The end is near

[Anenome5]

Yes it does.  They are definitely not mutually exclusive.  Please look up what the terms mean.  

Capitalism involves, among other things, the private ownership of the means of production and private property (and accumulation thereof).  Whereas this is not the case with Socialism, strictly speaking.

As you may be aware the USA has a very strong history when it comes to protecting private property rights, likely stronger than any other country on this planet.  It's absurd to call the uSA a socialist society, as much as it is to call Cuba, for example, a capitalist society.

The USA was once a great example of capitalism, but that is no longer the case.  Private property is being confiscated, taxed, and redistributed.  Businesses are highly regulated and purchasing power is being stolen from the people by a banking system created by the politicians.  What we have now is a great example of socialism.  Karl Marx would be very pleased with the way things are in the USA now.

Anyone who thinks that the USA is still a capitalist country is completely clueless.

Capitalism and Socialism is Collectivism. It's the same Bullshit. Private property is always sub-property, which is guaranteed by the state, because with this private sub-property, the tax payer is able to generate taxed surpluses. Without a state, there is no such thing as a private property.

This has never been true and is an example one of the great falsities the leftist-anarchs believe. Not only does property exist without the state, animals act as if they own things, themselves, their herds of female, and territories even. There've been done some interesting studies on property ownership in the animal kingdom.

Some primitive tribes do live collectively, but in that case they live as if the tribe owns everything, not as if there were no property at all, which belies your point, since they are stateless.

Functionally it's impossible to live without property as a concept. Because if you can't be the exclusive owner of a thing, then you cannot even live. For to dispose of a bit of food and water is to sequester it away for your exclusive use, which is to own.

Those railing against property have completely missed the mark, and it's a shame that all of leftist anarchism and socialism is focused on doing away with private ownership of property.

It was never property that was the problem. Property is the solution! The problem is government itself interfering. The socialists then allied with government and became the very thing the left-anarchs had railed against.

[1714894635]

1714894635

[1714894635]

1714894635

[Anenome5]

Capitalism has been the driving mechanism for human society, progress and prosperity in modern history.

for human society? ROTFL
only for some human, the minority that lives in "g8"
the rest of us, live in conditions like war, starvation, pollution, no instruction...

Sounds like the rest of you guys need something you are severely lacking: capitalism 

Indeed. The real ideological battle going on in the world today is between two things:

The ideologies and forces of communalism vs the ideologies and forces of individualism.

This is the only lens in which to view the world which will make sense of everything happening around us. Capitalism is what results when you apply individualism to the economic realm.

For most of history our political institutions have been communal.

The trend was bucked strongly for the first time with early Britain during the Industrial Revolution and then with the Declaration of Independence, which is an individualist document.

Since then, communalism in government has gained strength in both Britain and the US. The very culture of individualism that created the modern world is now being threatened with extinguishing. Government has achieved near total power in both places.

The reason this happened is because any organization predicated on communalism is likely to tend towards greater communalism over time. The Founders of the US, despite their intentions, didn't understand individualism as a philosophy of freedom, and thus built a government which was freer than what existed elsewhere, but still predicated on communal principles.

The US constitution is inherently a communalist / socialist document. Socialism is what results when you apply the principles of communalism to the political realm.

So, what happened at last is that pure communalism in the form of socialism, in the 19th century, decided to try to apply communalist principles to the economic realm as well.

This effort created communism--the application of communalism principles to economics.

Communism failed for various reasons I won't go into, but suffice it to say that communism can never be as efficient as capitalism (see the "socialism's economic calculation problem" for explanation).

Capitalism is individualim applied to the economic realm.

Now, if you've followed me this far, you may have noticed that there's one combination which has never, in the history of the world, been tried. There are no outstanding examples of individualism applied to the political realm.

This is the road forward for the world. We must figure out how to apply individualism to the political problem of rights protection, law, law-enforcement, and dispute resolution.

I'm working on these concepts currently, having taken Robert LeFevre's term to head them under. He called this idea "autarchy," meaning "rule of the self, by the self."

