Big Business & Big Government vs. the People

As I said, I define a free market as on in which people are free to buy and sell without hinderance.

How would you define a "free and fair" market?

 

How would you define "hinderance"?

 

Something that interferes with.

So, how would you define a "free and fair" market?

 

Can you link to any data to provide evidence for your assertions?

I've linked to many examples of corporate corruption in this thread, so no.

By Communist I mean pertaining to Marxist-Leninist governments.

Granted Marxist dictatorships have all featured prison camps, famine, mass murder, and thought control – but I'm sure the next time you Marxists get a chance you'll implement true pure Marxist ideology and you'll create a glorious utopia.

 

Marxism does not require dictatorships. In fact, Marx didn't analyze or describe what socialism would look like. He wrote critiques of capitalism. Marxist analysis has nothing to do with what happened in Stalin's Russia: it's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain.

So you don't know what communism is. Do you know how Marx define it? What did he mean by "communism"? That remains unchanged. Do you know? It seems not.

 

Everything Marx wrote could be summed up in one short sentence.

Marx thought that workers should become capitalists.

Other than that, Marx had no great ideas that fundamentally change society, in spite of what Richard D. Wolff preaches.

 

or Mao's Red China or Castro's Cuba, or Pol Pots Cambodia, or Chavez's Venezuela, or East Germany or North Korea etc etc. Its just coincidental that Marxist countries are naturally genocidal.

 

without knowing it he meant 200 million human souls would slowly starve to death. Odd how you are so attracted to the most genocidal idea in human history.

 

And how would you enforce a "free market". Would you rely on government?

Who would get to decide what constitutes a "hinderance"?

 

Decent questions. But before we proceed, are we in agreement that a free market not a "lawless market" but is rather one in which people are free to buy and sell without any hinderance?

 

Are you really this ignorant? You are deeply in love with Marx, so I am sorry to tell you the truth. Marx was a dishonest, intolerant hairball enamored of violence. The movement he started was also dishonest, intolerant, and violent.

Marx: "Every provisional political set-up following a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that."
Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/260...M-E-1848-Articles-for-Neue-Rheinische-Zeitung

Another Marx quote: The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marxist dictators claim to represent the people, but of course said dictators only serve their own ambition.

Marx again: We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

Mikhail Bakunin described a state built according to the Marxian plan: For the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented workingmen and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum; where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges; and where the mercenary-minded, attracted by the immensity of the international speculations of the state bank, will find a vast field for lucrative, underhanded dealings.

Here's Paul Johnson: The truth is, even the most superficial inquiry into Marx’s evidence forces one to treat with scepticism everything he wrote which relies on factual data. He can never be trusted. The whole of the key Chapter Eight of Capital is a deliberate and systematic falsification to prove a thesis which an objective examination of the facts showed was untenable.
Link: http://www.academia.edu/12009844/In...Tolstoy_to_Sartre_and_Chomsky_by_Paul_Johnson

Engels was a liar too: http://www.historytoday.com/wh-chaloner/friedrich-engels-and-england-1840s

 

The ignorance is yours. By "revolution" he meant an armed take-over of government. But not every "revolutionary change" of economies required a violent armed clash to seize the state. The establishment of capitalism involved relatively little such conflicts with the feudal powers. BUT, when there is such an armed take-over, a "dictatorship" as you imagine is necessary.

Now, show me your depth of your ignorance: tell me exactly what Marx meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat".

 

A "dictatorship of the proletariat" occurs when Marxists seize power by fooling dumb people into thinking Marxists care about working folk. Marxists abolish democracy and impoverish the people.

 

You asserted how it occurs. I asked what the expression means. WHAT KIND of "dictatorship? -over whom? -by whom?

For all your bluster about me being ignorant and you being so well informed on this, you sure don't seem to know anything about it.

 

'Free markets' do not exist, nor would we want them to. 'Free market economics', however, is about right wing coercion to the detriment of social welfare. We've seen that with neo-liberalism and the damaging inequalities that have unnaturally developed.

 

The damaging inequalities that have developed under a heavily regulated (i.e. not free) market.

 

The free market cannot exist. Neo-liberalism peddles 'free market economics' to coerce greater exploitation. Its been able to do that because of right wing herd

 

Why?

 

On three levels. First, markets have ultimately been created by interventionism (see, for example, Chang's work on trade). Second, markets are innately unstable (see, for example, economic psychology into price bubbles) and require interventionism to ensure long term survival. Third, look at basic welfare economics. The 'first best' is achievable. We therefore have to refer to the 'second best' and how apparent market distortions are welfare improving. You'd need a government to be irrational and demand economic welfare destruction

 

This should not be ignored. Every discussion about the free market seems to devolve into a debate over theory and the extremes.

Most of us can agree that we are unhappy with the current economic inequalities. Much of that inequality can be attributed to government policies and regulation that favors big business and the corporations and excludes small business and those wishing to become a small business.

Here is my list of policies , land use planning, urban renewal, USDA meat inspection program, USDA theft of the "organic label, some of the environmental regulations, etc.

If one is concerned about our current economic state we should discuss the path that brought to this point. And it wasn't the free market or a free-er market that grew the corporate giants.

 

As it should, given its only theoretical

 

That was brilliant, but life is not theoretical, it's real.

 

And that's the problem. "Free market economics" is never about practical delivery, its about manipulating the conversation towards a fundamentalist position.

 

I offered a path away from that fundamentalist discussion, but maybe practicalities are not your realm.

 

You offered nothing. Discussion about the free market is fundamentalist, by definition. If you want to refer to real world economics, its not cunning to refer to the 'free market' at all