“Capitalism is slavery!” vs “Socialism is slavery”

Another one from the anarchist fora on Facebook: which is the ideology that depends on (is most responsible fior) slavery, capitalism or communism? Since communism is socialism refined to perfection, the two terms can be used interchangably.
Ancoms keep reverting to “In capitalism, if you don’t work, you die of starvation.”
This makes sense, but does not turn work into slavery.
One argument against it, might be: “In capitalism, you own yourself, so if you wish to go hungry, you go right ahead and spend your money on things other than food. So working for money means you are a slave to nobody but yourself. If you don’t like a particular job, you quit and find something else (not necessarily in that order).
In socialism (not in Marx’s fairy tale version, but in the cold hard reality of life), nobody will work, because it’s more confortable to sit on the sofa, get over your vodka binge of the previous night. Because initiative is not just not rewarded, but actively oppressed under socialism, there is not much else to do other than get drunk. You get the same amount of goods, whether you do something for them or not. That means there is no stimulus to achieve anything. So all human progress will come to a halt in Marx’s dream world.
Unless the small handful of central planners designs initiatives, which can not be smoothly, naturally introduced by entrepreneurs, but instead have to be forced through with brute violence, putting people to work in “corrective camps” (Gulags), to chop enough wood in the frozen tundra of Siberia for export, to enrich the centrally planning state apparatus. And to build train lines (which cost thousands of lives and hardly get used: no capitalist would waste such amounts of labor, time and money, only a Stalin would do that to punish people for not being perfect commies), to dig up nuclear material to make bombs.
Or speaking of death by starvation: central planning of the whole,chain of agricultural priduction (production of tractors->digging up enough iron ore->planning for the mining industry, which requires people to be fed-> planninig for the agricultural sector)


Not real socialism v not real capitalism

I’ve found a way out of the eternal “real communism hasn’t been tried!” v. “Real capitalism has never been tried” debates that keep raging on anarchist fora (for “communism” or “socialism”, read “communism/socialism”). The reason that the west has grown so rich is, because of real capitalism. The reason the west is now turning poor (economic crises in 1929 and 2008 will be repeated, time and again by our wise overlords) is because of socialism (state control of factors the state is incapable of managing), not capitalism (free-market management of things the market deems desirable, of which there are a lot fewer than what the state wishes to have control over)
The central banks were the cause of afore-mentioned crises, and they were also part of Marx’s prescription. The west is not really socialistic (too much of a capitalist slant for that), but it is (its own version of) socialism, which is causing the (social & economic) problems of the west.

Private education should be banned

Quote from a tweet in an email by Tom Woods:

Private schools should be banned. The rich shouldn’t be able to buy their kids a better education. The fact that this *is* a controversial opinion says a lot about our society, to be honest.

The fact that someone can make such a statement says so much more about a society. Bunch of begrudging howler monkeys, the lot of em.

Let’s dissect the statement:

Nobody should be able to get their kids a good education. Just because some people are smart enough to help them make enough money to be able to afford to send their offspring to a school where they will also be made smart enough to become rich enough to, like their parents, send their kids to a good school, etc.

If the public schools would have been better, the private schools would disappear one by one, because there would be no point in sending your kids there.

The rich pay for public schools (via theft), they just don’t send their kids there, so financially, they leave room (foot the tuition) for kids that do go to public school. Instead of being mean to them, activists should thank the rich for that.

So really, what’s actually being argued there, is for the abolition of public schools, because they keep poor people poor, and private schools keep rich families rich. The better solution would certainly be to make the the poor richer by making a better investment in their future, instead of herding the children of all families (rich and poor alike) into public schools, so the poor will stay poor. That is the equality that socialists like Bernie Sanders strive to achieve: everybody should be poor. The only rich should be, well, politicians like Bernie Sanders, who deserve to be rich because they undertake the hard task of micro-managing the country.

Then there the fact that if people wantto send their children to a private school, or not yo sny school at all (because in the public school in their area, the kids only learn to be gang members), that’s their choice, and it shoukd be respected (and paid for by the parents)

The end of history?

Francis Fukuyama famously called the collapse of the USSR “The end of history.” I fear it might better be called “the beginning of the end of reality.” because the disappearance of the convenient enemy to rile the peoople up against/make the people scared of, caused free countries all over the western world, as well as NATO to desperately seek a replacement.

The timely find of islam offered all the Soviets did, and more.
The threat could be made much more concrete, because now, “the enemy” had infiltrated western countries offering untold opportunities for domestic policy (stasi-practices) as well as the careers of politicians… But governments soon found that the old enemy could still be made to seem a threat. Afghanistan proved a twofer: both an unending war (the health of the state; which serves as an excuse to squeeze the people some more) and an opportunity to place a NATO base on the far (nearly pacific) border of Russia (that had never heard of the Atlantic ocean, it was so far away from it).
So this could quite truly be called the end of waking reality, by now western democracies have become so dictatorial, some people here yearn for a Warsaw pact to relief them from the nightmare.

