Critique of the Idea That We Have a Free Market, and That Government is Socialism

Table of Contents

1. Redistribution of Grades is Not “Socialism in Education”
2. Fascism is Not a Form of Socialism
3. The Definition of Socialism Does Not Necessarily Imply a Government or State
4. Rigged Markets: Not All Free Market Proponents Support Capitalism
5. Free-Market Anti-Capitalism, Georgism, and Mutualism Are All Valid Critiques of Anarcho-Capitalist and Political Libertarian Thought
6. Mixed Economies and China
7. Achieving Socialism Without the State
8. Unequal Distribution of Wealth, and Corporate Taxation
9. Minimum Wage Laws Are Bad, But Enslaving Children to Mammon is Worse
10. Stalin Didn't Kill Sixty Million People, You're Thinking of Hitler
11. Conclusion





Content
1. Redistribution of Grades is Not “Socialism in Education”

     Defenders of capitalism often cite the fact that school classes often grade on a curve, as an example of socialism, because it's a “redistribution of grades”. I wouldn't call this socialism, however; because what's being redistributed is grades, not resources. Socialism aims to redistribute resources. Second, it's certainly not full socialism because it doesn't involve all of society, it only involves select classrooms, or one aspect of society (education).

     Additionally, limitations on how many people are allowed to fail, are motivated by the fact that there's supposed to be a fair and mutually beneficial relationship and negotiation between students and teachers. If teachers are free to fail everyone who doesn't learn enough, then teachers are also free to refuse to teach them, to justify flunking them and making them come back (and pay) again next year.

     Too many students failing, is not necessarily a sign of low achievement; it could be a sign of unskilled or uncaring teaching staff, or unreasonable grading standards. Just like when an employee is fired, it's not always his performance; it's that firing a trainee halfway through his training period is a way to get cheap labor that maximizes short-term profits (but also turnover).

     Also, nobody is demanding more socialized grading in American schools. But there are people who describe free federal lunches for students as “socialism”. That is what I'm concerned about; that the desire to fully rid the educational system of “socialism” could lead to more reports about public school students being denied school lunches because their parents forgot to put enough money on their lunch cards.

     Federal school lunches may be unconstitutional and fiscally improper (and they are), but a society that only feeds hungry children if they have the ability to pay, is a morally depraved society. Children can't learn well at school if they aren't properly fed and don't know where their next meal is coming from. People need enough shelter and sleep, and work and food security, to be able to contribute enough at work.

     Europe is arguably more “socialist” than America, but America's education arguably does more “grade redistribution” than the Europeans do. That's because Americans give their students a “handout” by asking them multiple-choice questions (in which the answer is already written somewhere on the page), while the Europeans actually teach the kid until he remembers the answer without it being laid out in front of him like he's an idiot. I wouldn't call that socialism. I wouldn't call it fair either; especially not to European students, who work harder to learn the material, as they should.

2. Fascism is Not a Form of Socialism

     I walked in ten minutes late to see on the screen “Examples of socialism: socialism, communism, and fascism”. I don't agree with the notion that fascism is an example of socialism, or a variety of socialism, simply because the Nazis called themselves National Socialists. The Nazis were not true socialists, and there have been other fascist regimes besides the Nazis, which had varying degrees of both ultra-nationalism, and nationalism in the name of collectivism.

     One could argue that fascism and Nazism are collectivist, but not socialist, and I would argue that that is true. Like communism and socialism, Nazism and fascism are collectivist because they put “the nation” (and the people in charge of it) ahead of the interests of individuals and free markets. Fascists are certainly not Marxist, anyway, because the Nazis banned Marxism in 1933.

     Granted, there are varieties of socialism besides Marxism, and earlier visions of German collectivism did influence the Nazis, but the Nazis were in favor of German capitalist industry, and the “privatization” it did was actually a government takeover of business. That government takeover of business, however, was not socialistic, because 1) although German capitalists were taken over, they were also rewarded with business protections and privileges; and 2) those privileges included privileges from competition against the Jews, who were being murdered, which means that Nazism certainly wasn't full socialism because it didn't include all of society.

     True socialism would not involve murdering 20% of society, but rather, re-educating people to abolish intrinsically exploitative industries so that nobody can be employed in those industries ever again.

