How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

[abandonconflict]

Natural resources yes. Means of production, maybe not. If a person manipulates a natural resource, like a piece of wood into a spear, I contend he "created something" and has mixed his labor with a natural resource. The spear maker then "owns" the spear right? Whether a spear or a tilled field, it is the act of mixing labor with natural resources that creates things and some would argue creates an ownership claim. A collective need, does not mean that everybody in the collective "created" the means to satisfy the need. Who tilled the field? Who speared the game?

A spear no, a tilled field maybe.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I didn't word it that way. I said socialism is not a synonym of authoritarianism. Socialism can be authoritarian or libertarian as can capitalism. Capitalism can also be collectivist.

Socialism is antonymous with capitalism. Socialism is simply opposed to privatization of means of production and natural resources.

if "socialism" can be collectivism And/Or capitalism, then it is NEITHER

if "socialism" can be authoritarian And/Or represent liberty, then your definition of "socialism" has no meaning in the context of political theory.

until you explicitly describe what you mean when you say the word "socialism" nobody can argue for or against whatever the hell you are talking about in any way.

your use of the word "socialism" does not fit any definition of that word i have ever read, since EVERY definition of "Socialism" (actual political methodology, not a gimmick phrase) includes both collectivism, and compulsory participation in that collectivist system.

if you propose that Socialism has ANY meaning which does NOT include The State running factories farms, timber mills, mines, airports, railways, ports, and every other source of goods and materials, as well as the transportation systems which move those materials about, then you are not talking about Socialism.

in any Socialist system, The State (or a collective, tribe, family unit, clan, guild, union, soviet, co-operative, or some other group of persons rather than a single person) owns and controls the "Means of Production" (at the very least, significant or important ones)while capitalism allows an individual to own and control anything he can acquire, no matter how important or trivial to the society as a whole.

clarify what you mean by "socialism" or you are just blowing smoke.

 

[abandonconflict]

if "socialism" can be collectivism And/Or capitalism

Nice try. First line and already bs. Socialism and capitalism are antonymous.

Tldr since you couldn't even make it past the first line without bullshit.

 

[GOD HERE]

Nice try. First line and already bs. Socialism and capitalism are antonymous.

Tldr since you couldn't even make it past the first line without bullshit.

I think Buck's on to something with calling Keynes a Marxist, it's a lot how I feel when I argue with one.

 

[cannabineer]

That is because you are trying to redefine socialism into a synonym of authoritarianism which it is not.

That is not what I was doing.

But i hardly need say that.

It'll suffice to highlight your effort at derailment.

OK just for fun: illustrate from history an effective, nonauthoritarian socialist instance on a national scale.

 

[abandonconflict]

That is not what I wI as doing.

But i hardly need say that.

It'll suffice to highlight your effort at derailment.

OK just for fun: illustrate from history an effective, nonauthoritarian socialist instance on a national scale.

Spain before Franco prevailed. Some say that indigenous American cultures were also anarchistic.

It's not just for fun though. You are fishing for something to pick apart and already have your mind made up. At least you're cordial.

Now go ahead and try to argue as you have been all along that socialism is inherently authoritarian. Just remember that the state exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Nice try. First line and already bs. Socialism and capitalism are antonymous.

Tldr since you couldn't even make it past the first line without bullshit.

derp derp derp

you already established that capitalism and collectivism are NOT in your view "antonymous" due to capitalism's mysterious power to be COLLECTIVIST, then what the fuck do you assert "socialism" might be?

if capitalism can be both capital and collective, then how can collectivism be anything other than ALSO collective and capital, leaving absolutely no place for "socialism" to live no matter how carefully you parse it.

so, we must therefore conclude that "socialism" in your bizzarro world, IS NOT a method of distribution of capital and/or the means of production. yet sadly that IS the description of actual socialism when used by everyone else in the world.

define what you propose "socialism" means, or you are still just farting in the bathtub.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I think Buck's on to something with calling Keynes a Marxist, it's a lot how I feel when I argue with one.

you are no better then abandonintellect.

you also refuse to expound upon what you claim to believe, even citing meaningless wikipedia entries and contradictory blog posts as your "Philosophy"

everyone who reads AND UNDERSTANDS Marx is NOT a Marxist, you however get a big fat X next to every line on the Marxist Checklist.

