Originally posted by rwingettMixed economy is a coined term and it stands for an economy that has within it elements of more than one "pure" economic system. Most (all?) of the economies nowadays are mixed in some particular way. I don't think what you advocate fits in such a definition, but you expressed it clearly so it's not really important.
In my previous post I have explicitly advocated a mixed economy. Now you have done the same. Unless your idea of a mixed economy is significantly different from mine, I fail to see what this entire debate is about. We shall see if that is actually the case or not.
My idea is that society is organized along parallel lines, one capitalist, the other anarc ...[text shortened]... a mixed economy. Of course it is the best of all possible worlds, as I'm sure you will agree.
My view is that I prefer (this is important as I consider the economic system a political choice) a market-based economy with a significant presence of the state both in distribution and, in some cases, with public enterprise. I'll have to go into many details, so I won't, but my main point is that the market is akin to a power tool. It can be of enormous help, but it should be handled with care.
I also agree with most of your second paragraph. The ability to vote with your feet is perhaps the most fair and efficient of all. (I would not call it "democracy" though). This allows people with similar views to gather in their preferred society, which obviously increases the momentum towards a projected societal notion. However, this is clearly utopic for the moment as it would imply free movement of people around the globe (the end of all border controls, which implies global peace) and I also have no idea how territory could be distributed between such societies. Also, personally, I don't think a common foreign policy would work with such different conceptions of society (individualistic vs. communal).
PS: As it is now, nation states have only one overriding economic mode. They are either all capitalist, or all socialist.
This is blatantly false though. No states are fully capitalistic and no states are fully socialist. Most (all?) states have capitalistic elements and all states have socialistic elements. Public property exists in all states, as far as I know.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf a society has public enforcement, then surely it has hierarchy. By definition, enforcement requires a position of strength and, therefore, hierarchy.
You mistakenly assert that an anarchist society would have no means of enforcement. This is simply false. Such a society could have as many laws and rules, and punishments for breaking them, as they wish to democratically enact. What makes a society an anarchist one is not the absence of law and punishment, but the manner in which those laws and punishments ...[text shortened]... rse, if my mixed economy idea were to be adopted, they could simply move to the capitalist zone.
In fact, what you are defending with your mixed economy, is not anarchism or democratic communism or capitalism. It's simply the end of border controls and nation states. I would agree that, in an ideal utopic world, this would be a good solution. Unfortunately, I'm quite the realist.
Originally posted by rwingettHawthorne lived on one of those utopian communities -- Brook Farm in Massachussets. For a long time now, I have associated the words 'utopia' and 'manure' -- here's why (from The Cambridge Introduction to Nathaniel Hawthorne):
Instead of production being for social use, it is instead geared for private profit (which has a distinctly anti-social character to it). Instead of producing enough goods to satisfy everyone's needs, production will be limited to only what can be sold at a profit. Production will scaled back to keep prices high, so the owners can reap more profits. So the ...[text shortened]... ld now be? We'd certainly have more to show for our money than we've got now.
“After breakfast,” he continued, “Mr. Ripley put a four-pronged instrument into my hands, which he gave me to understand was called a pitch-fork; and he and Mr. Farley being armed with similar weapons, we all three commenced a gallant attack upon a heap of manure”.
References to shoveling manure, which Hawthorne called the “gold mine,” became a running joke in the letters he wrote from the Farm.
New Harmony is a pleasant little place, though. Very bucolic.
Originally posted by spruce112358Yes, Brook Farm was one example of the 19th century utopian socialist experiments. It lasted from 1841 to 1847 before failing. Owens' New Harmony experiment lasted from 1825 to 1829 before failing. The Ruskin colony lasted from 1894 to 1901. In all, many mistakes were made, but many lessons in communitarianism were learned. Due to those lessons we can now build successful egalitarian communities. Twin Oaks, in Virginia, has been in existence since 1967. East Wind, in Missouri, has been around since 1973. That's 40 years for the former, and 34 for the latter. Clearly, we now have a good working model on which to build.
Hawthorne lived on one of those utopian communities -- Brook Farm in Massachussets. For a long time now, I have associated the words 'utopia' and 'manure' -- here's why (from The Cambridge Introduction to Nathaniel Hawthorne):
“After breakfast,” he continued, “Mr. Ripley put a four-pronged instrument into my hands, which he gave me to understand was ...[text shortened]... s he wrote from the Farm.
