Forum Post: The formula of each according to his needs is an old slogan of the unsophisticated communist.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 21, 2012, 7:43 p.m. EST by darrenlobo
(204)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is occasionally backed up by referring to the fact that the Early Christians shared all goods in common.[2] Others again regard it as practicable because it is supposed to form the basis of distribution within the family. No doubt it could be made universal if the disposition of the mother, who hungers gladly rather than that her children should go without, could be made universal. The advocates of the principle of distribution according to needs overlook this. They overlook much more besides. They overlook the fact that so long as any kind of economic effort is necessary only a part of our needs can be satisfied, and a part must remain unsatisfied. The principle of "to each according to his needs" remains meaningless so long as it is not defined to what extent each individual is allowed to satisfy his needs. The formula is illusory since everyone has to forgo the complete satisfaction of all his needs.
Libertarianism is nothing but Magical Thinking.
It is, in fact, a religion.
It's a belief in a Utopia that can, and never will, exist, IF ONLY certain things happen, things that can never happen.
Hey, Greenspan was a libertarian, big fan of Ayn Rand, and he totally destroyed the economy. He even believed -- get this, this is just so fucking STUPID -- that people who committed massive criminal acts of fraud in the banking system shouldn't be prosecuted by any justice system because, magically, "the system" would somehow take care of them.
Really, if you want to see how this doesn't work, watch the Frontline documentary on Greenspan, Larry Summers, and the other ignorant JACKASSES who destroyed the economy, and who are still in high positions under O'Bomber.
Shit is fucked up.
You can watch it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
Everybody should watch this. Everybody. It's not partisan, it tears everybody apart. These guys came into power under Clinton.
How ironic that Alan Greenspan, an Ayn Rand devotee, would be the top central planner at the Fed, the epitome of a central planning organization.
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). ............................................... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
You sure you're on the right thread? What's the point of that?
OWS isn't about liberal versus conservative. It's about fighting crime at the highest levels of our government and our corporations. It's about economic fraud that affects us all.
Ows is a farce of a movement that was organized solely for the purpose of getting the chief screwer upper of this nation reelected in November.
Not hardly. Most of us realize that Obama's just another corporate puppet of the ruling class. Obama was a con job.
OWS wouldn't even exist if Obama wasn't a fraud.
Seems like alot of your comrades are Obama stepford wives./..fans.. I think they adore his left leaning, useless backside. He's taking USA all the way down..if he gets back in.
Most are not. Your impression is incorrect. Something tells me you've never even been to a protest and have only seen what Fox News decides to show you and tell you.
Because if you think Obama is a leftist, you've been drinking the Kool Aid.
He's the Third Term of W.
Giving money to church doesn't count as charity. It is a voluntary service fee.
baloney.. You are mistaken on that one.. I don't know where you got that info.. maybe your pulling my leg.....Get with the program Hammy...are you new around here?
Doom
"...Greenspan was a libertarian, big fan of Ayn Rand,..."
He left the free market fold long ago. The fact that he took a position at the Fed after writing so eloquently about the gold standard shows his change of heart. In other words, he sold out.
Right. Even less regulation in the financial markets would have REALLY helped the situation.
Do you think we should have basketball games without referees? How would that work?
How about hockey games without referees? Or even rules!? Yeah, that would be just AWESOME.
It's the same damn thing, pal. It's a system. It has to have laws, and rules, and they have to be enforced, otherwise the system does not work.
Imagine a car engine without any regulation. It would either burn up or just die in seconds.
Emphatic Ditto and alternative link for "The Warning": http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/ .
radix malorum est cupiditas !!
The formula of every man for himself is the slogan of a pig.
I thought that was the central tenet of Buddhism.
LOL!!!
[Removed]
Agreed, that's why I'm about voluntary interactions:
"The greater productivity of work under the division of labor is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals." --Mises
I'm sorry, this seems to beg the question of fairness altogether and imply that labor is somehow it's own reward. If one takes out the words "under the division of labor," which is really just restating existing circumstances then the sentence reads "The greater productivity of work is a unifying influence, etc,. etc., skirting the question of compensation altogether, which is why men (and women) work. They do not work for comradship. They would get a lot more of that without working at all.
So, in other words, I think this is sheer sophistry - meer misleading pablum.