Collectivist X
pretense of intellectual superiority despite profound lack of understanding on the subject X
talks about "Means of Production" X
Anti-Capitalist (despite not being clear on how capitalism works...) X
occupytard X
smugly atheist X
uses marxist propaganda X
hangs out with marxists X
foolish belief that someday the utopian stateless dream will become reality X
says he is NOT a Marxist but instead uses a meaningless hyphenated catch phrase and refuses to explain what it is supposed to mean X

yeah... another marxist. just a shitty one.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Just remember that the state exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property.

a specious premise.

The State as demonstrated spends MOST of it's effort defending The Commons, even in a largely capitalist nation like the US.

if you cannot explain what socialism IS, then how can you pretend to declare what it is NOT ? it could be anything in your fanciful imagination, even authoritarian, because if socialism is NOT a collectivist form, then nobody knows for sure what you mean by "Authoritarian" either

 

[heckler73]

I consider it axiom that the individual, not any collective, is the standard unit of any science of human behavior, including social, cultural, politico-economic. I become restless when I see an incomplete conceptual bridge made from the individual starting point to a necessary collective premise. But hey; that's me.

So you don't believe Macroeconomics has any value as a tool of measure and theory?
In that part of the broader politico-economic science of human behaviour, you are part of an aggregated whole, already, oh ivory-stained warlord of the frozen wasteland...
Without your knowledge, without your consent.
You are reduced to a "rational economic agent", and that means not truly unique, with people cooking-up policies designed to "influence" your economic decisions. By hook or by crook...
I suspect this example plays out in your other delineated branches, too, but one example is enough for now.

I don't see how socialism can be extricated from collectivism. The utopian's requirement for an unspecified team spirit seems fully in play. i am attentive to cogent, nondoctrinal counterpoint.

I believe you are correct; economically, socialism has collective elements, but this is not an exclusive point. There are a range of possibilities (see below), just like with every other -ism. This is why I prefer viewing it from a perspective of the complex plane; there is a radius of convergence. Yet perhaps this point--this fundamental definition you seek--is no more definable than what we currently entertain at present.
Or would you care to differ?

if you cannot explain what socialism IS, then how can you pretend to declare what it is NOT ? it could be anything in your fanciful imagination, even authoritarian, because if socialism is NOT a collectivist form, then nobody knows for sure what you mean by "Authoritarian" either

Socialism contains elements of collectivist economics.
But it is quite democratic by design.
If you can follow my line of thought based on the Political Compass, and can temporarily suspend your belief in the definitions of the axes titles (i.e. just consider the economics and personal aspects; x and y axes),
add political responsibility along the z-axis...



Do you think any of those labels have a meaning?
Do any of them resonate well with your personal sentiments?
Is there one in particular that makes your blood boil or give you a feeling of exhilaration?

What happens at the borders? Are they dynamic? There must be transition, and as such relatively infinite states of being with infinite paths being observable in time.
And policies made by collectives have effect on the course...
One way or another, we are surrounded by "collectives". The thickness of the roots, or "field shape", flux, etc. determine the structure--the paths of influence, the paths of power.
They have been there nearly as long as we have been able to question our existence...
What would that 3D map look like if one were to plot every damn person in the US?
Uniform distribution? I think not... But certainly more than two poles
Brownian motion? Agent based modeling?
Where do Gandhi and Chomsky fit now?

Great googly moogly, this is starting to sound like a Finshaggy fucks Doer's dog tale... time to put the down.

 

[Rob Roy]

so.. socialism is NOT authoritarian, and also NOT collectivist...

