How Free Markets and Communism Will Transform Society

I feel this is a misunderstanding on most people's part, about the nature of the economy. Some argue very intelligently in favor of absolutely free markets. Others argue that private property ought to be done away with in its entirety! This is, apparently, an irreconcilable difference.

This is false. Let us examine what is the meaning of free markets, as opposed to 'capitalism.' Let us then examine what is meant by 'capitalism.' We must examine what, exactly, is meant by 'capital,' or 'property.' Next we must investigate what, exactly, is meant by 'communism.'

An individual's 'capital' refers to property which that individual owns, as opposed to his peers owning. Thus a communist society is one in which individuals share resources together, as if family. Yet this relationship is not bound to typical familial structure. It is bound by nothing other than your locale, either physical or mental. Thus everything one enjoys out of 'private property' can be done in a communist society, yet we will share this with those we love most, and enjoy spending time with the most. As we are together, sharing things, we will also work on and develop our skills in whatever way we are suited.

So you can see the perfect harmony that is possible with this basic system. It is both a free market system and a communist system. In so doing, we have created a system where 'communism' and 'capitalism' are reconciled in anarchist-fashion. This is the union which is required if we are to truly transform the society on this Earth.

Do we share our toothbrush?
If not, who decides that?
Also, who decides how many brushes will be manufactured, and where?

This is a complex topic that needs to take a lot into consideration. Not the least of which is the incentive factor of people trying to improve their lot in life. That said, the free market is a myth. If there were a true free market there would be recessions, inflation, tremendous swings in wages, prices, and interest rates, and little or no prosperity. Governments need to regulate certain aspects of the economy.

Where communism theory comes in handy is the control of strategic resources. The industries of energy, food, financials/insurance, armaments should be controlled by the state.

China and Russia retain control of strategic industries while opening up the economy to private enterprise. That is why they will soon be the world's super powers while the US and western Europe will fall by the wayside..

reply to post by TheJourney

TheJourney wrote:

Thus a communist society is one in which individuals share resources together

You may want to look into this: "Tragedy of the commons"

At Wikipedia:
Tragedy of the commons

On the above Wikipedia web page, read the example of the "herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze", ...and see what happens then.

The outcome is sad, and I think it is an indication of human nature.

The problem is this: people just don't care properly for, or look after things that do not belong to them.

I can go into more detail later if you would like.

But if you consistently apply the logic behind communism, free-markets, and anarchy, you will see that they, themselves, are a self-regulating system. Thus the aims of all systems can be achieved in one 'meta-system' of sorts.

Private property such as your home, your car, your stereo, your cottage, or whatever, are things that are key to happiness and the incentive to acquire them in order to be happy and live a fulfilling life. This kind of private property is good for society.

But why does a an oil field need to be private? Why shouldn't the state own that field and the people, through their taxes, develop it and reap the benefits of it? How about a coal mine? A factory?

reply to post by TheJourney


In a capitalistic system, man exploits man.

In a socialistic system, it is the other way around.

What does this topic have to do with Secret Societies? I am not seeing the relevance.

reply to post by TheJourney

Unfortunately under Communism everything does not belong to everybody....it belongs to the State and there is a difference.

The biggest difference that you haven't taken into account, is that Participation in a Free Market is completely voluntary. If you do not want to engage in specific sectors of the free market in favor of another sector that you are more aptly suited to, no one will question it...in fact it is encouraged that you be selective of which part of the market in which to interact, so that the greatest benefit will have the greatest impact.

Under Communism, participation is forced. Everyone must do everything they are told by the Community Organizers, or someone of a similar administrative rank (like a Chief of a Tribe for a basic level example). There is no regard for any of your personal talents. If you live in a mining community, you are a miner by default. You may have be more suited to factory work, or a different industrial/service sector, but you're stuck as a miner until someone higher up notices and spreads the word, and the Bureaucracy makes the Administrative changes to allow your relocation and reassignment.

Sooo.....
Free Market=Voluntary Participation
Communism=Forced Participation

Which one gives you more freedom?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by TheJourney

 

Unfortunately under Communism everything does not belong to everybody....it belongs to the State and there is a difference.

Historically, but I specifically said in OP the society I was referring to was anarchist. There would be no state. This would all be voluntary and localized.