Seizing the means of automation

I though that Facebook was on its way out, but communists are typically slow to catch on, so keep on yapping about the same nonsense time and again. Inspiring me to write this response in a certain thread:

Seize the means of automation, do not create them, just steal them. Socialism is a parasitical, political ideology, not an economic one; unlike capitalism which (created automayion and: ) touches on both production and consumption and therefore IS actually an economic ideology. It’s not for nothing that capitalism has dragged mankind out of mud huts and that socialism pushes people back into them.

Capitalism – socialism: one – nought

Whereas #communist (#socialist) #China sought refuge to a draconian one-child law to limit fertility (amount of children spawned per family), elsewhere in the world, capitalism made people so rich, that they do not need so many #children.
Reasons for having many children:

  1. Living in squalid conditions, #mortality is very high, not just among adults, but particularly among children. So, in order to have at least one child survive, people have many; they play the numbers game.
  2. Children are a means of providing for the parents past the working age. Thanks to #pension funds (that invest their #money in exchanged #stocks – another feature of capitalism), people in capitalism do not need many children to work for them/to feed them.

Richer societies have (better access to) better healthcare, so they survive child birth, infancy and old age better (as well as the bits in between).

The reason Africa has such high rates of childbirth, is because of the socialistic policies there, resulting in situations mentioned above.

And to think its socialists who (wrongly) embraced Ehrlich and Malthus.

Equality, whether you like or not

Is the new global buzzword for leftists.
They do not care that poverty has been as good as eliminated globally thanks to markets (aka capitalism), they want to rag on about inequality (which socialism assures btw; both economic and political), even “the poor” are so much better off than they were in the past (better clothes, cars, phones, TVs, housing etc.) that the remaining economic inequality does not really matter to them; yet the power lusting, divisive socialists keep ragging on about inequality, in the hope that it will catch on. Whether people are concerned about economic inequality or not, they are badgered about it continually, perhaps in the hope they’ll vote for the socialists, in the hope that once they get absolute power, they’ll shut up about it? Makes sense, since political power is all politicians crave. When they’ve won the elections, they already have the delicious, absolute power they yearned for, so no reason to keep going on about it. Then for the next elections (if those’ll be held at all, and if they’ll be open to parties other than the socialist one(s)), they’ll come up with another lame fashionable excuse to vote for them. Actually, elections after they’ve won and ruled for a term, will prove to be hard for them, since all they know is to complain about the results of their wishes having come true.

Can’t do it
Of course, #socialism can’t result in economic #equality. Socialism’s raison d’être is to produce #political #inequality, in order to centralize absolute #power.
Political inequality will assure economic inequality, because businesses will seek favor with those in power (politicians) (this is called lobbying). So the inequality that socialists promote so passionately, will only lead to economic inequality.
Example: the well fed #Stalin riding in the backseat of his chauffeured limo, while the people were ordered to practice marching for the celebration of the revolution, on an empty stomach.

In a free #market, the people may decide for themselves how their money is spent (if at all), so instead of lobbyists inluencing their masters how (on who) their money is to be spent (which businesses offer the most attractive backhanders/post-politics career opportunities/campaign contributions), the people are to be persuaded themselves, imagine sending one lobbyist after millions of people / instead of after one or two politicians. This is how #minarchism / #anarchism assures equality, and only societies without centrallized power can do so.

Because power is democratized
When the people are attracted to a certain product (like bread), or are not attracted to a certain product (like bread), they can choose to buy it or not. If they choose to not buy it, the producers will have to find our why not, and see if they can meet the desires of those customers, then try to convince these customers, that purchasing the products, will improve the customer’s lives enough for him to make it worth spending his money on the products.

If power and money are centralized
The milk seas and butter mountains of the EU will reoccur; farming lobyists will beg for subsidies, those subsidies will come with requirements to meet certain production quotas, farmers will want to get those subsidies, so they produce more than the market will ask for/consume.
To prevent this from happening again, some farmers are even paid to not produce anything; they have police inspections to see if they don’t secretly produce anything, then receive the money they would have made if they HAD worked for their living. So their fertile farm land lays unused (except as a tourist trap). All of that’s paid for by the tax victim, who is unable to influence that, because the glorious leaders have decided it is to be so¹.


Cancelling subsidies will result in complaints that the regulations make it so hard for farmers to survive, so they need to be compensated for the cost of meeting those regulations. The obvious answer isn’t to soldier on down the wrong path, but to stop imoposing regulations at all.

But without regulations, the farms will maintain harmful practices, that deplete the soil (so farming stuff just to throw it away doesn’t deplete the soil?) and mistreat animals!

Actually, it may still be possible to create guidelines, and the closer a farm gets to meeting the guidelines, the higher the price people will be willing to pay for the products. If there comes a point when the size of the premium exceeds the people’s willingness to pay the premium, either the guidelines have become ridiculous, or the people’s ability to pay has reached a ceiling.

That’s called #democracy.

(And no central planner can ever compute this for all citizens, btw)

¹) In the meantime, elsewhere in the world, people starve to death. How’s that for equality?