Yes, he did. The same dream outlined in John Lennon's Imagine; a very powerful and seductive dream but still only a dream; a dream with no prospect of ever becoming reality, since Marx' plan for how to get there involved a stage in which the power hungry would always take over and do exactly what Bakunin warned about. So, if by Communism you mean the state in which Marx' dream is attained, it certainly never has existed and I would argue never could exist. But I don't think it too unfair to Marx to include as Communist the stages by which he meant to attain his dream, although it is impossible they could ever lead there.

There may be such a thing as an anti-statist socialist, but I've never met one -- every single one of the many who claimed to be one considered socialism to be the more important part and if capitalism threatened to break out would be only too quick to resort to state power to quash it. If one of you gentlemen is an exception, then bully for you, but pardon my scepticism since I've met many who claimed that but considered laissez-faire capitalism a greater threat than statism.

Well, lazzies-faire basically is statism. Corporations are basically governments, in reality. I mean, they're chartered by the government, they're run basically like a government, and they make all the same decisions that the government does. Under lazzies-faire, you have a situation where the government isn't held accountable to society. Yeah, yeah, people can choose to boycott the products of companies they don't like, but it's been all but proven that people don't give a frick how terrible a corporation is as long as they have the best for the least.

I wouldn't think you'd find any socialists who said lazzies-faire was any worse than, say, 1984. In the end all totalitarian systems, including corporate rule, are pretty much equally horrific.

Laissez-faire is the exact opposite of Statism. You are confusing it with the system we have today, which is much the same as Lincoln's mercantilism. Free markets are only a dream here.

- Rick

hey y'all, its good to have my internet back



first of all, most libertarians are not anarcho-capitalists, they believe in a limited government that protects the rights of the individual, as both domestic security and foreign security, and the judicial system.

the constitution layed down by the founding fathers of america means that the government IS held accountable. Jefferson related the constitution to a chain that held the lust of power by politicians in check. That has since become a dream.

the term "rags to riches" was coined in the 19th century. It was also the most laisse-faire america ever was. Millions came to America with little more than the clothes on their backs, and worked their way to wealth. Andrew Carnegie started out as a penniless factory sweeper. By the time he died he was one of the richest men in America. Sure there are cases where poor people stayed poor, but something people seem to forget is the millions of people who have worked their way to wealth. Heck, my great-grandfather came to america with 2 bucks in his pocket. by the time he died he had founded and established a very successful family business (that lives today) please name me one thing he did wrong. The American dream does not promise a land paved with gold where everything is parcelled out to you, it is paved with oppurtunity. You can come with no material possessions and if you work for it you have the oppurtunity to earn it. As was said in Scarface "the world is yours"

Granted the 19th century wasn't idyllic, as there were social shackles that proclaimed that women and black men were property. But those are social sanctions, not economic ones. And thankfully our society has since moved past those unfortunate beliefs.

unfortunatly, the American dream has become just that, a dream.

most people are mostly selfish, is a common phrase in economics. simply leave a 20 dollar bill on the sidewalk and see how long it is before someone picks it up. I will give you a scenario. You are a businessman responsible for the lives of your employees. You recieve two applications for the same job. One went to a very prestigious college and graduated with honors, plus has an extensive backround in the career he wishes to pursue. The other person went to a community college, barely graduated, and has little experience in the field he wants. As a responsible businessman, you have an obligation to hire the superior man, because he will contribute more to the company. Both men have the same need, but you need to pick one, as both cannot have the job. the second may very well be incompetent and if he is in a position of leadership, those under him may suffer as well. Picking up the better man will allow you to bring in more profits, and expand. And expansion means more jobs, more benefits, more production, whatever.

The belief that people are tied to their jobs is rather silly. If at any time i feel that my burger-flipping job isn't paying off, i can say i quit and leave. If i want another job, I can look in the newspaper. wait a minute, where are all the jobs? what? you mean to tell me that Habib over in India who has more qualifications than i do got the job on the basis that he was willing to work for less than I am? But wait a minute, i have kids, i need to feed them! so what if i'm a high school dropout and habib is an honor graduate, I have needs and those greedy evil corporations don't care about them! Even though they don't know me and i dont know them I demand that they support me, as they have an obligation to help people they don't have any emotional attachments too!!
Wouldn't be very fair to either the business or to Habib if the government (or magic, as i don't understand how anarcho-socialism can provide structure) if i was required to settle for less on grounds that he has need.

