Is Socialism Anti-American?

[the2real4mafol]

sc94597 said:

the2real4mafol said:

Except there are no true free markets anymore, the authorities get all pissy if you sell stuff on the street or take in lodgers or anything. All of today's big business most likely started off selling stuff on the street before growing into shops, then national icons etc but that is seemingly discouraged now when compared to before.

Also, if we think of the current system in the US where the biggest companies use (really bribe) the state to rig the market so that stuff like hemp is illegal. I don't know that is considered free but i'm not sure how you balance it because i feel a handful of regulations are necessary like working conditions, working hours, minimum wage and environment etc. But even they hurt small business too so I don't know. All I know is that regulations are over the top right now.    

Arguably there was never an economy with absolutely free-markets in all areas. It would require anarchy, in my opinion. The government can't help itself from interferring in the economy, by its vary nature: whether it is democratic, autocratic, or something else. However, with the presence of government, we can always work toward that ideal, as it has lead and does lead to greater prosperity. When Europe turned from mercantilism (corporatism of the 17th and 18th centuries) to free-markets, there was an explosion (industrial revolution) of production, which later translated to higher standards of living (even if the workers felt exploited in the process.) 

The corporations bribe the state because the state has the economic power they could use. The translation of political power into economic power, which disrupts the market and creates unfair advantages (which is why there are vastly more government-created or induced monopolies than "natural" ones.) Regulations are necessary, but they do not need to come from government. Unions and collective bargaining can bring higher wages, by restricting the supply of labor, and the same can be said for working hours and working conditions. Legislation is not necessary, just people should use more of the economic power they already have. Yes, it might not be easy, but it is simpler and has long-term benefits, while legislation has long-term detriments on progress. As for environmental regulation, if there were a clear understanding of property rights, so that corporations that pollute are not protected from destroying the private property of others in civil court, then they would not be necessary either. One solution to the tragedy of the commons, for example, is to privatize all of the common land and people will put more value in taking care of it. 

Ultimately, we are seeing markets free regardless of whether or not people want it. We have more free-trade, and global interactions with the internet (which is much harder to regulate than physical economic media.) We are seeing alternative currencies, which will remove us from the tyrannies of central banks, and allow reasonable financial decisions without the influences of others. 

Friedrich Hayek said something along the lines of: People are frustrated by the luck-based effects of the market, but if there is a human conscious behind their misfortunes they are furious. 

I agree very much with this sentiment of his. While freedom might lead to unpredictable misfortunes, I'd rather have unpredictable-misfortunes than human-induced ones. In these natural misfortunes I can adjust my lifestyle and adapt, while in these human-induced ones I must go through a bueracracy that might not even reward me with the freedom to change my economic destiny, which is essentially the great socialist question: "who, whom?" Who will manage whom? 

 

Edit: I'd also like to say that the influence of the economic powers on the political power would reduce in a free-market as well. This is very much similar to the separation of church and state. Would you have thought 400 years ago that the best solution to church power over the state would've been to reduce the state's power over the church? Probably not, but this line of thought has lead (in combination with athiesm) to lesser influence of churches over states and vice-versa. I think the same logic applies to economic powers (big corporations) and government. 

You make a very clear case but I somehow feel the exploited generations of workers in the industrial revolution can't be brushed aside so easily. Thats one of the main areas socialists concern themselves with. But the thing is, these people were heavily exploited and despite how great you claim a free market to be, most workers couldn't escape exploitation otherwise they would of starved. It took a long time for the poorest to have any benefit from the new industry at all. In the mean time, most workers were abused and beaten by their boses to put fear into them to prevent collective bargaining in unions. They were overworked into an early grave and work and live in the worst conditions. I guess free markets allow for that, but is it really acceptable? I don't think it is. There will be always be a financial divide, I admit that but my problem is that why should someone become homeless because the person giving the jobs at their factory for example is being stingy and would rather pocket the profit for themselves rather than pay their workers properly and maybe hire more (and take a small but healthy profit)? 

In a modern context, neo-liberalism has allowed such problems as said above to happen on a global scale by outsourcing industry. To be honest, the big brands could make their goods anywhere they like but no they have to exploit cheap labour! Even though they would profit in an industrialised country anyway. Not as much but still, just shows how greedy it is

But it's the same in every country that has or is going through industrialisation. Workers are treated like crap and paid like it's almost slavery rather than work. The environment is neglected big time and so on. From what i've learnt in history, free markets are just like car salesman. You just can't trust them. Unfortunately, government is no better. I spose it's not talked about much, but property rights are as abused as worker rights really.

Anyway, I would like to see what you described as actually working. But i'm not sure if there is any cases of such of thing working like that