THEN WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU PROPOSE IT IS???

since the word obviously does not mean what everybody else thinks it means (an authoritarian system of collectivism described by Marx as a middle ground between Bourgeois Capitqlism and Utopian Communism) and it is clearly also not what the lefties say it is (which IS collectivism, with authoritarianism hidden under a blanket) then what the hell do you pretend it is in Chompsky Land?

define the word (since all the others are clearly wrong) or stop using it and make up some new word from scratch, with no other meanings.

here, ill do it for you:

Flebbletarianism: (insert your definition here and we will lock that motherfucker down for you)

Flebbletarianism : An economic system developed in the cartoony world of the Flintstones. It combined the kinder gentler aspects of Pebbles, the daughter of Fred and Wilma Flintstone and the more aggression based and coercive methods of BAM BAM, the son of the Rubbles. It fizzled out after a meteor hit the earth and many of the Dinosaurs then rejected the contradictions inherent to this system, a large percentage then followed the Prophet Dino into his religious cult, which fizzled out in an evolutionary dead end, giving way to Mammalism.

Hope this helps.

 

[abandonconflict]

a specious premise.

The State as demonstrated spends MOST of it's effort defending The Commons, even in a largely capitalist nation like the US.

No. The state exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I believe you are correct; economically, socialism has collective elements, but this is not an exclusive point. There are a range of possibilities (see below), just like with every other -ism. This is why I prefer viewing it from a perspective of the complex plane; there is a radius of convergence. Yet perhaps this point--this fundamental definition you seek--is no more definable than what we currently entertain at present.
Or would you care to differ?

socialism is collective by iot's very nature. the group's needs (the collective) always supersede the needs of the individual. every member of the social group is expected to sacrifice (based on his ability) so that all may benefit from the collective labour (based on need) the fact that peasants must work hardest and sacrifice the most, while partry apparqtchiks benefit most, due to their NEED for dachas on the black sea and limousines and hookers... well thats just how hierarchies work.

Socialism contains elements of collectivist economics.

and bee colonies have elements of insect social structure...

But it is quite democratic by design.

actually it is anything but. every comintern and every socialist theorist made clear, that the proles should be allowed to vote for their representatives, but ONLY within the narrow confines of approved candidates. you COULD argue they are a republic, but that too would be erroneous. socialism IS the dictatorship of the proletariat, (well actually the dictatorship of the VANGUARD of your particular form of marxism, the rest of the proles can suck it.) and socialism is DESIGNED to be unfair. it is a step on the road to communism, which is of course, perfectly fair, just, and utopian, because it is imaginary.

If you can follow my line of thought based on the Political Compass, and can temporarily suspend your belief in the definitions of the axes titles (i.e. just consider the economics and personal aspects; x and y axes),
add political responsibility along the z-axis...

you really do love that macro-economic shit dont you?

ha ha ha ha! every problem is not solved by an increasingly complex set of charts and graphs.
at some point you will have to start including Giant Acme Magnets, Rollerskates and RocketBoots.

Do you think any of those labels have a meaning?
Do any of them resonate well with your personal sentiments?
Is there one in particular that makes your blood boil or give you a feeling of exhilaration?

labels are useful in categorizing shit. the label could be anything, a series of numbers on a bar code for inventory purposes, or a descriptive phrase so the shopper can know whats in the box before you open it.
like all methods of categorization there is overlap between many categories, but the unigue chraqcteristics of anything can be used to identify that thing even if it's superficial appearance is unfamiliar, by finding the areas where it interescts with accepted categories. Example:

What happens at the borders? Are they dynamic? There must be transition, and as such relatively infinite states of being with infinite paths being observable in time.
And policies made by collectives have effect on the course...
One way or another, we are surrounded by "collectives". The thickness of the roots, or "field shape", flux, etc. determine the structure--the paths of influence, the paths of power.
They have been there nearly as long as we have been able to question our existence...
What would that 3D map look like if one were to plot every damn person in the US?
Uniform distribution? I think not... But certainly more than two poles
Brownian motion? Agent based modeling?
Where do Gandhi and Chomsky fit now?

ghandi is still a pacificist, collectivist, harmless utopian dreamer, so he remains a Communist (with a few twists in his diaper that make him almost un-marxist despite his communist attitude)
chomp chomp is still a babbling fool who uses pseudo-profundidties to conceal his agenda and bilk the suckers (like deepak choprah in a cardigan)

Great googly moogly, this is starting to sound like a Finshaggy fucks Doer's dog tale... time to put the down.

you were making a little sense there, but the guy who drew that graph doesnt understand marx.

socialism is intended to oppress, and force conformity, as a part of the preparation of the proles for their new role as cogs in the machine, until of course somehow magicallly...