     The only thing “socialist” or “Marxist” about the Nazis and fascists, are that they all promoted the idea of economic parasitism. The idea that the least productive people should be liquidated, was used by Marx (and, later, Mao) against capitalists, but Nazi propagandists used the idea against Jews too, to dehumanize them. Many conservatives call socialists and welfare recipients “parasites” today, which I think is shameful.

     It's a shame that Marx, Lenin, and Mao used language like this, considering how dehumanizing it is. But they did it to back up their argument that sole owners and traders tend to take advantage of shortages, exploit natural resources, and exploit the local need for work, to gain profit off of workers, who often have to work hard to support themselves even before becoming employed. And that was certainly a valid point.

     The communists' concern is that if a society produces too much (i.e., more than it needs), and sells it to the outside world, then foreign markets will expect and demand that much production the next year, and the next, and thereby grow dependent on a country (like Ukraine and its farms) to produce an excess from which outside markets can profit. It's kind of like how having a lot of natural resources which could be exploited, is called a “resource curse”. So capitalists can behave parasitically too, even without conscripting the government to steal taxpayers' money and give it to them.

3. The Definition of Socialism Does Not Necessarily Imply a Government or State

     I feel that defenders of capitalism often define socialism incorrectly, and take liberties with their definition of socialism while explaining it. Most importantly, they tend to assume that socialism is a form of government (and government management of resources), rather than solely an economic system (like capitalism, free market systems, or mutualism).

     Socialism does not necessarily have to involve the management of resources by government; we could have equal control of resource management be performed by communities, communes, cooperatives, charities, non-profits, and consumer organizations; anything that's non-profit and not subsidized by the government. That's how we can achieve a more real, and permanent, “privatization” (i.e., separation of resource management from government) without succumbing to either for-profit privatization, or privatization in the form of selling government assets to the lowest (or highest) bidder. The bid should go to the bidder whom is most likely to be able to function as an adequate caretaker of the assets they acquire.

     Socialism is the worker ownership, or societal management, of the means of production. To me, that means it is an economic system, not necessarily a political one. Defenders of capitalism say that socialism requires a government, but social anarchist Emma Goldman and anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker would tell you that socialism doesn't require a government (and their lives and writing attest to that).

     In fact, Marx and Engels never promoted “the state” as we know it today. When pressed, they always clarified that they intended communities – not the state (especially not this current bourgeois capitalist state, and the 192 others, which have been common over the last 250 years) – to make most of the decisions in society.

     This, in my opinion, means that socialism compatible with capitalism, as long as there is no state to perform redistribution or force people to use one economic system or another. Communities should have the full right to interact with other communities on the principles of local autonomy, as long as they do not physically obstruct the flow of commerce, labor, capital, and travel/locomotion. This is possible through making the now rigged market system into an actually free one (with no subsidies, business privileges, or protections), and then increasing the percentage of assets which are cooperatively owned (and also, increasing the number of companies which are cooperatively owned).

It is not necessary to create a government or state, in order to consult all of society in decisions about how to manage resources. If communities and cities and counties are allowed to freely associate, they will find freer and more equal ways of managing interstate trade for mutual benefit, than the federal government (and their fiefdom, the hundred million people who live near the Bos-Wash corridor) has thus far given us.

     To read more about my views on why socialism is not a political theory, please read the following article: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/08/socialism-is-compatible-with-capitalism.html

4. Rigged Markets: Not All Free Market Proponents Support Capitalism

     The following is a link to my article about which government programs create which form of public assistance for business. http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2016/04/government-is-source-of-corporate.html

     It was inspired by Andy Craig, who ran for Wisconsin Secretary of State as a Libertarian. Andy's idea was to run to abolish the position, which was then occupied by progressive hero Robert M. LaFollette's grandson Doug. Andy had a “nuclear option” plan to stop the creation of new corporations, by abolishing the position of state secretary of state, in order to prevent the state government from extending new grants of Limited Liability Corporation designation.

     I have since taken that idea and ran with it. I now oppose the complete abolition of all forms of taxpayer-funded privileges for business, which in my opinion include subsidies, bailouts, intellectual property protections, physical property protections from the military and police, F.D.I.C. insurance, trade protections and promotions, and other favors.

     Government contracts could be another one too. After all - even though it's not taxpayer money, and the government's just guaranteeing a line of credit - that line of credit is backed up by easy-credit loans and low interest rates set up by the Federal Reserve, with the F.D.I.C. to insure investments with public money if anything goes wrong.

