“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)


Must a country (people) be led?

Without politicians, who would run the country? The only people that know about how to do so, are politicians.

Or that’s how someone thought to have countered my arguments against the state, on some BBS, some time ago.

Why would a country be the only way a group of people (society) can exist/be organized?
People are perfectly able to supply and/or acquire services, like sewage, trash disposal, housing, food supply without the state, in fact, if the state does those things, eventually, the wall will be demolised and Trabants will drive freely to the west. In countries were that has not happened (yet) starvation is de rigeur. Because aready, the state is incompetent at supplying stuff the people want/need. businesses already do that, and can and will want to continue doing that.

People have a tendency to follow lead(er)s; similar to a flock of geese, all changing direction; they follow the feathered creature at the front. Would this mean that without the state, people would just follow the lead of any random loud mouth, which would lead to anarchy? No, because without the state would already be anarchy: rulerlessness, aka statelessness. It would not lead to it. Fear that it would lead to chaos seems somewhat underwhelming. Following (strong) central leadership would be worse than chaos; Hitler (WW2, including holocaust), Lenin/Stalin (all of the USSR, including purges & Gulag), Johnson (Vietnam), Bush (Iraq, Afganistan), are examples of that; I’ll take disorder over either of those, any day, thank you.

In statelessness, there may some day arise a certain charismatically violent despot, who manages to amass a growing following. That is precisely my view on the origin of the state: violent bullies who have conquered tribes (familial societies), fear of anarchism leading to the formation of a new state seem founded, but are no reason to not abolish the current state, which is a contnuous threat to mankind. At the very least man could hope that the new state will be organized better (i.e. more in the service of the people), meaning more minarchist, instead of max-archist (totalitarian) as is the case now.
In anarchy, there is no central institution for them to take over. So a power grab would mean, they first have to create the power begore they can grab it: cumbersome and time consuming, and each individual unit of power may meet with resistance.
But I find it rather likely that the people, once accustomed to democracy, will oppose violent bullies, with the means at their disposal, which will likely include: a penalty for bad reputation: meaning that if someone is considered a threat to a society, they will find it more difficult to acquire food, shelter, etc.
Of course, some may be willing to sell those services anyway, but they will then have to face the consequences, of people bannishing them, etc. So even when businesses would be unscrupulous, the other customers need not be, revoking their custom from the businesses, in extremis making the business entrely dependent, on the one and only customer. No sensible businessman would want that, either for his oen interests, and those of his employees.
Keep in mind also, that society’s psychology has evolved over time, man has learned from the past, therefore people will still be oposed to slavery etc.

Slavery & free public transport

Occasionally some watermelon gets all excited by the possibilities of unlimited political power and the power of imagination, and starts fantasizing out loud, about free public transport, in order to get people to not travel in their horrible private cars anymore and instead take public transport. Apart from the fact that public transport being worse for the environment than private transport, there is the issue of slavery, because it is not only the bus drivers that will have to work for no pay to make public transport free, but slavery must also be instituted down the whole supply line of spare parts / bus factory buildings/ etc. Anyone familiar with the story “I, pencil” will already know where I’m going with this: Buses wear from use, hence spare parts must be applied to keep it running, those are affixed by mechanics who have rent to pay, food to buy, and drink, even luxuries like toilet paper. So they would like to spend their time working for remuneration, but they can’t, because there is some government official standing over them with a whip, encouraging them to turn those nuts and bolts to get the people moving again. The parts themselves have to first be made in factories, where the same story repeats itself, workers have to earn a living, but instead are forced into slave labour, because otherwise those buses / trains / trams can not run. (There’s only so much rhat thieves can get away with, before there’s nothing left to steal. Finished, ready to apply spare parts have to get shipped from the spare parts factory to the bus garage, this shipping must also involves people that would like pay to house / feed themselves, etc. So once again, no slavery possible here. The garage (and factory) have to be built & maintained, operated, cleaned. The spare parts are made from resources like crude iron (turned into steel in slave-operated smelting ovens). Etcetera… the whole process uses energy derived from, oh, I don’t know: crude oil, coal, perhaps even wind-power (which uses expensive wind mills / wind powered generators) for running the lighting on the factory floors . Those barrels of oil/ buckets of coal have to be collected using – once again: slavery. The production of those wind powered generators has its own supply chain, go back and repeat. Then do the same for tool (wrenches etc.)-factories: after all, tightening those bolts with your bare hands is not going to work. Then there is the problem of who will force all those slaves to do the work for free, Given that slavery is a financially untenable means of powering means of production. It wasn’t Lincoln who ended slavery: it was polyester that did so. But suppose you would like to force people around the world to work for free, from miners in Chile to cleaners in Amsterdam, that is going to require a HUGE amount of slave drivers. (that have to work for free too; meaning that they have to drive themselves?! Or would that be the infinite collection of elephants some say, the earth rests on?)