To apply individualism to the political problem means first of all abandoning democracy. Democracy is easily seen as a communalist / socialist tool. It seeks to force the will of the masses, as obtained through a vote, on the minority parties.

Whenever you have a society that pushes aside the individual will for that of the majority, you have a communalist society. And whenever a society lets the individual will stand against all of society, that is an individualist society.

We must build an autarchist society where each individual is a sovereign over themselves and their property. Where we reject the principle that anyone should be able to force laws on anyone else. Where each person has total control over their personal set of laws.

With modern technology, this is completely doable. We no longer need representatives forcing laws on us. That is inherently unethical. If we are self-owners and self-rulers, let us truly rule ourselves. Not this sham called democracy.

That is the way forward for this world. I plan to build just such a society in a seasteading context within the next 10-20 years, and pave the way for mass migration into such a society. For if it works as I imagine it, it will be far more prosperous and free than these socialist societies, and people will flock to it thereby.

[shawshankinmate37927]

To apply individualism to the political problem means first of all abandoning democracy. Democracy is easily seen as a communalist / socialist tool. It seeks to force the will of the masses, as obtained through a vote, on the minority parties.

I agree.  I don't have a problem with socialists organizing and voluntarily forming their own collectivist societies.  Just don't force that bullshit on those of us that can see how destructive it is and don't want to have anything to do with it.

[Adrian-x]

Capitalism and Socialism is Collectivism. It's the same Bullshit. Private property is always sub-property, which is guaranteed by the state, because with this private sub-property, the tax payer is able to generate taxed surpluses. Without a state, there is no such thing as a private property.

This has never been true and is an example one of the great falsities the leftist-anarchs believe. Not only does property exist without the state, animals act as if they own things, themselves, their herds of female, and territories even. There've been done some interesting studies on property ownership in the animal kingdom.

Some primitive tribes do live collectively, but in that case they live as if the tribe owns everything, not as if there were no property at all, which belies your point, since they are stateless.

Functionally it's impossible to live without property as a concept. Because if you can't be the exclusive owner of a thing, then you cannot even live. For to dispose of a bit of food and water is to sequester it away for your exclusive use, which is to own.

Those railing against property have completely missed the mark, and it's a shame that all of leftist anarchism and socialism is focused on doing away with private ownership of property.

It was never property that was the problem. Property is the solution! The problem is government itself interfering. The socialists then allied with government and became the very thing the left-anarchs had railed against.

You are correct in looking to nature for a solution, I too look to nature for the solutions, but what I see reveals the non aggressive principal is not part of properly in nature.
  
All the territory or herd property, that exists in nature is defended by strength. Your property is challenged all the time, regardless of species. It can be claimed by whoever wants it, there is never a non aggressive principal to allow an imbalance to exist to the detriment of the majority in nature.

You need the "state" (or equivalent collectivist attitude) to perpetuate the private property meme.

Challenges to the territory in question are almost always called off before life threatening injuries, and never allow an imbalance of natural recourses to accumulate in one territory unchallenged.    

[Anenome5]

You are correct in looking to nature for a solution, I too look to nature for the solutions, but what I see reveals the non aggressive principal is not part of properly in nature.
  
All the territory or herd property, that exists in nature is defended by strength. Your property is challenged all the time, regardless of species.

We must deal with nature by force because it lacks means of communication and negotiation. That does not mean we must deal with each other on that basis. It's self-evident that we all survive better when we avoid conflict rather than foster it, and that's what rights, laws, and dispute-resolution organizations produce. Thus we use them as conflict-reducing and eliminating devices.

It can be claimed by whoever wants it, there is never a non aggressive principal to allow an imbalance to exist to the detriment of the majority in nature.

You need the "state" (or equivalent collectivist attitude) to perpetuate the private property meme.

You don't, actually. All you need for private property to exist is rights protection, which is easily divorced from the state.

Challenges to the territory in question are almost always called off before life threatening injuries, and never allow an imbalance of natural recourses to accumulate in one territory unchallenged.    