"Harrius Potterus Pseudo-Latinus Incantationus!"

**POOF!**

Communism.

 

[abandonconflict]

you were making a little sense there, but the guy who drew that graph doesnt understand marx

Tldr version of the new kkkynes manifesto: if it ain't marxist it makes no sense.

 

[heckler73]

socialism is collective by its very nature. the group's needs (the collective) always supersede the needs of the individual. every member of the social group is expected to sacrifice (based on his ability) so that all may benefit from the collective labour (based on need) the fact that peasants must work hardest and sacrifice the most, while party apparatchiks benefit most, due to their NEED for dachas on the black sea and limousines and hookers... well that's just how hierarchies work.

This is something I feel needs to be shaken from your model; the assumption that collectivist principles must be under an authoritarian hierarchy where those at the bottom have no say in what happens at the top. The Mondragon Corp. (democratically hierarchical economic collective) shows that need not be the case. Those start-ups in the silicon valley with their 6 (wo)man lattice frameworks also demonstrate how collectivist principles can be applied sans hierarchy.
Democracy in the Industrial Sphere...what does that mean to you? Pol Pot and Stalin?

actually it is anything but. every comintern and every socialist theorist made clear, that the proles should be allowed to vote for their representatives, but ONLY within the narrow confines of approved candidates. you COULD argue they are a republic, but that too would be erroneous. socialism IS the dictatorship of the proletariat, (well actually the dictatorship of the VANGUARD of your particular form of marxism, the rest of the proles can suck it.) and socialism is DESIGNED to be unfair. it is a step on the road to communism, which is of course, perfectly fair, just, and utopian, because it is imaginary.

Again, you have a peculiar bias that likes to associate socialism inclusively with authoritarian hierarchies. You completely ignore the 3rd quadrant preferring to limit your range of argument to the 2nd (on the 2D compass).
And what is this "every" nonsense? Perhaps it would be more proper for you to say "every...which I have read". Have you read Gunnar Myrdal's or Hubbert's works in this area? Or does your compendium of sources only contain Marx's Commie Manifesto and those who took his ideas into Authoritarian la-la land?

you really do love that macro-economic shit dont you?

You're damn right, I do. It keeps me excited/interested as I push the boundaries of my knowledge outward.
But this subject goes beyond that focused realm of consideration, although it certainly has a large influence based on what we have collectively accepted as our governor of fulfillment (i.e. money). If you say that money has no effect on your decisions, you're a liar or deluded.
Until that changes, it would be foolish to exclude it from debate.
Just like economists who exclude banking from their models are either misinformed by orthodoxy or deceitful bastards.

labels are useful in categorizing shit. the label could be anything, a series of numbers on a bar code for inventory purposes, or a descriptive phrase so the shopper can know whats in the box before you open it.
like all methods of categorization there is overlap between many categories, but the unique characteristics of anything can be used to identify that thing even if it's superficial appearance is unfamiliar, by finding the areas where it interescts with accepted categories.

And yet you can't label yourself in any manner, can you. Does the thought of finding where you stand create anxiety in you or something? Surely there must be a place in that 3D model where you can fit in. Obviously you are neither Totalitarian or Anarchist, so where the hell do you stand? You must be on that map somewhere...

you were making a little sense there, but the guy who drew that graph doesn't understand Marx.

