Originally Posted by
skanking biker
I am an libertarian, borderline anarcho-capitalist. I disagree with your above statement. Free markets require private property ownerhsip, which is the antithesis of socialism's concept of "collective" property ownership. Socialism cannot create anything new, it merely loots assets from their rightful owers.
Show me a socialist country where "collective" property ownership was anything other than ownership by the elite ruling class. The workers never wind up "owning" anything and instead become slaves to the state. Socialism does not allow a person to freely sell his labor. It is slavery. If your force me to work without monetary compensation you have stolen my labor.
I do not agree with your interposition of the terms "socialism" and "anarchism." Socialism by definition involves a form of control over people. Anarchism is the absence of any form of governmental control.
The reason why I am not a full-fledged anarcho-capitalist is because you need a government to protect and enforce private property rights in order for free markets to work. If you had true anarchy (the absence of any government, laws, etc.) property ownership would be determined by brute force. Whomever could hire the biggest army could take your property at will. You wind up with a few huge syndicates instead a multitude of small, privately-owned businesses competing with each other. (Coincidentally, I do not for one second labor under the delusion that the US of A is a free market economy. The failure to enforce anti-trust laws has resulted in oligargical rivalry by a few large corporations in every major industry, rather than atomistic free-market competition).
There are so many fallacies in your argument I am having trouble even beginning to refute them. I think you are very uneducated toward the systems you are trying to refute.
Capitalism is a system by which one exploits another. An anarchist does not believe in the exploitation of one person of another. Capitalism is a system of land owners. As stated in my previous post quoting Bakunin, land owner ship leads to exploitation. Capitalism is not necessarily free market. Heck the US economy is not truely a free market. However, it is most certainly Capitalist. However, you can call yourself what you like.
Additionally true anarchy is the lack of leaders, not lack of government. Socialism is not a form of slavery. The workers determine their salaries and the process by which they earn their salaries, this is not forced on them, especially in anarchism where decisions are made by consesus. I think you have been confused with systems that have claimed to be either socialist or communist and which were neither.
There has never been a socialist system instated.
I have some suggestion for some reading, so that you can better understand these systems. Obviously, Karl Marx, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Pierre-Joseph Prouhdan are good places to start.
Originally Posted by
skanking biker
All of which ignores the fact that the "evil" capitalist puts his own money at risk to buy the land, build the factory, purchase the assets, produce something of value, and manage the whole affair.
The profits are the owners payment for this work and his balls to put his money at risk.
The above diatribe is nonething more than an attempt to justify theft.
The workers would not have jobs but for the factory owner. They are paid wages in exchange for their labor.
Under the socialist system they steal, rob, and loot the property of the factory owner. And this is the fundamental flaw with that ideology. If the owner never existed, there would be no factory to steal, no assets to appropriate.
And why can workers not organize and build a factory on their own?