If you want true equality, read Harrison Bergeron. Otherwise, i'm having a hard time figuring anarcho-socialism out. it's supposed to bring full equality to everyone, but apparently since there is no human control mechanism (government) then im assuming its magic.

the flaw I see in Marxism is that according to him all labor has worth. Realistically though this is not necessarily the case. I could dig a ditch across the Sahara desert. Thats labor, but it really didn't contribute much. Its a shame that my ability is only digging ditches. oh well, i have need, and its time to collect.

Labor is not equal. The janitor works 7 hours a day, his responsibility is making sure there is no dirt on the floor. Rather menial, but still constructive. the CEO also works 7 hours a day, but he is responsibly for his entire company, to ensure that it draws profit, as he is also responsible to all of his employees and his shareholders. Any man who shirks this responsibility will be held accountable by law, and the only instances where that is not the case is when government is involved i.e Enron. The average CEO makes 400 times more than his lowest paid employee. Therefor if labor is equal, then a CEO is worth 400 janitors. not very realistic, as 400 janitors would not be able to do the job as effectively as that one CEO.

The "American Dream" eh? You believe the spirit of the new age, is the American Dream: Gain wealth, forgetting all but self. 19th century? Have you even studied American History? They worked 12 hour days, in terrible working conditions, and still didn't make enough to support their families.

You also speak of millions, are you still referring to the 19th century? Im sorry but that is just hilarious.

You also critique Marxism, for it's aspects of labor. Are you aware of where your ideology comes from? The idea of free markets is that it will lead to perfect equality. You should really read Smith and Humboldt and understand the essense of their thoughts. In order for industrial capitalism to exist, the essense of those ideas has to be ignored.

You should compare Humboldt to the early Marx:



Compare that to Marx...

Also, in Humboldt's book he says:


Back to the American Dream:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Give them to be exploited? Or is the American Dream, to be able to work, be free, raise a family, and die content of ones life?

Your critique of Marxism is strange. Why would anyone dig a hold in the sahara desert? Your also comparing a CEO's job to 400 janitors? Im just wondering where this number came from, and also how anyone's contribution to society is not equality?

From each according to his ability, To each according to his needs. Is a teacher more/less valuable to society then a construction worker? I don't believe so, they are both crucial elements in a community.

Done for now...

::Edit::

A while back there was a news article, about the democratic candidates favorite songs. Imagine was Kucinich's.

Also, I would consider Lennon an Anarchist...

Yes, they did work 12 hour days in less than ideal conditions, but compare that to its alternative - 16 hour days in the field, 7 days a week, just to stay alive. You speak of Smith, which is good. When Smith wrote his book, pre-Industrial Revolution, he said of America that having a child was a net gain to a family because of the extra work a child could put in to help the family survive.

Today, children are a luxury. You hear people say that they cannot afford to have a child. Such a statement would be inconcievable to the people in and before the 19th Century. Like you say, we must look at things in their historical context. The history of this country has shown a steady increase in personal income, free time, and standard of living for over two hundred years.

The days in the sweat shop factories are not a shameful part of our past, but a step of progress from the hard life of agrarian culture, and a step toward the wealth of today. Merely a point on the ascent, a snapshot of progress.



We have a very specific way of determining their value to society - it is called the price system. Through all the different individual buying and spending and saving decisions people make every day, a general price for a good or service will emerge, showing what a good or service is worth to society. This price is merely an amount at which both buyer and seller feel they are coming out of the deal better than in its absence.

The problem with Socialism and Communism and Fascism as a government structure is there is no price system. Without all of these millions of individual transactions, there is no way of knowing what people want or need and how much to produce. Without high prices on labor or goods, there is no way for people to know to go into a certain field or start producing a certain product.