New Harmony is a pleasant little place, though. Very bucolic.
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka"Mixed economy", when used in that way, in my opinion, is a misnomer. The US is an all capitalist country, just as Norway is an all capitalist country. Norway's kinder, gentler version of capitalism has nothing in common with what socialism really is, namely that the workers shall control the means of production. What passes for 'Democratic Socialism' in western Europe is just reformist capitalism. And in any event, they have the same system throughout the entire country. People don't have the ability to choose a different economic model to live in.
Mixed economy is a coined term and it stands for an economy that has within it elements of more than one "pure" economic system. Most (all?) of the economies nowadays are mixed in some particular way. I don't think what you advocate fits in such a definition, but you expressed it clearly so it's not really important.
My view is that I prefer (this is impo ates have socialistic elements. Public property exists in all states, as far as I know.
My idea would, as you say, mean the end of nationalism. As we move further into the globalist era, nationalism is clearly becoming an antiquated system anyway. We see its dominance beginning to wane already, with examples such as the European Union.
My version of a mixed economy (perhaps I should invent my own term) is one where anarchist communities are intermingled with capitalist enclaves throughout the land. People could literally move from one to the other. Or work in one and live in the other. If the momentum increased toward one side, then the other would have make itself more user friendly or face extinction. To my way of thinking, this would be a Free Market. Certainly more so that what the capitalists call a 'free market' now.
As for how foreign policy would work in such a system, it's likely that it would become increasingly irrelevant as the concept of nation states withered away.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI will return to this matter later. No time right now.
If a society has public enforcement, then surely it has hierarchy. By definition, enforcement requires a position of strength and, therefore, hierarchy.
I also wish to expand further on the concept of 'private property.'
Originally posted by kmax87Why is it that people who think they have the best life style, or religion, or economic system think that they have to spread it around the world? Think, maybe, this is what has driven mankind into wars for the last ten thousand years. If you like your system then enjoy it and maybe others will come to you. Now get back to your exams,silly!
Now if we could only package it, brand it, and market it to the rest of the world, we could really be on a winner.
Originally posted by rwingettI think the time is not now because nobody will tolerate that kind of change. The elimination of the profit motive and private ownership of property is a old concept and has been tried over and over in both large and small communities, without success. Why cant we learn from those mistakes ?
Why is the time for a new system not now? You agree that we have the material capacity. If you really desire to see a more equitable distribution of wealth and the elimination of poverty and hunger, you must be willing to expand beyond your comfortable range of experience.
Why do you foresee the replacement of the profit motive as being disastrous? It ...[text shortened]... osse de Nage and see if that answers your questions. If not, I could expand on things further.
You keep saying the change has to be gradual, and start small, and people need to see the results. What exactly is going to be different in your approach apart from the "bottom up approach"? And how will you force the current owners of resources to give up what they have ? A bloody revolution ?
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Here's the problem with our discussion: I give a certain line of argument and you completely ignore it and argue against something completely different. If you want to argue against the Soviet Union, or Stalinism, then do it in a different thread, because you're off topic. Your arguments are all "strawman" arguments. Throughout this thread I have disavowed violent revolution, or forcing people to do anything. You must either think I'm lying, or you do not understand at all what I've been saying.
I think the time is not now because nobody will tolerate that kind of change. The elimination of the profit motive and private ownership of property is a old concept and has been tried over and over in both large and small communities, without success. Why cant we learn from those mistakes ?
You keep saying the change has to be gradual, and start small, a l you force the current owners of resources to give up what they have ? A bloody revolution ?
What I want is to break capitalism's monopoly on the economic infrastructure of this country. I want a system where socialist and collective ventures can be started up as easily as capitalist ones. I want people to be able to freely move between economic spheres as it suits their desires, free from any constraint or coercion. If socialism is to flourish, it will have to be on its own merits. If people have free and easy access to either sphere, they may choose between them as they see fit. I do not desire the enforced imposition of socialism on anyone. If they don't want it, then they don't have to have it. But if I don't want to toil under the yoke of capitalism, I want the same freedom not to have to do so. And I want that same choice to be available to everyone. And I do not advocate the enforced abolition of capitalism. It may even be a good thing to keep it around on a reduced scale. Each sphere would "keep the other sphere honest", so to speak.