     Defenders of capitalism sometimes say that “If we had rigged markets, then we would know, because if markets were rigged, then they would not allow people to form companies and become billionaires in just twenty years”. But think about it: most of those billionaires in the top 10 made their money with the help of government contracts, in addition to their own innovation and hard work. Microsoft and Amazon have been competing for a $10 billion Pentagon contract. Facebook was started with the help of a C.I.A.-funded startup called In-Q-Tel, when the C.I.A. was looking for a way to get millions of people to voluntarily surrender personal information like their photos and locations. So it isn't just inheritance (and protection of inherited assets) that makes many of the top billionaires' “earnings” questionable, it's exclusive government contracts too (or nearly exclusive, with the bare minimum amount of competition required to create the illusion of real robust competition; i.e., oligarchy and oligopoly).

     For those reasons and others, I believe that the markets are much less fair, and much more rigged, than defenders of capitalism tend to suspect and admit that they are. While defenders of capitalism do admit that there could and should be much more competition, and also freedom of opportunity – and probably believe that the markets are “free enough” compared to other countries – promoting more competition than necessary is a chief problem that I feel defenders of capitalism often overlook.

     If we promote more competition necessary – especially if the rewards of that competition are permanent, and government protected (think “minimal government, to protect life, liberty, and property”) - then too much competition and property, could undermine freedom of opportunity to acquire assets and property, leading to an overall decrease in freedom. At least for everyone “who's just now coming into the system” (i.e., the younger half of humanity now finding itself in about ten different slavery systems).

     My concern about libertarian minarchism (minimal government advocates), and pragmatic Libertarian Party politics, is that political Libertarians and defenders of capitalism tend to argue that a “minimal government” is necessary to protect “life, liberty, and property”. They also usually say that such a “minimal government” would likely include “military, courts, and police”. However, that that is only true of “minarchists”. “Anarcho-capitalism” is feasible, but only if people who participate in it are free to participate in socialistic economic activity as well.

     The first “market-anarchist”, Gustave de Molinari, asked more than 150 years ago why defense and security are so often monopolized, instead of subject to market forces like other commodities are. Not only defense, but also justice, would have to become “free markets” in a free economy. That's why “free enough” simply isn't enough; total freedom and statelessness is possible.

     However, it would require, often, trusting foreign nationals to do things like manufacture domestic defense and surveillance equipment. In a more peaceful world, that will be possible; but to some degree it has already begun (to varying degrees of success for various countries). Of course, the risks which unsuccessful strategies regarding to whom to award the contracts to manufacture such equipment, risks such things as foreign spying scandals, and arms races (which have both occurred). Therefore, it seems that more trust of foreigners is needed before fully free markets (so free that there are no defense contracts) can flourish.

     In the opinions of myself, and radical libertarians who study Agorism and private law (theorists such as Robert P. Murphy, Samuel E. Konkin III, Wally Conger, and others), the anarchists and minarchists should not be debating, because the debate has already been settled, and the minimum amount of government possible is zero.

     “Capitalism”, to me, connotes not free markets, but an institutional or governmental preference for the interests of private owners of capital, over the interests of labor (that is, workers). Just like "socialism" could be described as an official preference for the interests of labor over capital.

     I believe that we could have enough social ownership, and enough private ownership, to claim rightfully that we've achieved both capitalism and socialism, yet neither; because while both systems would be allowed to exist, neither system would be given preferential treatment, nor the ability to use the state and its violence to force people to participate in one system or the other. We should have "a free market in economic systems", and a free market in who provides us with security and justice.

     That's why I subscribe to a stateless economic theory which some call “free-market anti-capitalism”.

5. Free-Market Anti-Capitalism, Georgism, and Mutualism Are All Valid Critiques of Anarcho-Capitalist and Political Libertarian Thought

     I would like to make my readers aware of several economic systems and schools of thought, from which I think libertarian and free market theories could benefit. They are “free-market anti-capitalism”, Georgism and Geo-Libertarianism, and Mutualism and market socialism.