Isn’t it lovely

that the arguments against capitalism, put forward by socialists, are arguments against socialism?
So, really, socialists are against their own ideology.

Foreclosures since 2008: 

Are not caused by mean banks, but by sadistic (Democrat, aka lefty) politicians that legally forced mortgage vendors to sell mortgages to primarily blacks that were not creditworthy. This quickly spiralled out of control tocollapse all the economies of the west/world.


is there any informed and not politically motivated person that still believes in that?
If the left had bothered to stop their resistance against more roads, the traffic jams could have been over half a century ago!
Don’t forget the amount of energy wasted on “defense”. Lots of mikitary exercises with lots of tanks, planes, helicopters belching out CO2; (I presume rockets and cannons – gun powder – belch out CO2 as well), all in a vain effort to keep up the pretense of being able to keep out the bad guys, which no army has ever managed to do, anywhere on earth. Dang, even in ye olden days, castles failed to defend against invaders. Never mind about national borders, which are much softer and bigger than castle walls.

I must admit, these wars weren’t all started by socialists (though all were started by politicians, which are almost all socialists anyway).

Bondage is economically unfeasible, so requires a the magical authority of the state, to round up escaped slaves; import new slaves. Those costs are not born by the slave owners, but they are socialized, meaning the entire society has to bear them, while they benefit only a single person/business.

Cultural mores

Cultural mores have developed a long way since the age of slavery, poor houses etc. The thing preventing further such development is government (the way politics set up people against other cultures/nationalities/races (Islam/Arabic/again, Arabic) for their own petty personal/political ulterior motives is despicable, and holding back mankind.
Because cultural mores have developed so encouragingly over time I doubt that mankind would slip back down into the primitive practices of slavery etc, once the harmful influence of politics is gone. There are enough people that will disapprove of that and who will boycot the products and services of those who use those practices, thereby making the practitioners suffer financially and putting a stop to it. Besides that: it takes the magical authority of the state to make slavery economically tenable. Laws to capture runaway slaves can only be imposed/enforced by a state.

UBI leidt onherroepelijk tot de Goelag

Universeel BasisInkomen leidt onherroepelijk tot de Goelag: want als mensen genoeg geld krijgen om rond te komen, dan gaan ze niet de stinkende riolen in (want dat zouden ze dan feitelijk gratis doen), wat wel moet gebeuren voor onderhoud.
Omdat de VSSR (Sovjet-Unie) feitelijk ook een UBI kende, kregen ze pas mensen zo ver om in Siberië hout te kappen voor de export, of om de uranium-mijnen in te gaan, nadat die waren veroordeeld voor landverraad of zo. Oftewel UBI leidt tot slavernij


Het is bij links nu weer erg modieus om de oude koeien van het slavernijverleden uit de sloot te halen. Enige tijd terug pleitte voormalig PtdA-kamerlid Amma Assante ervoor dat slavernij op de scholen zouden worden behandeld.
Lijkt mij een goed idee om dat te doen, dan wel erbij vertellen dat het basisinkomen alleen maar kan leiden tot een herhaling van de Goelagslavernij waar de arme Sovjetburgers onder leden. Waar in het westen de slavernij al ongelooflijk lang geleden is afgeschafd, heeft elke Russische familie zelfs nu nog leden die de Goelag heeft overleefd.
Maar ja, dat is dubbele kritiek op links, dus dat gebeurt doodleuk niet. Het is racistisch om slavernij die niet ten koste ging van donkerhuidigen slavernij te noemen.