Originally posted by Dustofenese
The biggest difference that you haven't taken into account, is that Participation in a Free Market is completely voluntary. If you do not want to engage in specific sectors of the free market in favor of another sector that you are more aptly suited to, no one will question it...in fact it is encouraged that you be selective of which part of the market in which to interact, so that the greatest benefit will have the greatest impact.

Under Communism, participation is forced. Everyone must do everything they are told by the Community Organizers, or someone of a similar administrative rank (like a Chief of a Tribe for a basic level example). There is no regard for any of your personal talents. If you live in a mining community, you are a miner by default. You may have be more suited to factory work, or a different industrial/service sector, but you're stuck as a miner until someone higher up notices and spreads the word, and the Bureaucracy makes the Administrative changes to allow your relocation and reassignment.

Sooo.....
Free Market=Voluntary Participation
Communism=Forced Participation

Which one gives you more freedom?

edit on 1/13/2013 by Dustofenese because: addition for clarity

Unfortunately in order to live we are forced to partake in the markets. I always believed we need socialism for what we need to live and capitalism for everything else. Eliminate capitalistic behavior that is bad for society as whole.

reply to post by QMask


That has nothing to do with free markets or communism. The tragedy of the commons is what happens in the US economy, public interest and space if privatized and degraded to the benefit of a minority and the damage is shared by all.

reply to post by TheJourney


Capital is not about property, it is value or better yet all that has a value potential (since value is not a constant property). Work has value, reputation has value, energy has value, etc...

reply to post by TheJourney


While I agree that Communism has a better chance of improving humanity I can't agree with

So you can see the perfect harmony that is possible with this basic system. It is both a free market system and a communist system.

A system like any other tool has design qualities and it to be used to specific purposes, there is noting in systems that guarantee perfection or harmony in fact since humans are indisputable flawed any system we can come up-with is also flawed even if it is only because it relies in humans.

A free market system can exist in communism to a certain degree, for example in anarchy-communism but communism also requires a guaranteed minimum of equality (that is what clearly distinguishes it from Capitalism), and recognizes that forceful action may be needed to guarantee that social minimum where no one has unresolved needs (not wants). In a communist society you are forced not to have anyone die of starvation (this implies several paths to obtain said reality, the system itself does not make the choices) but communism also does not prevent you to eat chocolate and cakes after that social minimum is met, even if there is an underling systemic doctrine that all would be better served if you shared your sweets, since blatant discrepancies are not possible, it would only raise the social minimum.

Does your nation have a minimum wage ?

reply to post by TheComte

That said, the free market is a myth. If there were a true free market there would be recessions, inflation, tremendous swings in wages, prices, and interest rates, and little or no prosperity. Governments need to regulate certain aspects of the economy.

Where communism theory comes in handy is the control of strategic resources. The industries of energy, food, financials/insurance, armaments should be controlled by the state.

I would agree that absolute free market is a myth but to the same level that communism is also a myth and most other "isms" to various degrees. Absolutism, Socialism or National Socialism (NAZIsm) are some of the "ism" that have been attempted. Free market is not a social system but an economic policy (that to some point can shape a society but it is not intended as a social system).

Originally posted by TheComte
Private property such as your home, your car, your stereo, your cottage, or whatever, are things that are key to happiness and the incentive to acquire them in order to be happy and live a fulfilling life. This kind of private property is good for society.

But why does a an oil field need to be private? Why shouldn't the state own that field and the people, through their taxes, develop it and reap the benefits of it? How about a coal mine? A factory?

edit on 13-1-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)

You've just unwittingly articulated why western civilization is collapsing (which is a good thing, by the way). If your house, your car, your stereo--your stuff--is what you draw your happiness from, you're doomed.

Not to mention that it doesn't matter whether oil fields or coal mines are privately or state-owned. We're still raping the environment to support a lifestyle that is completely artificial. It's all going to be gone one day. What are you going to do then? If all of your technology is useless because there's no energy to power it all anymore, and you define your happiness through all of this "private property"...

Yikes.

He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos - thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
When you say free Market in America the first that comes to mind is, Black marketing which has been around.
for example when Car parts go over the cliff in price there will allways be a chop shop.
The Americans That i know will find a way around Government capitalism.
Food prices going up....find that person that has a link card they will be happy to sell for half price.
The Streets will allways have other resources.