It's possible to replicate this function of government without having it in place.

You don't need one territorial monopolist to ensure no one else becomes one. It's possible to have peace without a king.

[Adrian-x]

Now, if you've followed me this far, you may have noticed that there's one combination which has never, in the history of the world, been tried. There are no outstanding examples of individualism applied to the political realm.

I agree with everything in your post sampled above.  Actually I have come to the same conclusion, and I am teaching my children 5 and 7 to resolve their conflicts with this philosophy, and it starts with personal rights and the property they argue over every day, is immaterial, avoiding conflict is more to do with corporation that creating a property right to legitimise extortion. (all I do is mediate or threaten to create rules) 

Hence my only divergence is I see the meme of property as the catalyst for the evolution of the State. 

 The first time I was exposed to the idea of democracy being superseded by individualising was reading Douglas Adams, while I can't find the lecture he gave he defined every form of governance by the communication technology of the time and predicted democracy's demise with the interactive communication of many to many enabled by the internet. 

But 'interactive' makes for individual empowerment. Where the telephone is one-to-one communication and newspapers and television are one-to-many, the Internet is many-to-many." [\quote]

[Adrian-x]

We must deal with nature by force because it lacks means of communication and negotiation

Re the above, I see it differently.
Managing slaves by force is inefficient, so too is managing millions of years of evolution by force.    

Just like In a free market price expression is information expressed by supply and demand in the market, it needs to be free to work, if and for whatever reason a monopoly should exist, and the market equilibrium mechanism is destroyed.
  
Just like there are those of us that are stronger and cleverer and better manipulators than others, there are those of us, who have different intelligences, the result is while collectively trading the variety of intelligences, we will create abundant prosperity, and for whatever reason if a monopoly should exist allowing the manipulation of labour/ intelligences, the market equilibrium mechanism is destroyed.

Rights protection is for the benefit of the individual, no right can be given to someone at the expense of denying it from someone else, and to do that requires an authority.  

My conclusion is the rights afforded to property can be no different from those inherent in nature, I see violence as an expression of an imbalance, I don't see violence as a threat like the early New World settlers see it, it is a Peaceful way to maintain checks and balances.  

[EvilPanda]

I believe Bitcoin is going to lead the way to a free and thriving global economy.

Jost hope we live to see this. Now every time I watch the news it's all about government trying to force new taxes. Land tax was not enough, alcohol tax, income tax, outcome tax, tax for buying a car then for driving it, fueling it, selling it, even for having a dog! If that hasn't been ridiculous enough we have 'air tax' in some regions. Makes me wanna move to the woods somewhere, but that may be hard since even gathering firewood is forbidden...

/r/seasteading, imo.

Great idea! Mayby that's gonna be last resort for people like me, fed up with overwhelming taxation. Only thing is why do we, people who should have the power to change, have to run away from laws.
And to be clear I live in the EU - I wouldn't whine as much if I were in the US, you guys have a lot more freedom. Here the government knows best what's good for you. I feel like a slave in this system.

[EvilPanda]

Whenever you have a society that pushes aside the individual will for that of the majority, you have a communalist society. And whenever a society lets the individual will stand against all of society, that is an individualist society.

We must build an autarchist society where each individual is a sovereign over themselves and their property. Where we reject the principle that anyone should be able to force laws on anyone else. Where each person has total control over their personal set of laws.

With modern technology, this is completely doable. We no longer need representatives forcing laws on us. That is inherently unethical. If we are self-owners and self-rulers, let us truly rule ourselves. Not this sham called democracy.

That is the way forward for this world. I plan to build just such a society in a seasteading context within the next 10-20 years, and pave the way for mass migration into such a society. For if it works as I imagine it, it will be far more prosperous and free than these socialist societies, and people will flock to it thereby.

This is exactly what is happening. We choose a representative and few months later he shows us his middle finger with a smile. People hate him and have to deal with him for the next few years. Society has obviously forgotten who has the power. Sometimes I can't believe how ridiculous the law is. Few years ago, in my socialist country, there were elections and one party won with around 40% of votes. Soon after they did exactly the opposite of their political plan, killed the economy, closed every major industry in the country and sold most of the natural resources, increased the unemployment to over 20%, and forced 1/5 of the population out of the country. People hate them, they have maybe 20% of support and nobody can kick them out.

I hope you will succeed with the plan but some people don't like changes and have the resources to force their will on others so it is not gonna be easy.

[Zarathustra]

Yes it does.  They are definitely not mutually exclusive.  Please look up what the terms mean.  

Capitalism involves, among other things, the private ownership of the means of production and private property (and accumulation thereof).  Whereas this is not the case with Socialism, strictly speaking.

As you may be aware the USA has a very strong history when it comes to protecting private property rights, likely stronger than any other country on this planet.  It's absurd to call the uSA a socialist society, as much as it is to call Cuba, for example, a capitalist society.

The USA was once a great example of capitalism, but that is no longer the case.  Private property is being confiscated, taxed, and redistributed.  Businesses are highly regulated and purchasing power is being stolen from the people by a banking system created by the politicians.  What we have now is a great example of socialism.  Karl Marx would be very pleased with the way things are in the USA now.

Anyone who thinks that the USA is still a capitalist country is completely clueless.

Capitalism and Socialism is Collectivism. It's the same Bullshit. Private property is always sub-property, which is guaranteed by the state, because with this private sub-property, the tax payer is able to generate taxed surpluses. Without a state, there is no such thing as a private property.

This has never been true and is an example one of the great falsities the leftist-anarchs believe. Not only does property exist without the state, animals act as if they own things, themselves, their herds of female, and territories even. There've been done some interesting studies on property ownership in the animal kingdom.

Some primitive tribes do live collectively, but in that case they live as if the tribe owns everything, not as if there were no property at all, which belies your point, since they are stateless.

Some tribes do live collectively? All tribes do live collectively, within Dunbar's Number! The capitalist and socialist collectivists live hypercollectively. Collectively living tribes do produce no surpluses, because beyond the governed society there is no need to produce growing surpluses, as it is the case in collectivist societies exclusively, where you are forced to pay protection money to the ever growing state mafia. Tribes beyond the state do produce about the same amount as they did 100'000 years ago. No growth, no economy, no market, but self-sufficiency. This is fact, and your stories are science fiction. That's the difference.

Dream on!

[Zarathustra]

You must not have been much of an Austrian if you didn't even grasp the basic point that individualism has nothing to do with isolationism. Also, it's a simple correlation-causation fallacy to claim that rainforest tribes are not advancing because they are anarchistic.

I wrote nothing about isolationism. I wrote: An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. Beyond the collectivist society, within the stateless community, there is no individualism.

Self-sufficient rainforest tribes are not advancing and producing surpluses within 1 million years, because they are not forced to produce surpluses (for the church and state mafia). To be forced is the only evident causal reason to produce surpluses. No state = no economy, no business.

Utterly ridiculous.

People produce extra because it's in their interest to do so, so they can exchange it for other wanted goods or invest it, etc.

The nation-state actually circumvents this by siphoning off the extra production, reducing incentive to produce extra, since you won't get to enjoy it nearly as much, since they take it from you.

You are story-telling. Go out and check. A socialist US-Citizen produces hundred fold the amount of that, what a stateless tribalist does. A stateless tribalist is not growing economically, because he is not as stupid as the collectivist capitalist, who is producing rampant growing surpluses like mad.

[Rassah]

The capitalist and socialist collectivists live hypercollectively. Collectively living tribes do produce no surpluses, because beyond the governed society there is no need to produce growing surpluses, as it is the case in collectivist societies exclusively

You are right, of course. We don't need to produce surpluses, like sturdy waterproof housing, wide selections of cheap foods, fast methods of transport, electricity and all it entails, and things like computers and internet. We can all survive without them, producing only the minimum amounts we need to survive, as we did for hundreds of thousands of years.
But it's nice to have those things, anyway, especially since then you can sit in the safety of your home, warm and well fed, and spend your time on a computer, arguing about how we don't need any of these things, as opposed to busting your ass 4am to 9pm every day to grow food, or chasing down antelope, with not even enough time to say hi to your neighbor

[Bitcoin Roll]

Every end is a new begining.