I'm getting the suspicion your comprehension of Marx is also diminutive.
I see you bringing up the commie manifesto a great deal, but no reference to any of the 4 volumes of Capital.
I have Volume I on my shelf. Quote something from there so I can play along.

socialism is intended to oppress, and force conformity, as a part of the preparation of the proles for their new role as cogs in the machine, until of course somehow magicallly... communism

Only in your limited scope does it do this.
You've already conceded political structures are dynamic, yet ignore the pathways of action/movement are not definitive. One could equally chart a path from Neo-Liberalism to Neo-Con to Fascism to Libertarian Utopia if they so wished. That would be one hell of a ride to engage within a lifetime, though, with obvious hurdles of probability to overcome.
The point being, your perspective is too static or rigid in its predetermination. I've argued that it is not so, and have tried to expand the mapping for the purposes of analyses.
Perhaps I have complicated matters by introducing concepts such as the Complex realm and multiple degrees of "freedom" (there's another word as much abused as socialism), but that only implies I am unsatisfied with anachronistic representations which you seemingly relish.

One could limit their understanding of "gravity" to "everything that goes up, must come down" or they could take it further by considering the mathematical description which allows for prediction. Even there, the model is assumptive and incomplete, meaning there is more work to do in order to refine the "error" associated.
In conclusion, your perspective is grossly in err, and I have no reason--nor evidence--to accept it except under limited circumstances.

But I must say, between you and the Fuzzy-Seal-Shredder, I get a lot of cognitive exercise, so I thank you for that.

 

[abandonconflict]

This is something I feel needs to be shaken from your model; the assumption that collectivist principles must be under an authoritarian hierarchy where those at the bottom have no say in what happens at the top.



Again, you have a peculiar bias that likes to associate socialism inclusively with authoritarian hierarchies.

It is his religion.

 

[GOD HERE]

The few times Kkkeynes does not outright lie or tell half truths to make it seem like he has any idea what he's talking about, he becomes a master of logical fallacies. The circular argument is one of his favorites, followed closely by the slippery slope and post hoc fallacies.

 

[Dr Kynes]

This is something I feel needs to be shaken from your model; the assumption that collectivist principles must be under an authoritarian hierarchy where those at the bottom have no say in what happens at the top. The Mondragon Corp. (democratically hierarchical economic collective) shows that need not be the case. Those start-ups in the silicon valley with their 6 (wo)man lattice frameworks also demonstrate how collectivist principles can be applied sans hierarchy.
Democracy in the Industrial Sphere...what does that mean to you? Pol Pot and Stalin?

those collectives are not "socialist" in nature, but rather Communal. (see Communism)
Communism (real type, used in many places through history, not Marx's version) is ALWAYS egalitarian, and based on considerable community input, if not direct democracy.
even today Communes, Co-Ops and other collective organizations operate throughout the world holding some (or even in some cases, ALL) goods and property in common.
Marx's theories are the default standard for leftist and collectivist thought these days, and thus receive the lion's share of attention, but Marx is not the owner of Collectivism, but he does have a Trademark on the words "Socialism" and "Communism".
if one has a differing view of these words and wishes to use baggage laden phrases, one must first define those terms for the purpose of the discussion at hand.
without a specific Ad Hoc re-definition for the purposes of the discussion, the defualt definitions must be used or no discussion can commence.

if you wish these terms to be used in Ye Olde Tyme meaning of the Pre-Marx era then you need to specify who's definition of "Socialism" and "Communism" you are using or the discussion can go nowhere.

Again, you have a peculiar bias that likes to associate socialism inclusively with authoritarian hierarchies. You completely ignore the 3rd quadrant preferring to limit your range of argument to the 2nd (on the 2D compass).
And what is this "every" nonsense? Perhaps it would be more proper for you to say "every...which I have read". Have you read Gunnar Myrdal's or Hubbert's works in this area? Or does your compendium of sources only contain Marx's Commie Manifesto and those who took his ideas into Authoritarian la-la land?

it's not that peculiar a bias.
if one quotes Marx, uses Marxian slogans, posts Marxist Propaganda, and issues statements which are directly in line with Marx's Manifesto, then the logical assumption is that we are talking Marxism, not Spoonerism, Thoreauism, or any of the millions of different flavours of utopian thought which have turned political discussions into pissing matches since time immemorial.