Free-Market Anti-Capitalism

     “Free-market anti-capitalism” is a phrase associated with Roderick T. Long. Long and others have been criticizing mainstream American libertarian thought, with individualist-anarchist and libertarian-socialist critiques. Gary E. Chartier and Charles W. Johnson are left-libertarian theorists whom are associated with the phrases “bleeding-heart libertarians” and “markets, not capitalism”. “Left-wing market-anarchism” is an associated school of thought.

     Wally Conger is an “Agorist” (a radical anti-state, pro-free-market theory), and explained in his book Agorist Class Theory that free-marketers and Marxists have a lot more of their goals in common than they realize; they just have very different plans about how to get there.

     Kevin Carson, a Mutualist theorist, has attempted to reconcile the Labor Theory of Value with the subjective theory, by offering a “subjective labor theory of value” wherein the value of a good is influenced both by the subjective valuation of the producer's own labor, and also the subjective preferences of the buyer. Carson has also explained that Marxists, Mutualists, and supporters of free enterprise all value open-source collaboration, as well as the freedom to do any task, and many tasks, without those tasks being considered to require licensing, professionalization, nor rigid regulation.

     I believe that the “Progressive-Libertarian Alliance” of Ron and Rand Paul, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich will lead the way to common ground on economic issues in politics, while Georgist and Mutualist developments of anarchism and libertarianism will lead the way to common ground on economic issues in a stateless society.

     These are just some of the people who have found common ground between libertarians and socialists. I've spent the last 5 to 10 years writing about where this common ground is, and urging my fellow libertarians to learn more about Henry George and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Georgism

     Henry George was a 19^th century American economist who developed the idea of “the Single Tax”, now known as Land Value Taxation.

     Some libertarians and capitalists admit that pollution - including of other people's air - is a property rights violation. I agree, and so did Murray Rothbard. But Henry George took it a step further; by prioritizing people's needs for land, over the concerns about the squabbles between representatives of labor and of capital.

     This means that Georgism (and also Mutualism) are situated between socialism and capitalism. These two economic systems play very important roles in how capitalism and socialism might be reconciled with one another. These economic systems would form a basis through which negotiation could be made between the socialism of workers' interests and the capitalism of private owners' interest.

     I wrote the following article about reconciling the ideas of Henry George with the ideas expressed in modern American political libertarianism (with specific regard to the land needs in Lake County, Illinois): http://www.lclp.org/articles/geolibertarianism/

     I explain in the article that Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan was a Geo-Libertarian (a Libertarian who subscribes to the economic and land reform ideas of Henry George), and Milton Friedman said George's tax ideas were “the least bad tax [ever] proposed”.

     I think that Reagan economic adviser Art Laffer would be pleased by the fact that George's proposals completely avoid taxing both production and earned income. Georgist slogans include “tax land, not man”, “tax land, not buildings”, and “tax bads, not goods”.

     I myself explain it as “tax destruction (and waste, especially of land), not production”. The waste and destruction of land is a serious problem – and so is the misuse, disuse, abuse, and blight of land, and allowing it to fall into disrepair – because we don't want land to be rendered unuseable in case the owner dies and someone wants to buy the land. The more land area that is destroyed, rendered unuseable, and fenced-off and protected with the help of taxpayer funding, the less land is available for families to build homes on, and that means less property ownership and less production on that land.

     I think the Lockean proviso shows that that is true; the idea that a person must homestead land and make it habitable to earn it, but also leave enough land, and in as good quality, for other people, given the number of people and the demand and need for land in the area. The Lockean proviso, with its high standards, is thus very different from many mainstream capitalists' ideas about how easy it is to acquire and “earn” land (sometimes even justifying conquest and winning lands in war, and then transferring lands which were legally stolen through those means and through ceasing to honor treaties with native tribes, etc.).

     Milton Friedman said that a deregulated economic environment will lead to economic prosperity and high productivity, but only if the lowest-income people are assisted by some sort of basic income -type program, to prevent the poor from falling through the cracks. Not as a welfare system, but instead of a welfare system. And with personal spending replacing bureaucratic micromanagement, saving costs in the process.

     Some libertarians are looking into U.B.I. and citizens' dividend programs as ways to achieve a “capitalism, but with a robust social safety net” sort of arrangement. One such type of citizens' dividend program is a dividend funded by the taxation of oil companies' profits, and/or by imposing fees on their extraction of natural resources from the ground.

