Hi, Holla Forums

Please provide proof for these claims. Does the government actually rig the markets in the capitalist's favour?

And even if this is true, it is still possible to reject these present conditions and replace them with an actually free market.

And if this were to happen, a world where the government doesn't intervene in the market, would we still enjoy our same standard of living? Would the world not become better, since the government has shown time and time again that its interventions in the markets are always inefficient, cumbersome, and fail to provide what the free market could if only given the chance?

You've yet to explain why a free market would even be desirable in the first place, beyond the market being some kind of benevolent deity.

the state has several functions for capitalism, such as a mediator of the class interests, a mean of legitimation and the enforcement of power

the state does not exist as an autonom entity of its own in a class society

capitalists have no interest in giving it up, the petty bourgeoise feigning otherwise only do so in spite of the working class they seek to oppress more freely and the corporations they cannot compete with and seek to fight indirectly by taking their advantage in infuencing the state, not out of higher morals they hide behind but rather simply own class interest and profit motive
of course their "small" or "no state" ideals are thrown out the window as soon as they were in a different position

it's a quite funny how pathetic this ideology is

Of course. Isn't that the basis of ancap ideology? If you want examples, I would not even know where to begin.

Markets are impossible to maintain without an external authority that both provides the opportunity to conduct trade and legitimizes property ownership. Because an external authority must always be involved, a "free market" is an impossibility, an ideological contradiction.

Indeed. Corporate wellfare is about 90 billion dollars a year, according to the CATO institute. That's because these companies lobby the fuck out of the government, because capitalists don't actually want a free market. You think that rich people in America are just stupid and like spending money one nothing.

And if you abolish the government, they will make something to replace it because its in their interests to have some enforcing agency to intervene in the free market on their own behalf. Whether that's the mafia or just mercenaries remains to be seen.

Capitalism cannot coexist with a free market, if the latter even exists.

Monsanto is a good place to start

Hell, I could start all the way back at the founding of the East India Company.

AnCapism would quickly degrade into industrial cartels protecting their property with PMC's. You can call that a voluntary market contract or whatever but to sane people it's obvious where real power would rest.

Adam smith is based as fuck he even points out how capitalists will inherently serve themselves at the expense of everyone else and shouldn't be trusted

Man already two posts in OP had to essentially give up or move the goalposts.

Good job guys.
That was quick.

Basically this video tbh: youtube.com/watch?v=YgQ5AWhg5K8

AnCaps (most I know) are against Intellectual Property though.

Capitalism could probably find a way to exist quite fine without the state. This just means it is more difficult to kill than we give it credit for.

I don't know why anarchists make such a big deal of insisting that capitalists rely on the state. It seems untrue/counterproductive

Ancaps may ideally want a "true" free market, including no intellectual property rights laws. But they are going to vote for Donald Trump anyway. And he's no libertarian.

How?
How do you as a rich person keep the masses from simply taking your stuff?
How do you keep the workers from simply dumping you, without the police? How would you make capitalism work without the state?

Did the ancap just leave?

The capitalist could hire a private police force, private armies, Pinkertons, robot soldiers, ect.

The natural response to this is to say that then the capitalist property holding is acting as a de facto state. Which is sort of the point: they already do this, sometimes on a large scale. The difference between the state and the private property is largely in name only. If "abolishing" the state just means "privatizing state functions", then having capitalism without a state is easy.

Trump is lowering taxes. Bernie won't abolish private property either. Double standards.

meant to

obv

The free market is desirable because the alternatives, which are a mixed market and a planned economy, have been shown to fail or stagnate or become inefficient every single time they're implemented. Only a free market corrects the problems which mixed and planned economies pose. A free market is one in which rational actors (motivated by profit and the aspiration to better themselves) pursue innovation and aim to provide services and goods that people want and need. That way, supply and demand remain balanced enough and you don't see resource mismanagement. Planned economies always fail to distribute goods properly.