No sophistry, it's just that you don't understand what you're reading. No one said that the workers' compensation was comradeship. What Mises is getting at is that working towards a common goal brings people together. Not to mention that it's easier to have good relations with others if we have prosperity, something that socialism can't deliver:
Socialism in Guyana
(snip)
The tensions between the Blacks and Indians continued to grow and eventually rose to the level of riots, looting, burning, and killing. I’ll never forget the riot of 1971.
(snip)
In conclusion, I must say that amidst all these sufferings and struggles, one cannot leave amiss the emotional distress that a population suffers from under socialism. While trying to find food, and nurture growing babies, families yell at each other in anger and frustration – life becomes a barren desert upon which love and compassion are hard to cultivate.
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/12/socialism-in-guyana.html
Yes, the point is that we HAD a working system in the U.S.A. until the Neo-Con-Artists convinced everyone that eveybody but the ultra-rich should pay taxes. Why do people always go to extremes, when sanity is to be found in the mean, between capttalism and socialism - a free market with living wages and basic services such as medical care. Anyone advocating the system in America today is advocating dysfuction . . .period.
We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace........ open this gate. tear down this wall !
How does that relate to the formula of every man for himself?
I can not reply to your irrelevant posts... You are not reading and understanding the forum topic...but rather twisting it to fit your own perverse perspective.
First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye
If my posts are irrelevant, than surely you will find some more relevant reply than an ambiguous passage of scripture. After all, don't they say the devil can quote scripture?
True...But your posts are predictable lib BS. Liberals are very predictable and stupid they can be easily manipulated like a chicken with a piece of corn.
It seems you know a lot about corn. In fact you're an expert.
if you tear down the federal government, or drag it in the bathroom and dunk its head in the bathtub, who is to stop the state from regulating you out of existence? Or do you believe corporate power would trump state power? If yes, are you okay with that?
there's an idea. maybe we should waterboard the government
that is right wing rhetoric going back to Goldwater. keep up, dog.
it was your idea Jess, not mine
It was a slogan and rhetoric of the Reagan primaries. Goldwater said, “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Just in case
you are a student of history. That is a great quote. colorful political hyperbole worthy of Newt. No chance you'll hear anything too colorful or interesting from the guy reading the teleprompter
Tear down the wall of atheistic communist/socialist thought and propaganda, brother Jesse. God bless America.
My question is more to the state's rights vs federal rights dichotomy. Socialism vs capitalism is trite in comparison to the concern I have. Or does the private sector already own the states so it is not a factor?
Huh? what is you political affiliation? Are you happy about Newt? He gave a great speech last night. I know he's a little nutty...but you got to love is passion and brilliance. (will get back to you later re. state's rights vs federal rights dichotomy)
Say's who?
I just did.
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. Good luck to you.
You, as well.
You mean the complete satisfaction of his greed.
It was also the slogan of sophisticated communists.
The problem with your version of economics is that the only people who will have their basic needs met are the ones who start out with all the capital. Good luck to the rest of you. You'll be drinking from the streams.
What do you base this idea on? Free markets created the wealth we enjoy. It doesn't matter who owns how much capital since the capitalists will always need workers. What matters is how much is produced. Higher production means more needs satisfied for everyone.
What free markets? Not in America. Okay, maybe freer markets for a while.
I base my idea on the way capitalism works and not on a dream of how it might work.
Capitalism with bells and whistles created our wealth - and, no offense, but it's not working so well right now even with the regulations. 1 in 7 are on food stamps, one-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year, 22% of American children live in poverty, etc. etc.
Deregulate capitalism altogether and you'll be back in Dickensian times.
Of course it's not working well we've gone from an imperfect capitalism to an imperial corporatism. You do understand that this isn't what libertarians advocate, don't you?
Regulation, licensing, & taxes are the cause of the problem. They are how the elites control the world. Repealing them takes away their power. Those who advocate govt intervention to benefit the people are being played, big time. The 1% control the govt & will always use it to their benefit.
“The state — or, to make matters more concrete, the government — consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting ‘A’ to satisfy ‘B’. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.”
— H.L. Mencken
I agree with a portion of this particular post. We should do away with excessive regulations for small scale businesses... based on turnover perhaps? Give the consumer the power to decide what happens to them...