The only way Socialism could work would be as a voluntary collective within a free market structure. The world around the Socialists would have to remain free, and the Socialists would have to be free to enter or leave the collective. They could then use the price system around them to determine what they can make together to trade for the things they need from outside the collective.

- Rick

For the record, that one CEO has absolutely no prayer of doing the job of 400 janitors, either.

In your first paragraph you mention Marx said 'all labor has worth'. Then you say 'labor is not equal'. Just because labor has worth, does not imply that it's equal. Under a shift to socialism there would have to be a re-evaluation of the 'worth' of any given job. That's something that a lot of people take forgranted.

Too many people say "Why would I work at my current job if I could just work at a burger joint for the same amount of hours and get equal treatment? Where's the incentive to do important work? To do a good job?"

If some kid in a burger joint doesn't wash his hands, you could catch e. coli and die, God forbid, your kid could get a poisonous Happy Meal. Makes the job seem a little more important, doesn't it? And as an anarchist/socialist myself, I still wouldn't want a job like this. I want a job in which I can contribute to the community in large. But more importantly, I want to help, even if it means working on a farm. And many people who agree with anarcho-socialist ideas feel the same way. The popular belief is that there is a basic human need to contribute and feel important. Why do you think that people who are poorer and/or unemployed are more apt to commit crimes and do drugs? They don't feel any cohesion with society. And in a society where people could learn what they wanted and work in that field, and helping when they can, people would assumedly be happier, and more productive.

As an example; personally, I'd rather work in an office job than a janitorial one. So if I work 40 hours a week, and the janitor works 30, then that's fine by me. How do you make up those extra hours? See all those unemployed people? They'd be working. There would be more janitors, but they would work fewer hours.

At least that's the general idea.

So, 'worth' can only be determined by using prices? You mention socialism only working withing a free market structure to nurse it, but why? I don't understand where you're coming from with this. Just because something doesn't have a monetary price attatched to it doesn't mean that it has no 'worth'. Money has no meaning aside from what we give it.

I think this is a fair things to say; usually money represents an amount of work dispersed over an amount of time.

With technology today, and that sure to come, labor is more and more a moot point. Tractors can drive themselves to farm, trains and planes can transport goods at faster speeds that trucks and in greater quantities. Manufacturing even takes less time now that it's largely automated.

I'm not saying we're "there" yet, just that we're close enough to consider it a viable option. Capitalism isn't a just a structure, it's a cyclical one. Its' existence perpetuates itself, just as the idea of socialism does.

How would people determine supply and demand of a product? The same way they do now. How many did we get? X. How many are gone? Y. How long has it been? Z. We sold Y over Z, leaving us (X-Y). From that alone we can tell how much we'll probably need in the immediate future, and how long our current supply will last. After this happens a few times, a pattern is developed and a course of action for the long-term is agreed upon. This is how I managed a Subway Sandwiches shop years back in high school. I wonder if maybe I missed something, and you could re-explain it?

And sorry if it's rude to make back-to-back posts.

If marxism was so great they would not have to be tweaking it a bit and changing the name to libertarian socialist. It's a wonderful utopia. My fantasy fivesome with the female stars of Charlie's Angels is also a theoretical possibility, with a highly unrealistic chance of succeeding. Everywhere Marx has been preached tolitarian governments has been the result. Employees working efficiently, without a managerial structure, is highly problematic. Companies don't employ managers just for the heck of it.

What the freemarket does is prevent individuals from interfering with another individuals rights in respect of most of his actions. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller by the presence of other sellers. Likewise the seller is protected by the existance of many consumers. The laborer protected by the existance of other employers, the employer by the existance of other laborers.

Man will never be absolutely free until the basic problem of economics, scarcity of goods, is solved. That ain't gonna happen anytime soon. I'm still waiting on my Charlie's Angels clones to arrive. I suspect they came when I was not home and the wife sent them packing.

No one is changing the name, perhaps you should read some of Bakunin's work.

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

Also, I'm not talking about "utopia", others might be, but I am not. I am however talking about a better way of life.