This isn't an argument at all. It's just a conjecture, and a baseless one at that.

if capitalists that hardly pay taxes and even get subsidies have a choice between making everyone pay for a police force or they themself raising their own personal costs for a even more expensive private security the choice should be obvious

there is no "no state" option

kek

Feudalism and the slave economies of antiquity were far more stable than capitalism, and were far closer to what you imagine "mixed markets" or "planned economies" to be.
By crashing about every seven years.
>A free market is one in which rational actors (motivated by profit and the aspiration to better themselves(pure ideology)) pursue innovation and aim to provide services and goods that people want and need(pure ideology) generate a profit.
Then we already have a "free market" by your definition, and state action does nothing to change that fact.
Resource mismanagement like there being four times as many empty homes as homeless people, the United States wasting a good third of the food it produces and having resources circle the globe several times before a finished product reaches its intended market in an area which could have produced said item locally?
That doesn't mean that they're incapable of doing so. It means that attempts at modern planned economies have faced problems, like being undemocratic and thus not taking cues from consumers.

Yeah, but then again that'd only be capitalism without a state in name only.

Good.
When has this system ever existed? When has the market ever been "free" as in "unmanipulated"? How does consumers recieve perfect information was to what they want and what is the right product for them? Commericals, for example, are direct examples of misinformation to tamper with market demands through manipulation and lies essentially. That certainly is not a "free" market not is it untampered with. It is in the interest of capitalist producers not to have a free market, so why do you think we could have a free market alongside capitalism?

We can. But we really, really, really don't want to.

The free market is not magical.

You're jumping the gun a bit there friend, reread that sentence.

Our ancap buddy never described a free market as one free of manipulation or interference, he gave it a sort of vague, propaganda definition you'd probably hear in an "Intro to Econ" class.

This is like saying we need to abolish the laws of physics because they make it so hard to explore space.
Mixed markets are inevitable. Even a mostly free market requires some limits simply to stabilize. They always fail because capitalism always fails.

In other words, free markets assume people behave how they do not. Homo economicus is a myth, one that even the Austrians have long since given up on.

It sounds like you are trying to lecture others on economics while barely understanding it yourself. Look up the works of Thorstein Veblen.

Why are mixed markets inevitable? I thought you people were supposed to be "radicals"? Well, you can't be radical enough to imagine an economy that relies solely on entrepreneurship, free exchange, and self-interest.

In a free market, for as long as people demand products or require things to keep them alive and healthy (doctors, food, sewers, infrastructure, etc.), those things will be produced–provided you are willing to pay for them.

Why are you socialists so reliant on the state that you can't imagine a world without one, or at least, a very small one that only serves to protect property and prevent crime? Why can't you imagine a world in which you simply find employment, receive compensation, and use that compensation to cover your basic needs and pursue other luxuries, or even save up that compensation in order to build your own business?

We can imagine it, and it scares us. An economy based solely on entrepreneurship would inevitably limit free exchange and self-interest, not encourage it, because in the real world, your feelings do not give you power in spite of an utter lack of material wealth.

We fucking know how economics work. On the contrary, it sounds like it is you that lacks any theory contradictory to the arcane Chicago school, as shown by:

Read a book. It's good for you.

Radical doesn't mean "I support everything that isn't the status quo". Of course different ideologies considered radical will disagree with each other and see the others as undesirable/impossible.

see

Free market is extremely inefficient at what it is supposed to do.

socialism /= big government
Socialism is worker's ownership of the means of production. Hell, there is such a thing as market socialists.

No, see, commercials are not misinformation because they don't lie. They merely embellish. Commercials embellish the look, taste, or usefulness of a product, but they don't lie about the nature of the product altogether. Besides, embellishing a product in a TV commercial isn't a manipulation by the state. I'm speaking here only about state intervention and manipulation. If a company wants to make their cheese burgers look better in a commercial, then that's their choice. It's not state intervention. Consumers ought to be well-informed enough about the products they're buying. Obviously it's unhealthy to eat ten cheese burgers a day. But why should the blame be on the company if an uninformed consumer develops heart disease or diabetes from consistently eating unhealthy foods?

I know you leftists pride yourself in being pro-gun, distinguishing yourselves from the liberals. But surely if you're pro-gun then you don't adhere to the liberal narrative that the gun producers ought to be penalized or ostracized because some of their consumers (namely mentally ill white men) use their guns for nefarious purposes and go around shooting up movie theatres. Same here goes for commercials. It's not "manipulation" of the market. And it certainly isn't unethical to do some embellishing of a product to distinguish it from others of a similar kind in order to attract more consumers.