You're damn right, I do. It keeps me excited/interested as I push the boundaries of my knowledge outward.
But this subject goes beyond that focused realm of consideration, although it certainly has a large influence based on what we have collectively accepted as our governor of fulfillment (i.e. money). If you say that money has no effect on your decisions, you're a liar or deluded.
Until that changes, it would be foolish to exclude it from debate.
Just like economists who exclude banking from their models are either misinformed by orthodoxy or deceitful bastards.

money and economic reality drives many of my personal and political decisions, but not all.

And yet you can't label yourself in any manner, can you. Does the thought of finding where you stand create anxiety in you or something? Surely there must be a place in that 3D model where you can fit in. Obviously you are neither Totalitarian or Anarchist, so where the hell do you stand? You must be on that map somewhere...

Objectivist: my motivation for every urge, opinion, position, word or deed is carefully examined before any action. if the motivation is suspect, the position or urge must be re-evaluated.
Libertarian: the government which governs least is preferable, but the idea of having NO Government is rejected, due to it's necessity in protecting the rights of those who are incapable of defending their own.
Republican: (philosophy not Party) representatives elected from among their constituents are better by far than those selected by "divine right" , wealth or fiat from a position of authority, and all laws and regulations must be consistent with the Constitution.
Conservative: that which IS is usually better than that which MIGHT BE. if you wish me to accept something new, CONVINCE me it is better, or try a small scale experiment, and lets see what happens.
Social But Not Socialist: society is essential, and thus we must all give up a little of our personal fortunes, labour and effort that society as a whole may improve.
Capitalist: but what's mine is mine, and whats yours is yours, and if we wish to trade some of my shit for some of your shit, why the hell not.
i would place myself in the position on your chart marked "Internet Democracy".

not too much capitalism, nor too much collectivism, but erring on the side of capitalism.
absolute political freedom. freedom of thought and political expression is essential for any free society to function
personal liberty should be as unrestricted as possible, without devolving into anarchy, but Not Everyone Is Nice.
capitalism and free markets as much as is practical while still funding and preserving the society which allows markets to exist, and protecting The Commons from despoilers or over-exploitation

I'm getting the suspicion your comprehension of Marx is also diminutive.
I see you bringing up the commie manifesto a great deal, but no reference to any of the 4 volumes of Capital.
I have Volume I on my shelf. Quote something from there so I can play along.

i have cited Das Kapital and it's faulty assumptions based on a "materialist" (again not the standard definition, rather, the curious one used by Marx and Engles) view of social interactions several times.
all social interaction is NOT economic, in fact the best ones are entirely NON-Economic.
Examples:
Fucking: best when done with a companion, and entirely non-economic (unless we are talking hookers)
Music: MOST musicians dont make a dime for their performance, and would do it even if they were never paid.
Poetry: i have never been paid for poetry yet i still write.
Dance: very few people are paid to dance, yet almost everyone gets their boogie on at one point or another.
Political Discussion: are you being paid to post? cuz if you are, i want your agent's number bro.
Growing Weed: i dont sell my weed, in the immortal words of Rod Deal, in his classic Life In the Hills:

This Herb is not for sale man
You know i grew it by the sweat of my brow
Robbers and cops they are on my trail but
I carry water and i pull the plow