If you want to argue against THAT position, then I welcome your input. But if you want to continue railing on against the legacy of Stalin, or Chairman Mao, then there is little to be gained from it.
******************
Your assertion that "The elimination of the profit motive and private ownership of property is a old concept and has been tried over and over in both large and small communities, without success", is a false one. It has never succeeded in large communities yet, but it does just fine in smaller ones. If refer you again to my examples of the Twin Oaks and East Wind communities from my earlier post. It may surprise you to know the number of intentional communities that are currently in existence around the world.
http://directory.ic.org/iclist/
Originally posted by rwingettOK. My apologies for that, but here is where the confusion is :
Here's the problem with our discussion: I give a certain line of argument and you completely ignore it and argue against something completely different. If you want to argue against the Soviet Union, or Stalinism, then do it in a different thread, because you're off topic. Your arguments are all "strawman" arguments. Throughout this thread I have disavowed ...[text shortened]... t are currently in existence around the world.
http://directory.ic.org/iclist/
On one hand you are suggesting small, somewhat socialist communities that exist within the main capitalist economic system. And then on the other you seem to advocate taking away the accumulated wealth of the owners of resources and distributing it to the poor.
Although I am in total agreement with the idea of communal living and sharing of resources, your suggestion that wealthy capitalists be stripped of their wealth is disturbing. The end result of that idea is going to a be bloody revolution, even if it was not your intention.
In any case if there are already hundreds of these socialist communities existing and prospering within the US alone, it means that your idea is already at work. Why do you need to change anything?
Originally posted by wittywonkaWhen enough Chinamen/women drive KIAs, Accords, and Dodge Stealths then the right to run over your naeighbor on will replace firing squads. Besides, when the US and China eventually go to war, our economy will collapse because eveything is made in China. What a debacle: the US defeated by a shirt label that says "made in China". I'll go down with my 45s smokin' while doing a remake of "Dirty Dancing"
Although I concede that the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre is a few days past, I figured that the issue was as relevant
as ever. Below is a link to a relatively concise yet imformative
timeline of the events relating to Tiananmen Square.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/cron/
___________________________________________ ...[text shortened]... a
gradual movement toward democracy or further communism over the
next few decades and why?
Originally posted by PalynkaFirst of all, I would like to acknowledge that there are many differing interpretations of exactly what anarchism means. It has been said that there are as many different definitions of anarchism as there are individual anarchists. Many will disagree with what I've said so far in this thread. But at its most common denominator anarchism is:
If a society has public enforcement, then surely it has hierarchy. By definition, enforcement requires a position of strength and, therefore, hierarchy.
In fact, what you are defending with your mixed economy, is not anarchism or democratic communism or capitalism. It's simply the end of border controls and nation states. I would agree that, in an ideal utopic world, this would be a good solution. Unfortunately, I'm quite the realist.
A political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
This does not mean that a society can't be organized, or that it can't have any rules or laws. What it means is that there can be no institutionalized hierarchies imposing order and laws on those below it. If a social group is one of voluntary association, with all the members having an equal voice in the formulation and execution of its policies, then the enforcement of those policies is non-hierarchical in nature. There is no 'ruling class' imposing its will on anyone. If you and I are equals, and if we have both agreed that murder should not be countenanced, then my stopping you from subsequently murdering someone is not an example of a hierarchical imposition.
Now, there is a wide range of opinion within anarchist circles about consensus decision making versus majoritarian voting. Most agree that full consensus about every decision is simply unworkable. A society so organized would cease to function. But since most anarchists are keenly aware of the potential dangers of the 'tyranny of the majority', most will try to find some blend between consensus and majority vote.
As for 'private property' and an anarchists' advocacy of its abolition, we must understand what is meant by the term. Most anarchists make a distinction between 'private property' and 'personal property.' Private property would be all the productive resources of society. Its factories, mills, natural resources, agricultural production, etc. Personal property would be my clothes, my TV, my toothbrush. Things which I use in my daily life could be owned as personal property in an anarchist social group. This could even extend to your own house. I concentrate mostly on communal living arrangements because that is what personally appeals to me most. But anarchists are not inherently communal. But they all agree that the productive means of society cannot be rightfully owned as private property.