democratic process of electing government representatives is the electoral mechanism. No country that employs a vote-manipulator "Electoral College" to obtain a Head-of-state or Gerrymandering for its representatives to the HofR can be considered a Genuine Democracy.

There is today far-too-much manipulation of the popular-vote, which must remain pristinely pure. Meaning an EC that simply reports the state's contribution to the national-vote for an Executive Head-of-government without any manipulation whatsoever of that vote!

And Congress reports officially the outcome of a popular-vote for the presidency. Whilst on the state level, the nation must rid itself of the practice of Gerrymandering.

Until then, we are not the "true-democracy" that we think we are ...

 

Um...the treaty was never designed to be a democracy. In fact it was specifically intended not to be a democracy.

 

I've already referred to how I favour land co-operatives. I don not, however, use land rant to hide from other problems within our society. Discrimination destroys lives and to ignore it, just because you can't use your Georgist script, is pathetic.

 

That is an extremely poor dodge. Supply-side economics is a school of economic thought. It isn't an economic paradigm. That is so blindingly obvious that even fake libertarians should be able to grasp it.

I'll ask again: Can you refer to any lefties that support supply-side economics?

[Hint: There aren't any!]

 

Is "supply-side economics" economics?

 

Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. Under the LSR + UIE system, the private user controls it; the community benefits, not the state; and it can't dispose of it. If a state does dispose of land, it does so wrongly.

Land is always a monopoly.

 

That's like favoring slave co-operatives as a solution to slavery.

You use other problems to hide from the land problem.

Garbage. Discrimination barely registers on the scale of sources of injustice. When someone is offering a cure for cancer, nattering at them about how it won't cure bunions is not only pathetic, it is disingenuous and despicable.