Smoking Weed: if i could make a living smoking dope i would totally do overtime, never take a vacation, and yes, i will clean up bong water spills.
Laying in the sun: another thing for which i am not paid, yet i do it as often as possible
Fishing: i dont make a profit off fishin, hell i usually dont even eat the fishies. catch and release. it makes no sense, but it is still enjoyable.
Taking My Nephews Hunting: shit. they never bagged a deer yet but we dont go out for venision, thats just the plausible excuse. maybe one of these days though...
Panning for gold: total gold panning profit to date, ~$300, yet i still do it in memory of my grandfather who loved it, and when im up to my knees in the river, shaking out sand and gravel it feels like he is right there with me.
Helping my neighbors when their cars break down: i dont get paid a dime, but i enjoy it immensely
Picking Up Trash on the Street: 0$ profit, and i gotta pay for the bags myself. why do i do it? because i like doing it. i even give the cans and bottles to the first homeless can-gigger i meet. i dont need em, and he does. why the fuck not?
Recycling my bottles and cans: i keep the Calif Redmption Value items separate from the city recycling bin, and give em to the homeless can-giggers

all social interaction is NOT financial, thats the failing of Marx and Engles.

Only in your limited scope does it do this.
You've already conceded political structures are dynamic, yet ignore the pathways of action/movement are not definitive. One could equally chart a path from Neo-Liberalism to Neo-Con to Fascism to Libertarian Utopia if they so wished. That would be one hell of a ride to engage within a lifetime, though, with obvious hurdles of probability to overcome.
The point being, your perspective is too static or rigid in its predetermination. I've argued that it is not so, and have tried to expand the mapping for the purposes of analyses.
Perhaps I have complicated matters by introducing concepts such as the Complex realm and multiple degrees of "freedom" (there's another word as much abused as socialism), but that only implies I am unsatisfied with anachronistic representations which you seemingly relish.

yep, but that would be sophistry.

One could limit their understanding of "gravity" to "everything that goes up, must come down" or they could take it further by considering the mathematical description which allows for prediction. Even there, the model is assumptive and incomplete, meaning there is more work to do in order to refine the "error" associated.
In conclusion, your perspective is grossly in err, and I have no reason--nor evidence--to accept it except under limited circumstances.

marx and engles wrote the book, their definitions are well... definitive, yet those who wish to use alternate definitions rarely provide any explanation of HOW they are using these words so fraught with baggage.
even the invitation to invent a new word and lay his own definition on it without any baggage was refused by AC (the most notable violator of definitions and logic)

But I must say, between you and the Fuzzy-Seal-Shredder, I get a lot of cognitive exercise, so I thank you for that.

de nada.

your discourse is also quite agreeable. but macro-economics is still just tarot card reading with charts and graphs.

 

[see4]

those collectives are not "socialist" in nature, but rather Communal. (see Communism)
Communism (real type, used in many places through history, not Marx's version) is ALWAYS egalitarian, and based on considerable community input, if not direct democracy.
even today Communes, Co-Ops and other collective organizations operate throughout the world holding some (or even in some cases, ALL) goods and property in common.
Marx's theories are the default standard for leftist and collectivist thought these days, and thus receive the lion's share of attention, but Marx is not the owner of Collectivism, but he does have a Trademark on the words "Socialism" and "Communism".
if one has a differing view of these words and wishes to use baggage laden phrases, one must first define those terms for the purpose of the discussion at hand.
without a specific Ad Hoc re-definition for the purposes of the discussion, the defualt definitions must be used or no discussion can commence.

if you wish these terms to be used in Ye Olde Tyme meaning of the Pre-Marx era then you need to specify who's definition of "Socialism" and "Communism" you are using or the discussion can go nowhere.



it's not that peculiar a bias.
if one quotes Marx, uses Marxian slogans, posts Marxist Propaganda, and issues statements which are directly in line with Marx's Manifesto, then the logical assumption is that we are talking Marxism, not Spoonerism, Thoreauism, or any of the millions of different flavours of utopian thought which have turned political discussions into pissing matches since time immemorial.





money and economic reality drives many of my personal and political decisions, but not all.





