Capitalism Vs Democracy World Wide Wealth Tax Needed

Kid, can you speak for other leftists? Read the link I posted.

 

"Kid," really? I'm in my 40s, for God's sake.

I can speak for a great many "leftists" who I know well an not a single one would be in favor of a 100% tax.

 

Welcome to the club :grin:.

I was obviously responding to this post:

You need to see my post in context...

 

Its Ironic how many people from the left wing are so dreadful of corporations and organizations yet are so willing to put so much of their lives in the hands of a large government, which is strikingly similar to any corporation.

It is run by agents and not the principals or owners and is for the good of the owners. The agents typically want to expand their own power and reach and grasp.

Freedom of business without the so many groups that leverage the government to subsidize their business usually provides the lowest cost structures to people which is, in my opinion, freedom from the debt slavery that we live in today.

Sears in the 1960's was taking in 2% of the GDP of the USA and Sam Walton got started. Through sheer efficiency he brought down prices to consumers.

Tell me one industry that cannot be disrupted? Disruption to something more efficient and creative is what drives growth of civilization. Entrepreneurs willing to try something new under the assumption of profit and wealth from that.

 

That's the thing, I don't know what makes people like glynch think "corporates = evil, government = good". Governments have not shown to be very efficient, and very often, power is abused. By raising taxes, you allow governments to waste more or use more money for themselves.

 

Certainly -- just saying communalism is not enough -- I am happy to discuss my views more fully on how a non state communal system could successfully replace capitalism. And of course any radical change away from the current system would be met with violence by those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo. That is true for any drastic systematic change. The end of feudalism, Communism, Fascism, Monarchy all came/come with violence. So will the end of Capitalism (however and whenever that day comes).

There will always be men with guns -- I agree. But, if we are ever lucky enough in this country that enough people are rejecting Capitalism that the ruling class feels the need to use violence (again) -- and if we are further lucky enough that those rejecting Capitalism have taken up arms to defend their movement, that does not necessarily mean that those defending themselves have formed a new State. I cite the examples of the Spanish Civil War and Nestor Makhno of how the poor can defend themselves without becoming an oppressive State or dictatorship.

People need to reject capitalism and the state, they need to organize and collaborate with each other to solve the everyday issues that the government and Capitalism are currently responsible for, and then they have to defend themselves. Perhaps those things will never occur, but if they don't we will at best trade one Tyrannical group for another.

 

And then organized men with guns destroyed them. So much for their grand ideals of progress.

 

How many Democratic/Republican and Capitalist movements failed before one finally succeeded? Donzens, maybe hundreds over several centuries.

The fact that a handful of anarchistic movements have sprung up, shown promise and then were shot to death by people very similar to the ones you seem to support, does not mean the system is unworkable any more than it impinged the plausibility of a Democracy/Republic when the Commonwealth was replaced by a King at the end of the English Civil War.

 

No, it wasn't "obvious," you didn't even quote that one until now. Still, you claim that "leftists" want a 100% tax and that claim just isn't true.

 

Umm...I did quote that exact same part of the post in my post you quoted, on the first page. Maybe you should have checked again before you posted this nonsense.

And I posted an example of a leftist (Francois Hollande) implementing a 100 % tax rate against any economic reason, once in power.

But don't let facts get in the way of your understanding of the world.

 

Of course it does. If a system fails, it fails. Maybe anarchism will succeed in some far flung future where all men have truly become last men, bereft of nothing but economic desires like cattle. But I'm not interested in discussing that, I'm interested in discussing the present. Your analogy would be closer to if you declared to me in 1660 after Charles II's restoration that democracy would be widespread in 300 years. You would have been right - but why would I care?

The poor can defend themselves from the rich - but the poor are not a single monolithic group, nor will they ever be. If the poor exterminate the rich? Then there will be a new rich, as the ablest rise to the top. Anarchism is not fighting against capitalism, it is fighting against hierarchy - which will never die, since all men are NOT created equal.

 

Your point, whatever it may be, was not well put together.

MY original comment was about an economic system and you responded with some broad generalization about what leftist want. Then posted "backup" by illustrating an isolated event for a "single year".

And to say there it was "against economic reason", it was pretty much spelled out here:

So, in summary, wtf are you talking about?

 

Ha! A fellow Nietzschean! But your ship has lost its course brother. Nietzsche, regardless of his criticism of anarchism, was as anarchistic as any thinker in the history of humanity. Oh man, I could go on and on for this subject forever, and would be happy to do so offline -- but , for now, I will point out only that, in his criticism of anarchism, he criticizes them as statists, which shows how little he actually understood of the movement. As a fellow Nietzschean, I implore you to read the fantastic Novotore, an Italian Nietzschean anarchist. He is such a fun read. Individualistic Anarchism brother, that is the best place to live for a Nietzschean.

Anyway, to your post:
good stuff and bad stuff from you. I am not saying that anarchism will replace capitalism in 300 years -- I am saying it is a workable system. And I am using the analogy that, just because something has failed does not mean it always will -- with democracy and capitalism as examples of things that failed many times before succeeding. All I am saying is don't tell me anarchism can't work since it was destroyed in the past -- it is illogical and unhistorical.

This is a great paragraph -- I disagree with it, but good stuff that made me actually think for a bit about terms, words...great things like that.

The issue is that you are conflating two different kinds of hierarchy and conflating one of those with wealth. There is a difference between the spiritual hierarchy of Nietzsche and the hierarchy of wealth in a capitalist system. There is no inherent conflict between individualism/leadership/spiritual nobility and anarchism -- most are not against natural hierarchies like that (esp. not people like Novotore and Stirner). What they are against are the unnatural hierarchies of wealth we see in capitalism, which actually get in the way of the very individualism and natural hierarchies you seem to support.

In fact, I came to anarchism because I would like to see a system that clears away the sick, weak, conforming hierarchies of states and money in order to allow for a flowering of culture and individualism.

 

Better than yours, whatever that was supposed to be.

Your comment was incorrect. Capitalism is all about competition. That is the opposite of one super mega corporation. The culmination of capitalism would be constant competition. In fact, communism was "one super mega corporation", namely the government. We all saw how that worked out.

It was completely against economic reason. Whatever you think was spelled out in that blob you quoted.

WTF are YOU talking about?

 

I see you want to be hostile, okay.

I am not interested in debating Communism vs. Capitalism, nor was I implying such in my original post. Communism has nothing to do with capitalism.

My comment is absolutely correct and is clearly illustrated by the evolution of our society. Yours is based on outdated economic theory, mine is based on reality. You are living in the world of "pure capitalism". That is a mythical place and does not exist in the real world, and as such, has no relevance to this discussion.

The culmination of capitalism will be one massive corporation with branches in every industry and massive control of the labor supply. The barriers to entry will be so high, that no competitor will be viable.

If you don't understand the article just say so. It was very clear that was a one time event to counter a policy of the previous administration. At no point did it infer this was the goal of leftists everywhere, nor was it to continue, outside that isolated year.