I also mentioned, that I am not a marxist, yes dictatorships have rised up because of Marx. He believed in a "dictatorship of the proletariat", for people to believe that was naive.


I also suggest reading, what I believe to be Orwell's greatest work,"Homage to Catalonia". It's about him fighting in the P.O.U.M. during the Spanish Revolution. He critizes the militia, but also defends it.



The laborer is protected by the existence of employers? As I said earlier, those who advocated free markets, condemned wage slavery, and the alienation of labor.


I disagree, they are very shameful. Although, I do agree that they should also be looked at as an act of progress. What Libertarian Socialism is to me, is the last emanicpatory stage in history, Fourier also believes this:

If your version of socialism is really libertarian, i.e. you recognize the right of others not to practice it if they so choose, I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else practicing it. You and the other libertarian socialists can have your economy and we libertarian capitalists can have ours with no conflict at all. You don't need to convince us and we don't need to convince you, we can all have it our own way. Sounds good to you? It does to me.

Who won?



If someone is incapable of ever earning more than a subsistance living you could call it wage slavery. Does not apply in the Western world. Just a marxist slogan.

Almost all of europe didn't do much better did they?(and they fought against communist and fascist armies)


What is a subsistance living? Does that include; food, shelter, health care, and education?

Wage slavery is an alienation of labor.

Ok, I'm going to try and understand. You are for individual rights, and property correct? Although, if you only get a wage for your labor, and not the property itself, isn't that infringing on ones rights? After all, someone is profiting off of your labor.

Who decides the value? The exploiter?

If you read classical liberal authors(not saying you dont), they condemn it. They opposed all forms of centralized, hierarchic, authoritarian and exploitive power.


I think the reason for this topic was to debate classical liberalism, and the two conflicting views between Libertarians and Anarchists. I do respect your view, I just want to get an understanding

I truly do not understand your point about "wage slavery." Oh, I know the Marxist theory about exploitation and alienation and the Labor Theory of Value, and none of it makes one bit of sense to me.

What wages are is a price, nothing more, nothing less. What decides a wage, like any other price, is suppy and demand. The wage that is paid is decided by the point on the curve where the employer feels he is better off paying the wage rather than doing without the service, and where the employee feels he is better off by working for the wage rather than not. And of course both the employer and employee are taking into account that other employers are competing for the services of the same worker. Exactly the same way the market decides any oither price.

The theory that I'm owed a piece of the employer's property, beyond the actual compensation paid, simply makes zero sense to me. My "right" is not violated because no such right exists or could exist in a sane world. Sure, the employer is profiting from my labor, but if I were not also profiting from having the job, I wouldn't take the job. There is no element of slavery, the transactions are purely voluntary.

That we are coerced by the economic necessity of earning a living has no bearing, that is simply the human condition. Freedom to me means freedom from coercion by other human beings, not freedom from scarcity... though freedom from scarcity is nice too, but is an issue of wealth creation, not a political issue.


Now, on to my point about libertarian socialists...

Are there any really? I'm still not convinced. Live and let live sounds good to me as I said, but I didn't really expect there is a single socialist that would take me up on it. Would you really leave us capitalists alone in the absence of a government, or would we have a civil war? The sidebar says you're aligned with the Socialist party, a party that seeks to impose socialism by means of the State. Is that what you mean by "progressive means"? And if you seek to use the State to impose socialism, how can you be a libertarian socialist?

Why has not a group of the proletariat found a company and succeeded?

I'm a little confused by the socialism-libertarian debate. In my view, a Libertarian society will let people form whatever social and government constructs they wanted, as long as they were all voluntary. If something isn't voluntary, it isn't the will of the people and will never work. That's the most simplistic ideal of Libertarianism. Libertarianism simply admits that there is a great debate on how people could/should lead their lives and solves this by allowing them to choose how to lead their own lives... and that one's happiness is their own responsibility. Socialists in general seem to fear the will of the people, therefore they need a heavy-handed, and powerful government to control what THEY view as injustice at the social and political level.