But, at the same time we simply cannot allow too much consolidation of power in such few hands... it is imperative that Glass Steagall be reinstated... a healthy capitalist system should foster competition... not strangle it.... it should allow EVERYONE to fail... too big to fail? I say they're too big to be allowed to exist... There was a time when Government used to step in to break monopolies... now it only seems to encourage them...
Government has a role to play in this, like it or not...
"...we simply cannot allow too much consolidation of power in such few hands..."
Correct, so we take away the means they use to consolidate this power which is the govt's intervention in the economy.
"There was a time when Government used to step in to break monopolies..."
Nothing has changed it's that you have their actions wrong. The govt steps in to help the politically connected squash the competition they can't beat in the market. See:
The New Trustbusters
What's behind the resurgence of antitrust activism--and why it's bad news for consumers.
http://reason.com/archives/1999/03/01/the-new-trustbusters/singlepage
All this trust busting doesn't seem to be working very well, does it?
"...now it only seems to encourage them..."
Correct, it's the nature of the beast. That's why it makes no sense to support their efforts.
Okay. The imperial corporatism (if that's what you want to call it) that we have will only get worse with no regulation. Period. End of story. The capitalists will exploit to no avail to make their profits and those with no capital will suffer.
Again, it is regulation that makes it imperial capitalism. Empire can only exist with a strong govt:
"When the left decries the government’s diversion of its resources from human needs to the military it is on to something. War does impoverish us. What the left needs to understand is that a government with the resources to build schools also has the resources to build drones, a government with the resources to build roads also has the resources to build jet fighters, and a government with the power to tax and create money has the resources to pay for the weapons mentioned above and to wage war.
"And wage war it will, for as Randolph Bourne wrote "War Is the Health of the State". Giving the state resources only feeds the war machine. Welfare at home and warfare abroad are also just flip sides of the same coin. If the left really wants to see Dr. King’s dream of peace come true they must face the reality that they can not give the government the tools it needs to wage war and expect it not to do so. It’s not enough to advocate that they not buy weapons. We must take away the tools they use to acquire them. This means that we must end the Federal Reserve System, the income tax, the federal government’s social spending, its regulatory role, and its police powers. Peace will only come when the government is powerless to commit evil acts both at home and abroad."
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/martin-luther-king-day-lockheed-martin.html
In a free market workers may not own the capital but they do get to use it when they go to work. In this way they are more productive than if they couldn't use said capital &, therefore, get paid more. That's how it works in the real world. You may call this exploitation, I call it prosperity.
I want schools and roads and regulation of my airlines, thank you. I don't want war and I understand the issues with funding wars. But, you know what would happen if the government disappears? Wars will be privately funded and the capitalists will laugh their way to the bank. Libertarians are not pacifists. They just want to make money - all the time. Privatize everything. You'll be living in a plutocracy very quickly.
Good thing we don't live in a plutocracy now that we have a big govt, right? :-) Of course we do, that's why OWS exists.
Wars happen because the corporations can externalize the cost onto the taxpayer. Gen. Smedley Butler was very clear about this: http://youtu.be/F3_EXqJ8f-0 In the absence of govt war wouldn't be profitable. There would be much less not more.
I want schools & roads too. What I don't want are govt run indoctrination centers costing who knows how many orders of magnitude more than they should. (Don't even get me started on the federal Dept of Ed.) I don't want these indoctrination centers churning out patriotic cannon fodder marching off to fight the govt's wars.
Roads are nice in moderation. Let them be built privately so market forces can guide their construction & maintenance. There's a straight line running from the govt's power to tax & create money through their construction of the highway system encouraging suburban sprawl to the housing boom, ending with the later bust. The unhealthy distortion of the economy was tremendous which is one reason this recession is so stubborn.
I should have said you will live in an even more concentrated plutocracy with an Austrian system.
And, I don't want to pay a toll to some rich capitalist to ride down my street, thank you very much.
Interesting, my Home Owners Association owns the roads here. It works well for us. No rich capitalists to pay.