[Anenome5]

We produce extra in order to consume. We don't produce extra because some state is compelling us too, that's ridiculous.

And the reason we can produce so much more than a tribal person is because we have so much more investment and capital goods multiplying the effectiveness of our work.

The difference between the tribalist and the modern worker is capital goods and investment.

Investment and capital goods can and do exist without the state, as long as rights protection and dispute resolution remain, which they can.

The great error of the modern era is to conflate the two and suppose that rights protection and DROs cannot exist without a state territorial monopoly of power.

[BitcoinAshley]

We produce extra in order to consume. We don't produce extra because some state is compelling us too, that's ridiculous.

And the reason we can produce so much more than a tribal person is because we have so much more investment and capital goods multiplying the effectiveness of our work.

The difference between the tribalist and the modern worker is capital goods and investment.

Investment and capital goods can and do exist without the state, as long as rights protection and dispute resolution remain, which they can.

The great error of the modern era is to conflate the two and suppose that rights protection and DROs cannot exist without a state territorial monopoly of power.

If more people understood this, the world would be a much happier place.

[Zarathustra]

We produce extra in order to consume. We don't produce extra because some state is compelling us too, that's ridiculous.

And the reason we can produce so much more than a tribal person is because we have so much more investment and capital goods multiplying the effectiveness of our work.

Ahistoric Science Fiction. Fairytales.
The reason, why a tribal person does not 'invest', does not produce surpluses and does not grow economically, is the absence of the state and the absence of collectivism.

Not a single stateless community in the whole history of mankind did ever invest in capital goods multiplying the effectiveness of our work.
And therefore, the stateless communities are economically the same as they have been thousands of years ago. Zero growth.

The difference between the tribalist and the modern worker is capital goods and investment.

Exactly. The collectivist worker is working with capital goods and investment! Thanks for disproving yourself! This collectivist investment story with capital goods began with the neolitic revolution: the patriarchal collectivisation of the animals and after that the collectivisation of the former anarchist human. Via animal farming to men farming.

Investment and capital goods can and do exist without the state, as long as rights protection and dispute resolution remain, which they can.

Fairytales, written by aristocratic collectivists in Vienna, whitout any anthropological knowledge of the pre-patriarchal (non-collectivist) epoch. The real world is different. In the real world, there has never been an economy with growing investment and capital goods beyond a paternalised collectivist society. And that is still the case today. No state, no economy.

[Zarathustra]

We produce extra in order to consume. We don't produce extra because some state is compelling us too, that's ridiculous.
...

The state supports capitalism/consumerism/whatever the hell you want to call this ridiculously wasteful system we live in that has developed things like built in obsolescence to create markets through wastage.

Exactly, within communities beyond the state, there has never been such a ridiculously wasteful system, which produces growing surpluses with mountains of accumulated material.

"Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7924

[MoonShadow]

Zarathustra is a true believer.  He doesn't come here and make his statements because he needs to convince himself, he comes here because he thinks it's his duty to convince you.  I recommend use of the ignore button to the left.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra is a true believer.  He doesn't come here and make his statements because he needs to convince himself, he comes here because he thinks it's his duty to convince you.  I recommend use of the ignore button to the left.

Yes, that's the difference. Moonshadow is somebody who believes that he is writing to convince himself instead of others.
So funny.

[Rassah]

Meh, let Zarathustra believe. He may even be right that tribal "natural" societies had no capital growth, and capitalism was a recent invention. He may even be right in saying that capitalism is a product of human collectivization, if by "collectivization" he simply means "humans willing to work and trade together." But so what? Things are a hell out a lot better now than they were when we were all stuck in forests. And there is no harm, or effect, of beliefs like his.