I think this is a little unfair that in that it seems to suggest that capitalists don't fear the will of the people. Calling capitalism 'the democracy of market' is a little mislead, as not everyone has equal 'voting power'. Those on top should be fearful of the poor and lower classes, who are greater in number.

But actually, in general I agree with you. In the past socialist HAVE been fascists, which is why it's never worked, and why most would argue that a true pure socialism has never been tried. As the words are generally used today socialism and communism have different meaning.

Socialism has a different definition in every dictionary you look in. I use dictionary.com and hyperdictionary.com, mainly. This is just my interpretation. Socialism is simply an economic system in which the abolishment of 'ownership' replaced by a system of 'occupancy and use', and a collective approach toward work is used when the payoff is shared by society. I think this is, however, the prevailing definition as the Net brings more socialist people together socially. Check your favorite dictionary site and see for yourself the huge variety of definitions out there.

Communism is a governing of that market.

I can't speak for all Libertarians, but they are genuinely against large forboding governments, so I'd assume that Libertarianism and socialism(as an economic model) don't oppose each other. After all, just because you want individualism doesn't mean you have to live out in a cabin in the woods away from everyone, does it?

As an anarchist, I don't believe in forcing anyone into anything. Let others do as they please, so long as they don't impose their will on others. This is what government was set up to do, but I don't think it's needed any more. Well, rather, as much. And eventually, not at all. I think that we should wean ourselves off of government and capitalism.

//Edit. Sorry, one last thing I forgot to touch on:


I'd argue that that has nothing to do particularly with Libertarianism (so far as I know), but more with democracy. And as I said already, I, and many, do not think that capitalism is relatable to 'a democratic marketplace'. Sure it is if you count each dollar as a vote, but not if you count each person. I think people matter, money really shouldn't count as much. (Nice line I heard somewhere, not flamebait. Honest. )

You should read the Classical Liberal works.

I'll post Humboldt again:
So what is he? A Slave/Wage Slave.


The Socialist party was different in the past, If I had to choose a party, it would probably be the green party.

What is state imposed socialism? Do you consider taxation as state imposed socialism? I don't view it as bad. I do view industry run by government as bad. Depending on the Industry, If it is health care and education, the state should guarantee us these basic human rights. In other words, state intervention in a capitalist economy is an absolute necessity. I don't advocate state run industry, but regulations, like OSHA, environmental, living wages, etc.


It has been tried during the spanish civil war, it was wiped out by Franco's Nationalists, who were funded by Italy and Germany. Also, Stalin sent delegates to indoctrinate the people. For the reason that if spain were to prove that anarchism, communism, libertarian socialism, would not require a "dictator of the proletariat" then their rule would be un-justified.


No, it isn't. It's a form of statism as was said earlier. Industry is owned by corporations, something smith and jefferson knew would happen. Democracy requires a dissolution of power: State and Private.

Classical Liberals opposed government intervention in business, but more importantly, they opposed all authortarian systems. The progression of classical liberal thought is fascinating. If you look at Locke's Carolina Constitution It doesn't grant political freedoms, but religious freedoms(written in 1669)





Now look at Jefferson's constitution of Virginia: Draft




Also in his draft of the declaration of independence he lists slavery as a greivance: Draft


I've already mentioned Humboldt(who bitterly condemns wage slavery), who was ahead of his time, and was an inspiration to Mill.

If you look at the essense of the Idea's and the progressions. It seems to me, that todays Anarchists, are the true descendants of Classical Liberalism.

There is one thing that classical libertarians had in common, the desire for limited government. A quote from Humboldt in The Limits of State Action:



There is one consistent theme of classical liberals, limited government. Most socialist libertarians I see today support socialism empowered by the state, welfare, pensions, healthcare, etc.

Humboldt was a classical liberal, one who was not exactly in the mainstream of classical liberalism. Most libertarian socialists today prefer government enforced socialism, with libertarianism coming in some far off day in the future where all men are angels. Definitely libertarian socialists, if they are the offshoots of classical liberalism at all, are the deformed offspring of classical liberalism.