Incidentally, your homeowner's association is not an example of free market capitalism at work, and in fact the idea of a bottom-up organization tied to a community offering services for the benefit of all without the motive of profit is hardly an ideal capitalist organization. That said, it's a poster child for what an efficient government should be and how it should operate. If the government could be held to the same standards of efficiency and responsiveness as the homeowner's association you would find it to be the kindest master and the most efficient servant you'd ever seen.
Yet.
So, "we've gone from an imperfect capitalism to an imperial corporatism." and "Regulation, licensing, & taxes are the cause of the problem." !!!
Therefore (as the very first poster on thread points out!) more of the same SH!T that got us to where we are, will somehow, magically resolve the situation, will it ? Just like a Global Debt Problem will be cured by Even More F*ckin' Debt, right ?!!
Perhaps you should reflect upon the possibility that your 'Free Market Fundamentalism' has come to circumvent your own logic and common sense such that both are rendered null and void by your self-programmed dogma. Further, your position is NOT aided by merely cutting and pasting the out of context commentary of others !
ad iudicium ...
here's a news flash for you; there is no "invisible hand". Smith was wrong (or high, maybe even both). Marx proposed a new economic system and while he was not infallible and his theory needs refining, I certainly don't believe basing our economy on a 17th century economic theory that has produced dubious results, serious criminality and immense wealth for the same few families is the answer to 21st century reality.
I agree with you. I am not an apologist for unregulated capitalism.
What's not working well is the partnership between corporation and state officials. It didn't work well when Mussolini did it and it's not working well now. It's called fascism or corporatism.
You're all not going to like this much but there's a strong link between the adoration of Marxism and fascist leaders.
"certain anti-communist authors have disputed the view of fascism as a reaction against socialist revolutionary movements and instead stressed what they believed to be essential similarities between communism and fascism in both theory and practice. The noted Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom, argued that various modern totalitarian movements, including fascism and communism, have common philosophical roots both springing from the opposition to the classical liberalism of the 19th century. Anti-communists arguing from these positions see it as far more than a coincidence that Benito Mussolini himself was an enthusiastic Marxist socialist and a prominent member of the Italian Socialist Party before the World War I, while many philosophical founders of fascism, such as Sergio Panunzio and Giovanni Gentile, came from a Marxist or syndicalist background." -- taken from a May 2006 version of the Wikipedia Anti-communism article.
Look. Being against free-wheeling unregulated capitalism makes no one a Marxist. The partnership between corporation and state officials is working just fine. The corporations have figured out how to basically own the U.S. government and force it to legislate on its behalf as opposed to the citizens of this country.
Communism has many definitions. In no way is true communism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto (if you want to be a purist) the same communism that we have ever seen in operation. It has never actually been implemented anywhere! Just as Austrian economics has never been implemented anywhere!
I have read both Mises and Marx. I like the way Marx describes capitalism. He does it on a very basic level and his explanation shows how capitalism, without any regulation, would be a very deleterious thing to the masses. I think Mises is wrong. There is too much assumption in Austrian economics that humans would do the right thing and too little focus on how capitalism needs to exploit in order to work.
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism"....Is this the plan for the USA? Wake up people...
What libertarians are propagating is a return to fedualism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o
"This is just savagery" pretty much sums it up.
jepp. "libertarianism" means giving almost all the power to people who are not democratically elected and who are just out for as much short term profit as possible. He hit the nail on the head: "Corporate tyranny"
sff
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/
Yes. I was going to quote the "corporate tyranny" line, too. He's very pithy isn't he?
Heres another Chomsky on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=YIpJQEcXP7A
he sure is:)
for more Chomsky check out my post: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1317735903_chomsky_explains_libe.html
here he´s explaining, not the society we should avoid, but the society we should strive for:)
sff http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/
Interesting and I like the haircuts.
anarchists with strange haircuts - that´s a universal :)
haha. You talking about the guy interviewing him in Oslo :)
And, the people in the audience. It's hilarious!
there are a number of people here pushing that line - a connection between fascism and marxism - it is nonsense! if you read mussolini (he coined the term) he was clear - corporatism and reaction to communism - right wing not left wing. daivid horowitz was a socialist too - he is not now!
So, explain the reason why "1 in 7" are on food stamps "one-half of all Americans earn less then $26,000 per year" and "American children live in poverty"?