Wait, what the fuck?
It's you who can't fucking explain how capitalism would be possible without a state. It's you who can't point to a situation of an actual unmanipulated market.
Stop shifting the blame here.

You keep talking like markets and capitalism are synonyms for each other. They aren't. A tl;dr definition of capitalism is that it is a social system primarily defined by widespread use of wage-labour, thus dividing people up into classes. You need a State to exist to keep this system in check, otherwise no one would tolerate their bosses exploiting them without the constant threat of violence.

Capitalism inhibits all of these things due to the privatisation of resources and class structure.

jacobinmag.com/2016/01/democratic-socialism-government-bernie-sanders-primary-president/

What does cigarettes have to do with being a cowboy? Commericals manipulate demand by making you buy into a lifestyle, that really have nothing to do with the product itself. It is misinformation and it is misinformation on purpose. If it was really just about consumer information, all they'd be doing was read states to you. They don't. They sell misinformation and create an artificially grown market through it. Such a market is not free.

No. It's still manipulating the market through misinforming the demand and thus the market is not free. Why does it matter who manipulates the market?

I hope you're using that image ironically…cause Spooner was a socialist, you cunt.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

youtube.com/watch?v=-cuM5CWYJuM

*read stats

Who would save the banks after 2008?

If it wasn't the state, it would have ended in 1930s. If not earlier.
The state and it's guard dogs is what keeps the system going.

Once the system colapses, they will eat you alive.

I understand the distinction. But the difference between a capitalist market and a socialist market is that capitalist markets incentivize workers much more to work harder and produce more so that their compensation will rise. In turn, society benefits because more products are readily available, which eliminates scarcity. And we all know how scarce products become under socialism, especially state (or authoritarian) socialism. See Venezuela for the latest example.

Furthermore, socialism is not an economic theory which strives for economic growth. It only aims to cover everyone's needs and then to add a bit of surplus in case of crisis, etc., etc. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." But, you see, the problem with a socialist market is that it will inevitably stagnate, because sooner or later the "needs" (read: lower standards of living) of the masses will be met. Then what? Well, the market tanks because they have less and less to do.

The only option then is to pursue new business ventures or to let your market fail. The exchanges either stagnate or they're hijacked by some ambitious entrepreneur who keeps driving production–in which case, you end up with monopolies (buying out more and more companies) and you end up with what we have today: crony capitalism.

Stop shifting the topic of the conversation. This has to do with capitalism and states and whether a free market is possible with capitalism.

''But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby''

- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

Stop lying.

We noticed.

Literally no one is arguing that capitalism has short-term prosperity. In fact, it's the basis of modern socialist thought: capitalism is a never ending cycle of high-risk train wrecks where the risk becomes negligible for the wealthy, but catastrophic for the people who make them wealthy.

Naw fam: need based socialism is what's known as communism. Read a fucking book and learn what the nuances are among the socialist movement before trying to have a conversation with us.

Nice Guardian article, pleb. Wanna show me actual stats from actual economists and not just infographs from some illiterate leftist humanities graduate masquerading as a real journalist?

Socialism is not inefficient capitalism. If you cannot even mentally picture a different system, how can you possibly argue against it?

Calling things you don't like liberal political correctness is a sheepish way to simply admit you are wrong.

epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=CCE84B53FD546909B1D893294F48B895
Have a whole fucking book.

That is a feature, not a bug. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a tumor. If the purpose of a market isn't for the benefit of humanity (i.e., making sure people's needs are fulfilled), what is the purpose of it?

Some Marxists actually emphasize rising wages as a key factor in Marx's crisis theory as average wages tend to rise right before an economic crash at least in developed countries

You're probably the kind of pleb who believes neoliberal and autistrian economists when they say their work is scientific. You probably also believe that the Nobel Prize in economics is real too.

I feel sorry for you, you probably know nothing about the history economic thought and don't even realize that political economy was once considered a field of the humanities that you declaim.

I was going to post some sources from whatever source your beige, middle-brow neoliberal mind deems respectable but I feel like this poster
aptly handled it

...

I meant arguing whether. You still summarized it well though.

...

Failure to regulate the financial sector largely caused two recessions in the past 20 years alone. I'm not sure how you could trust a completely unregulated Wall Street.

...

This is what libtards actually believe.