Objectivist: my motivation for every urge, opinion, position, word or deed is carefully examined before any action. if the motivation is suspect, the position or urge must be re-evaluated.
Libertarian: the government which governs least is preferable, but the idea of having NO Government is rejected, due to it's necessity in protecting the rights of those who are incapable of defending their own.
Republican: (philosophy not Party) representatives elected from among their constituents are better by far than those selected by "divine right" , wealth or fiat from a position of authority, and all laws and regulations must be consistent with the Constitution.
Conservative: that which IS is usually better than that which MIGHT BE. if you wish me to accept something new, CONVINCE me it is better, or try a small scale experiment, and lets see what happens.
Social But Not Socialist: society is essential, and thus we must all give up a little of our personal fortunes, labour and effort that society as a whole may improve.
Capitalist: but what's mine is mine, and whats yours is yours, and if we wish to trade some of my shit for some of your shit, why the hell not.
i would place myself in the position on your chart marked "Internet Democracy".

not too much capitalism, nor too much collectivism, but erring on the side of capitalism.
absolute political freedom. freedom of thought and political expression is essential for any free society to function
personal liberty should be as unrestricted as possible, without devolving into anarchy, but Not Everyone Is Nice.
capitalism and free markets as much as is practical while still funding and preserving the society which allows markets to exist, and protecting The Commons from despoilers or over-exploitation




i have cited Das Kapital and it's faulty assumptions based on a "materialist" (again not the standard definition, rather, the curious one used by Marx and Engles) view of social interactions several times.
all social interaction is NOT economic, in fact the best ones are entirely NON-Economic.
Examples:
Fucking: best when done with a companion, and entirely non-economic (unless we are talking hookers)
Music: MOST musicians dont make a dime for their performance, and would do it even if they were never paid.
Poetry: i have never been paid for poetry yet i still write.
Dance: very few people are paid to dance, yet almost everyone gets their boogie on at one point or another.
Political Discussion: are you being paid to post? cuz if you are, i want your agent's number bro.
Growing Weed: i dont sell my weed, in the immortal words of Rod Deal, in his classic Life In the Hills:

This Herb is not for sale man
You know i grew it by the sweat of my brow
Robbers and cops they are on my trail but
I carry water and i pull the plow

Smoking Weed: if i could make a living smoking dope i would totally do overtime, never take a vacation, and yes, i will clean up bong water spills.
Laying in the sun: another thing for which i am not paid, yet i do it as often as possible
Fishing: i dont make a profit off fishin, hell i usually dont even eat the fishies. catch and release. it makes no sense, but it is still enjoyable.
Taking My Nephews Hunting: shit. they never bagged a deer yet but we dont go out for venision, thats just the plausible excuse. maybe one of these days though...
Panning for gold: total gold panning profit to date, ~$300, yet i still do it in memory of my grandfather who loved it, and when im up to my knees in the river, shaking out sand and gravel it feels like he is right there with me.
Helping my neighbors when their cars break down: i dont get paid a dime, but i enjoy it immensely
Picking Up Trash on the Street: 0$ profit, and i gotta pay for the bags myself. why do i do it? because i like doing it. i even give the cans and bottles to the first homeless can-gigger i meet. i dont need em, and he does. why the fuck not?
Recycling my bottles and cans: i keep the Calif Redmption Value items separate from the city recycling bin, and give em to the homeless can-giggers

all social interaction is NOT financial, thats the failing of Marx and Engles.


yep, but that would be sophistry.



marx and engles wrote the book, their definitions are well... definitive, yet those who wish to use alternate definitions rarely provide any explanation of HOW they are using these words so fraught with baggage.
even the invitation to invent a new word and lay his own definition on it without any baggage was refused by AC (the most notable violator of definitions and logic)



de nada.

your discourse is also quite agreeable. but macro-economics is still just tarot card reading with charts and graphs.

thanks for sharing.

 

[abandonconflict]

Marx is not the owner of Collectivism, but he does have a Trademark on the words "Socialism" and "Communism".
if one has a differing view of these words and wishes to use baggage laden phrases, one must first define those terms for the purpose of the discussion at hand.

if one quotes Marx, uses Marxian slogans, posts Marxist Propaganda, and issues statements which are directly in line with Marx's Manifesto, then the logical assumption

Tldr version of kkkynes newest manifesto:

"If you use words that Marx used, your a marxist. Words don't mean what they mean so you can just redefine them to suit your argument."