It is not because of "Capitalism" but because of our government restrictions and "regulations" that allow companies to do overseas ventures and the "attitude of the people of this country. .
A lot of people have the attitude that they need a "college degree". Does a college degree allow for working on an "assembly line", does a "college degree" allow for working in a "fabrication shop", does a "college degree" allow for working in a "factory".
I don't think so because a "college degree" gives the people who have one an attitude of "status" meaning "not getting their hands dirty".
So, when you have a "society" with an attitude of not "getting their hands dirty" and think that a "college degree" will give them wealth and success what can you expect.
So, how would no regulations help? All the jobs would be moved overseas. More would be on food stamps, etc.
You are hostile toward college degrees. Why? I don't personally think every kid needs to or should go to college but I'm not going to blame kids for our bad economy. If half of all jobs pay less than $26,000 per year we have bigger problems than just too many kids going to college. There are no good jobs out there. That is the problem.
How would de-regulation work? De-regulation would allow for more jobs to be created here in America.
Apparently you have no experience in the business world especially dealing with "enviornmental regulations" for if you did you would understand.
There is a company in Georgia that is closing down two plants because of "enviornmental regulations". 2000 jobs will be lost because of this.
Multiply this times 50 states per year.
There are jobs out there that pay more - just because a person graduates from college doesn't give them " a right of passage for "big bucks"".
It takes time to improve a perons "income" - it's not "intantaneously". It takes years to "accumulate wealth".
I have never had a problem making over $60,000 a year within the last 15 years. Prior to that I had no problem making $40,000 a year and prior to that I never had a problem making over $30,000 a year.
So, as you can see, it takes time to increase your income. It's not "instataneous".
Did I ever say it was instantaneous to make money? I've made more money than you, so there. Quit with the insults to OWS supporters. We're not all a bunch of lazy dummies as you'd like to make us out to be.
Why wouldn't deregulation cause companies to move overseas even more than they do now? Please explain. I don't get it.
Also, deregulation would cause more accidents like BP. Do you not love mother earth? It is accidents like that that damage the environment that leads to the regulations.
I'm not insulting the OWS and I did not say they were a "bunch of lazy dummies" as you have commented. The above post gives one example of why "regulation" eliminates jobs and it's happening all over the country.
"Mother Earth" has nothing to do with it and "enviornmental regulations" has all to do with it. Look at how many jobs would have been created with the "Keystone Pipeline" that the Obimination stopped. More government regulation in the way - higher taxes causes more overseas jobs.
And by the way, If you have made over 2 million during you lifetime then yes, there is a possibility that you may have made more then me. However, I am not done yet and expect a 1 million dollar increase over the next year.
I'm a stay-at-home mom right now so I'm sure you'll surpass me in income over your lifetime (I've actually never bothered to add my lifetime income up - never thought of it), but my life is not ruled by money. Now a 1 million dollar increase is impressive, good for you.
Mother Earth has everything to do with it. Without her, we're finished. Chipping away at biodiversity is the biggest mistake we can make for humanity.
And, I still think corporations will take the jobs overseas if they can find cheaper labor no matter what the tax situation.
Look, the government has to change regulations so that comanies will use the resources here in America. Right now, companies are being forced to promote jobs overseas because of how much it would cost them to do it here in the USA.
Furthermore, the people in this country want everything "cheap and disposable". So, what can you expect.
The NAFTA agreement didn't help one bit in creating jobs here in this country. If you look at the GNP you will see that it has declined since this was enacted.
So, we need a govenment that will be "loyal to this country" and we need representatives that will also do the same.
I think whats going on right now in this country is the beginning of putting this country back on track to "believing in American made products".
The people have to understand that instead of buying a lot of stuff that is cheap and only lasts to satisfy their "immediate needs" instead, need to buy fewer more expensive "American Made Products" that will put Americans back to work with "higher wages" instead of using "low wage imported products.
As far as the enviornment - build more nuclear plants to prepare for the massive use of "electric vehicles" that will eventually flood the market within the next 10 or so years.
Yes. Change regulations. Not deregulate. I agree with most of what you say here.
The last paragraph is, I don't know....
You might find this interesting food for thought.
http://www.40pointplan.com/storyline.htm
Interesting but not "realistic".
That's what they said about flying and going to the moon, right?
