Comments
  1. The right response to socialism, or communism, or anarchy, or fascism, or monopoly privilege (i.e., what we too easy refer to as "capitalism") is found in the writings of Henry George. Remove all monopoly privileges from the systems of law and taxation and the result is cooperative individualism: full equality of opportunity, full individual liberty, within a cooperative social framework. To paraphrase Adam Smith, the role of government is to ensure that a fair field with no favors exists. Markets operate efficiently and fairly when none of the participants enjoys privilege. Few understood better than Henry George the true nature of privilege and what must be done to remove system from our socio-political arrangements and institutions.

    Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director

    School of Cooperative Individualism

    www.cooperative-individualism.org

  2. Arguments for and against "capitalism" and for and against "socialism" all attempt to use statistics to make the point that human well-being is improving or declining. It is clear that the existing system called "capitalism" is plagued by systemic privilege. The question, then, is what systemic changes will result in (a) equality of opportunity; (b) individual liberty; (c) just laws justly enforced; (d) the protection of legitimately acquired private property; and (e) protection of the planet as the commons of all people.

    Standing in the way of these systemic changes is human nature. As Henry George observed in "Progress and Poverty" (his remarkable analysis of human organization), if there is any axiom that applies to human behavior it is that we seek to satisfy our desires with the least exertion; and, therefore, exhibit a strong tendency to attempt to monopolize natural opportunities.

    Hierarchy arises in every society soon after settlement occurs. Rules become necessary to allocate access to land and natural resources and the protection as private property of what individuals produce with their own labor and whatever tools (i.e., capital goods) they produce or acquire in exchange. Hierarchy obviates voluntary (i.e., market-determined) exchange. The leadership elite takes far more from producers than a reasonable value of whatever services are performed on behalf of the community. This is, in effect, a fundamental and coercive redistribution of wealth from producers to a non-producing elite. The general result is luxury for a few and subsistence existence for the many. Thousands of peasant revolts over the centuries evidence the inequity of such arrangements.
    As societies industrialized, those who exchanged their labor or money wages in the factories came to think of the owners of the factories as their enemies. Workers had little leverage in this struggle except to organize, to strike and, when their circumstances became intolerable, to revolt. Only when the majority of people gained the franchise and formed political parties did positive change come.

    What occurs in every society that evolves beyond the stage of ongoing migration as a means of obtaining the goods needed for survive is the enclosure of the commons and the privatization of control over land and natural resources. As villages grow into towns and towns into cities, a rentier elite is increasingly able to extract wealth from those who produce. Those who do not own any land are, in effect, sharecroppers, whether they are employed as tenants on land held by others or pay to private owners of locations both ground rent and a charge to lease a residence. Reason tells us that an individual who produces a housing unit ought to free to offer that unit for lease or sale to the highest bidder (i.e., to obtain a market-determined return for one's labor and capital goods). But, what about the morality of private appropriation of ground rent (capitalized, when not societally collected, in a selling price for the deed to a location)?

    The economics are straightforward. The morality is sheltered from analysis by the promotion of "homeownership" as a societal good. Certainly, owning a residence is a value worth championing. However, the ownership of a location is a form of monopoly privilege. We produce housing units with our labor and our capital goods. We do not produce locations. And, the exchange value of a location is based on its advantages or disadvantages against other locations. Some advantages are provided by nature (nearness to water, climate, topography, etc.). In cities advantages are societally-created by aggregate investment in public goods and services. Thus, every parcel or tract of land comes to have a potential annual rental value determined by market forces, a value that is and ought to be treated as part of our common fund. Failure to collect rents from all sources (e.g., not only locations but also from other land-like assets with an inelastic supply, including take-off and landing slots at airports) is a fundamental injustice — whether the form of government claims to support market-determined outcomes or claims to support socialist value outcomes.

    Edward J. Dodson, M.L..A.

    Director

    School of Cooperative Individualism

    www.cooperative-individualism.org

  3. Small business owners are middle class , Corporations are owned by shareholders people that invest in the business with there own lifesavings . Ceo is paid by shareholders
    ]

  4. The global working class will eat these privileged white school children long before they reach the wealthy.

  5. If you don't understand that a gun will be pointed at my head for protesting socialism, then you need to understand that you will be on the same end of the gun.

  6. He calls fellow human beings filth from the podium, they revel in the idea of hanging capitalist from ropes, they mock and jeer disrespectfully. They see no relevance in the history of violence and death that Socialism has yielded and their own behavior. I’m disgusted by their arrogance and behavior.

  7. They left out that before the industrial revolution, capitalism was already in place but only for the privileged. The nobles of Europe owned land and had armies, that's how privatizing those entities were like. Then the enlightenment & industrial revolution came about and gave the peasants a chance to acquire jobs and get a real earning to get a better living standard. Remember that it was the technology which raised us from the bottom and not Capitalism. A free market was however needed for the globalization that was taking place, but a free market can certainly work under socialist principles. Capitalism, on the other hand, was the wealthy Europeans answer to the democratization of politics, and the socialist movement came as a response to this corruption of democratic ideals. The right side tempts to forget history and where the right side originated, namely in the hands of the aristocracy. The left side, on the other hand, was the voice for the people, and it impresses me how ordinary people even today with the internet and limitless information, could conclude so fallible to the favor of the right. Socialism is the most moral way to go, but it gets hard to compete against capitalism since in socialism workers have more rights and should be paid more, while in capitalism the workers can be treated like slaves (without them even noticing). Competition is hard for socialist institutions when going up against the capitalist ones, but this will soon change due to better automatization, robots and AI. Technology will once again make a better living standard for humanity, and this is certainly not the result of capitalism, but it's the result of the enlightenment!

  8. Every Socialist ever: “Well, sure all the past socialist examples in history failed horribly and resulted in millions of deaths, but that’s nust because no one has ever done it right. If I were king…”
    Yeah, get the caskets ready.

  9. That faggot with the gloves on really hate rich folks, show me a time in history where socialism has inspired creativity, the reason he’s even aloud to contemplate these ideas is because of western society, values and free markets. Then dumb cunt stands up talking shit about capitalism while holding a fucking laptop… who forced her to buy it. Who decides want and needs under the socialism system. These people are complete retards and it hurts to see society making the same mistakes.

  10. Australia is fucked, if this is how retarded their universities are… she is right when socialism is imposed millions of people are starved or murdered. That is a fucking fact. They are pigs. Fuck Australia fucking retards.

  11. This person is a moron. Capitalism is not about bank bailouts? Seriously? The people were screwed because of capitalist practices and they (the banks) got a pat on the back. Are you effing kidding me?

  12. This was a terrible display by the socialist. They (as always) referred to insults before even trying making a point, which didn't happen. Their arguments are predictable, and under many circumstances have been proven incorrect. They also did not address the massive amounts of death due to poverty under socialist control. Massive failure.

  13. >those who don't believe that everything successful is propelled by self-interest aren't living in the real world
    >we know this because there's been lot's of successful movements by working-class people looking to improve their own circumstances

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *