Tehom wrote:
When did I ever say the workers didn't have the rights to not work at any place they choose not too, by the same token and to address the contradiction in terms of these so-called "undemocratic free markets" they are also free to start their own factories, build their own companies, and subject themselves to the same rigors that built the corporations they so despise. The markets are not democratic you either are profitable or you aren't, ceo's and those who built the corporation don't owe their workers anything other than what their labor entails in terms of what the market has set for their wages. I encourage worker run factories as well by all means if workers want to be autonomous and make a product that I value, I'll patronize their business its really that simple. All of your revolutionary hogwash never worked in the past, and South American countries have weak standards of living aside from maybe Brasil. There is a word for people that forcibly take the property i,e any profitable enterprise and its called theft, no matter what ostentatious revolutionary jargon you call it.
Capitalism creates unfree freedoms, as in, you are doomed to agree to what you have no other alternative but to choose. The workers must work for somebody. Workers don't have the resources to enter into the market on their own insofar as all they have is their labor power, which they loan to entrepreneurs in order for the creation of capital, but it has to monetary value until it creates capital and hence they can't just start their own company. A word for a system who forcibly take what people produce isn't theft, it's called capitalism. And before you say these people are working over what someone else provided in terms of resources, where do you think those resources came from? Someone else's labor.
tehom wrote:
Unless you are referring to some anarcho-capitalist ideology, Marxism promotes the ultimate centralization, how else are workers supposed to deal with capital without depending on some massive state? Of course government mixing with the free market is bad policy, I've stated this multiple times see my prior posts. As for weapons contractors and various other ventures of war profiteering, you're only reinforcing my point and there only able to reap such massive profits because they're subsidized by taxpayers. What part of this is fucking unnatural and a perversion of the markets do you not comprehend? It all ends up circle to circle especially with Marx albeit with a powerful centralized state you don't need government to muddy the waters, the state controlled economy ruins enough peoples lives of its own volition.
Centralization is not a natural tendency of Capitalism, and if it does occur its once again caused by the collusion of state (since government fucks everything up) with corporations. Competition offsets monopolies unless you have state subsidies or weak state economies or a business environment that is depressed in terms of overall options for selection of services. Antitrust laws oh yeah, you mean those things that create state monopolies?
Centralization is the natural tendency of capitalism. Capitalists compete on the market, putting the other capitalists out of business. Vanderbilt, Morgan, Rockefeller, Gates, for that matter, are all capitalists who gained a monopoly by driving all other businesses out of business; they centralized the market. Where was competition to offset those monopolies?
I think you're silly to be trying to argue for the purity of the free market insofar as it is common parlance that no market has ever been truly free. I would argue that perversions in the market are the natural state of the market, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that.
And not really sure that you've ever read Marx, but he never calls for a massive state entity to run communism. "Workers acting in harmony with the metabolic climate of Nature", "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", etc. But never "BRING ON THE MASSIVE FUCKIN STATE POWER". The nation-state is and always was, as a historical development following the collapse of feudalism, a mediator for capital, that brokers deals with capital and maintains the flow of capital and sometimes if the worker's push really hard, it can be used for their benefit. And before you say "but the dictatorship of the proletariat...", it's not about state power.