"...deregulation would cause more accidents like BP. Do you not love mother earth? It is accidents like that that damage the environment that leads to the regulations."
This kind of comment always amuses me. There are all kinds of environmental regulations the oil industry has to follow. These regulations failed to prevent the BP oil spill. Your example is actually a good example of why we need to do away with govt regulation in favor of a system of protecting private property. In other words, we need to implement a system that works.
Yikes!
The bigger the lie, the more likely they will believe it." - Adolf Hitler.
“Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are.”
That line is one of the famous “Mom-ilies” often heard in homes all around the country. Perhaps mothers have drawn this wisdom from the Bible and Proverbs 13:20:
Either way, The details on the people inside the OWS movement as well as supporters...financially and otherwise....are referred to in the latter portion of this quote
sure is
using the "his" is gender bias
[Removed]
Needs are not equal to wants.
Yes, & Mises gets that. This quote doesn't once use the word "wants".
There is a continuum starting with the most vital needs, like air to breathe & water to drink, on one end & the most whimsical wants on the other. How, therefore, does socialism decide who gets what?
"The formula is illusory since everyone has to forgo the complete satisfaction of all his needs."
This assumes that humans in general only seek satisfaction of NEEDS. This is as patently untrue for the 1% as it is for the 99%.
And yet the formula of every man for himself is the slogan of the second rate economist. Poor Mises, doesn't get any love from the economics community, most academics think his axiomatic praxeology is absurd bullshit, and categorize him is the scrap heap of bad philosophy, along with other dip shits .. like Ayn Rand. Too bad so sad Mr. Mises (and all your anti-intellectual disciples).
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communis"....so said by Kruschev. Is that what OWS movement wants? Wake up America !
Communism can only work if it is kept on a very very small scale. Family or perhaps community. Even still -The pilgrims experienced a failure of communism & large numbers died. Once you lose track of who is doing what it falls apart. If people cant be held accountable, they will become slackers. Once people see slackers getting away with it - they will become slackers. It's contagious. Good luck.
The forum-post is an "unsophisticated" ; lazy ; out of context, 'cut and paste job' and a weak 'Straw Man' argument, specifically designed to instigate a faux debate, whereby the poster can then try to impress us with his probably doctrinaire knowledge of 'Austrian School Economics'.
Where has the rather tired old phrase "from each according to his ability ; to each according to his needs" been used on this forum ? Who has used it ? Is the forum-poster able to cite an example ?!
If anyone really wants to find out about "The Austrian School", then they'd be advised to also reflect on Freidrich Hayek and his laissez-faire fundamentalism which inter alia, greatly influenced other 'Free Market Fundamentalists' like Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher, who infamously once declared that "there is no such thing as society" !!
With further regard to 'Austrian School Economics', perhaps one ought to look closer at the 'sound money' ideas of Carl Menger. The 'Trickle Down' theory of Capitalism was once taken as axiomatic but this has now clearly morphed and given way to a monstrous "Hoover Up Capitalism" (Kaputalism?).
'High Finance Capitalism' with its Ponzi Scheme of trading in "Innovative Financial Products" such as 'Credit Default Swaps' ; 'Collateralised Debt Obligations' ; 'Mortgage Backed Securities' and other such Compound Interest Generating, 'Debt Instruments' - is a 'busted flush' as even Alan Greenspan effectively acceded to with his declaration in front of Congress of a "flaw" in his world view !!!
Right-Wing 'Free Market' Libertarianism has a 'Libertarian-Socialist' flip-side & counterpart and indeed, this is how Chomsky describes himself, so perhaps we also ought to seek to see and understand Libertarianism 'in the round'.
veritas vos liberabit ...
"Where has the rather tired old phrase "from each according to his ability ; to each according to his needs" been used on this forum ? Who has used it ? Is the forum-poster able to cite an example ?!"
Darren was probably assuming that the large majority of you are Marxists. This was not be a big stretch on his part considering the Marxist kind of things you all say, like... constantly.
You think like a Marxist, you talk like a Marxist, you carry your copy of the Communist Manifesto in your pocket, and you might get confused with one. That's all I'm saying.
IF 'darren' would've had the gumption, he'd have answered for himself but in all seriousness and humility, ask yourself what it is that you really and honestly know about Marx or Marxist Economic Theory ? Is there is a confusion and overlap in your mind with Undemocratic and Totalitarian Stalinism, I wonder !
For you &/or the intellectually curious therefore, please see : http://www.marxists.org/ !!
With regard to myself, you intuit correctly (though for anyone who has read my posts it is clear) that I subscribe to socialist precepts and principles. Living in Europe, where there are many millions of avowed Socialists and Communists in society, it is NOT the swear word it is in The U$A, lol !!
However, before you think you know what that might mean, please try to peruse my forum-post from early November '11 : http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defence-of-the-broad-church-of-socialism-from-t/ , in order see what I actually mean.
Put away your prejudices and open your mind if not your heart - and you may learn something for yourself instead of merely parroting and regurgitating the propaganda and 'received wisdom' of others.
Finally, I am in a clearly tiny minority on this forum and for you to claim that 'Marxism' is somehow OWS' guiding animus, is disingenuous and probably speaks far more accurately to your own preconceived notions than it does to any semblance of reality and please remember that you "have nothing to lose but your chains".
"That's all I'm saying" !!!
pax, amor et lux ...
I'm familiar with marxists.org, I have read the communist manifesto & articles by communists, socialists, progressives, & liberals. I also had the misfortune of living in Venezuela both before Chavez & during the 1st year of his rule. As in Europe being a communist or socialist isn't seen as a bad thing in Venezuela. My wife is from Guyana ( http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/12/socialism-in-guyana.html ) a place I've visited 3 times & the country that has the dubious distinction of being the 2nd poorest in the western hemisphere. The point is I've seen how destructive socialism is. It doesn't have to be fully adopted to do great harm.
On the subject "...that 'Marxism' is OWS guiding animus..." there are many that would not call themselves Marxists who espouse many of his ideas. Certainly, you would agree that the OWS movement's guiding animus is collectivism in some form. What I saw in Philly confirms that:
Occupy Philadelphia: The Kick That the Left Really Needed
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-philadelphia-kick-that-left.html
Defining socialism is difficult. You're shooting at a moving target. The communist Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, was it socialist or not? Depends on who you talk to. Nazi stands for National Socialism. They saw themselves as the true socialists not the Marxists. (BTW, you forgot to mention Nazis in your post linked above.) Today socialists try to say they were capitalists. Go figure.
What we do know is that an ideology based on state violence & denying the importance of the individual can only lead to poverty & repression. Socialism can only be implemented by the power of the state, whether you call it Nazism, fascism, communism, or just socialism doesn't matter. They share the same collectivist base:
"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative." --Benito Mussolini
"The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. " --Karl Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)
The socialists call it society, the fascists call it the state, but it all comes down to the same thing, the collective.
Firstly despite my perhaps barbed comments on this thread, I thank you for your reply and again recommend your blog to interested readers.
Despite only addressing yourself to my reply to the somewhat petulant post by 'TheWolfStar' above and tho' my initial thread post, re "Austrian School Economics" remains unanswered, I shall nevertheless attempt to reply to the gist of your post above.
Though you say that you've had the "misfortune" to have "seen how destructive socialism is" at first hand, for balance one has to add that Canadian, Nordic, Northern European and indeed even Southern European people (despite their current Bankster Induced Predicaments!), can easily argue that their societies have gained to a great extent by pursuit of 'socialistic' policies. Iceland, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Germany epitomise (imho) the 'collective reasonability' of democratic & socialist ideals. Indeed the position that both China and India now find themselves (tho' there is still much left to be desired!) has its foundation in 'Agrarian Socialist Policies', as both countries have 'collective memory' of famine only a few generations ago.
Your position re. Marx does not take into account that he is primarily an Economic Philosopher. One doesn't have to subscribe to Marxist solutions to appreciate or understand Marxist Economic Analysis and this is exactly what is happening all over the world & not just within literary and academic circles.
Further, your somewhat 'Typically American' automatic equation of Socialism with Totalitarianism, would be anathema to most European Democratic and Libertarian Socialists, who comprise the majority and mainstream of Modern European Socialist thought. To be honest with you, your somehow associating Nazism with Marx or Socialism is almost offensive & disingenuous and coming from a clearly intelligent person, leaves me both cold and curious.
The extreme degree to which Hitler and Nazi Ideology abhorred Marxism, Communism, Socialism and the erstwhile USSR is so well evidenced as to make any attempts to equate 'Nazism' with 'Socialism' almost comical, ahistorical and 'illiterate' ! Nazism was a race based ideology reliant on notions, fallacies, concepts and conceits such as Germanic Chauvinism ; 'Aryan' Racial Supremacy ; "Blut und Eisen" ; "Der Heimat" ; "Lebensraum" and Extreme Militarism & Racism. Thus, please consider and reflect that trying to associate Communism, 'Lefist Idealism', Marxism, 'Fabian Universalism', Egalitarianism or Socialism with the Utterly Abhorrent Racist Nazi Ideology is most unbecoming and only really reflects upon the accuser.
Though I rather agree with your Marx quote (cf. "No man is an island"!), the quotation citing Mussolini leads me to also quote him with : "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ! Now given the fact that The U$A is The World's only Military Hyper-Power, with Global "Full Spectrum Dominance" and the absolute fact of the clearly extant "Military-Industrial Complex" (which none other than Soldier and Statesman, President Eisenhower, so presciently warned against!) - coupled with The Bankster Oligarcy & The Corporate Capture of The Government of The U$A - with its 'Demoblican/Republocrat' - Two Factions but really One Corporate, WAR Party' system ; then I could strongly argue all day long that The U$A is an Imperium abroad and a de facto Fascist State at home !! I'm sure that this would be offensive to some people but at least there is sadly plenty of evidence to argue the case !!!
Consider, that almost irrespective of where we may live on this Good Earth ; our Beautiful, Fragile and Shared, Only Home - we are living with varying degrees of Democratic Deficit ; from Iceland and Switzerland at one end of the spectrum, right through to North Korea at the other.
Irrespective of how 'Objectivist', 'Individualist' &/or unique we think we are, we can NOT deny that we all live in 'Societies', whether we wish to acknowledge or embrace the "collective" or not ! In 'arguing' with folk like you, sometimes I fantasise the threat of "Aggressive Extra-Terrestial, Alien Invasion" because we'd rediscover and treasure our Common Humanity pretty damn quick in those circumstances, lol !!
I don't have a blog but the forum-post and subsequent thread on http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defence-of-the-broad-church-of-socialism-from-t/ , speaks from my heart, mind and soul. Your blog is a far more professional affair and hopefully at least one reader will look into both of our different idealisms, realise what we are both saying and seek to find a 'syncretic happy medium' between the two of us and between 'the individual and the collective', because I feel that such a balance and synergy does exist.
I'm all typed out so as an aside here, I'd say that one doesn't always notice or recognize the 'forum-poster' when one responds initially - so when I did recognize your moniker, I thought that you deserved a comprehensive response given a previous exchange between us on another thread.
Finally, while 'Totalitarian, Undemocratic, Central Planning' and "High Finance Capitalism" have both had their day, as both can be seen to be "Busted Flushes" ; one of the biggest problems we face is that the realisation of this is extremely limited in the case of the latter !!
To be honest, even before describing myself as a 'Socialist', I'd say that I was a 'Militant Reasonablist and a Zealot for Democracy', in the very first instance ;-)
Wishing you and yours good wishes for Peace, Prosperity and Potential for 2012 and beyond & indeed the same to us all wherever we are, with WAR threatened Iranians uppermost in my mind at this time :-(
pax, amor et lux.
Further to the above, parhaps also see the following links :
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism , for Some Fair Facts ;
b) http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/ , as Theory Matters ;
c) http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/ , for a True US 99% Heroine ;
d) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 , for An Animated Analysis ;
e) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha , as Re. 'OWS' - Gandhian Ideas Matter Too ;
f.) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/economics/ ;
g) "The War Against the Poor, Occupy Wall Street and the Politics of Financial Morality" : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29649.htm ;
h) Some words from Albert Einstein from over 60 years ago, "Why Socialism ?" : http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism ;
i.) Re. The 2008 'Financial Grand Heist', two excellent documentary films : 1) "The Warning" ; http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/ & 2) "Inside Job" ; http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ . Inside Job provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. &
j.) http://www.chomsky.info/ .
ad iudicium ...