     I cannot help but notice that, of the four best-known places which have tried this system – Alaska, Norway, Libya, and Venezuela – two were mostly white and didn't get bombed for it, while the other two are mostly non-white and had their countries destroyed as a result. That could just be a coincidence. But there's nothing wrong with trying to tie your country's economic future to the success of its businesses and to protections against rapid exploitation of its natural resources.

Mutualism

     Aside from the “free-market anti-capitalism” and “Geo-Libertarianism” critiques, I think libertarianism could be improved through emphasizing that the voluntary exchange we want must be mutually beneficial. That means all economic transactions must be reciprocal, and should not take place if unaware or unconsenting people are directly affected by it (especially if negatively).

     Mutualist theorists include Kevin Carson (living today), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (19^th century France) and Josiah Warren (19^th century Ohio). Warren's reforms centered on money and free enterprise, while Proudhon's centered on free credit, and an anarchist critique of private property ownership.

      Another proposal like Mutualism is market socialism, in which most ownership would be done collectively, but the allocation and distribution would still be done through free trading in markets by individuals. I imagine that Mutualism would feature balanced individual vs. collective roles in both ownership and allocation.

Geo-Mutualism

     I think it is important to teach about other economic systems which have been proposed, besides socialism and capitalism, to help students understand that this is not as much of a binary choice as we have been led to assume it is.

     The following link leads to a poster I designed about Georgism and Mutualism. I believe that price competition, and taking full advantage of automation, will lead to low prices (and eventually to “free stuff through free markets”. Look up anarchist theorists such as Jock Coats and Will Schnack to learn more about how Georgism and Mutualism unite (as Geo-Mutualism).

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/04/georgism-and-mutualism-poster.html

6. Mixed Economies and China

     Defenders of capitalism tend to seem confused as to which economic system China currently has. I cannot fault them for this, however; I am not sure which system it has myself. Perhaps dirigism best describes it; essentially, government-directed economic fascism, featuring heavy state ownership of enterprises.

     Capitalists seem to perceive, often, that China's economy boomed in the early 1980s because it adopted capitalism, or some degree of it. But I disagree; I think it was the mixture of socialism and capitalism which helped China, and helped it much more than it would have benefited China to switch to a strictly capitalist system. It was the mixing of increased private ownership and increased family business ownership, into the system of largely state-owned cooperatives, which created a sustainable, and sufficiently free and fair, balance, between several diverse sectors of the economy. It was a balance between state ownership, and other forms of ownership, which helped China's productivity increase. That's because encouraging a wide range of forms of ownership, helps societal cohesion by allowing sufficient freedom within society, through those forms of ownership, that allow different families and communities to have shares in society. But then, of course, I am describing only my own interpretation of what Deng Xiaopeng's and the Company Law's intentions could have been; and certainly not the current Chinese government.

     I would characterize China as a mixed economy; similar to, but not exactly the same as, other mixed economies like “democratic socialism”, “the Nordic model”, “Rhine capitalism”, and German "ordoliberalism”, etc..

     China's system is similar to Germany's, especially considering that they have similar laws regarding what percentage of members of a corporate board should be made up of workers. However, I would describe that as not a socialist law, but a mutualist one. That's because it doesn't outright award workers the property of the people employing them. Instead, it aims to balance and align the needs of workers with the needs of owners, affecting earnings going forward, such that no contracts are overturned, no ex-post-facto laws are created, and workers can earn income and stock value quickly through hard (but fair) work. If we make sure that, going forward, we do not award charters, contracts, or special privileges to companies whom are likely to exploit workers and natural resources, then we can ensure free and fair markets, with voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange, without violating ex-post-facto laws, and without needing to abandon having a system of property rights altogether.

     Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said during one of his campaigns, that it helps in business to “tie people to profits”, such that workers earn more when profits are up. That's not socialism, that's just good business practices.

     Besides, what economic system does Germany currently have? Nevermind that; if Germany has ten times as high a percentage of people learning the skilled trades than America does, who cares what system they have? Young Americans are dying for an easy, debt-free way to access education in the way of the skilled trades (and also I.T., while H.V.A.C. and agriculture will need millions of workers soon). In my opinion, there is no reason why what Germany and China are currently doing about large employers should not be emulated.

     Germany's economy, by the way, is influenced by the traditions of mixed economies like “Rhine capitalism” and “ordoliberalism” (German for “new liberalism”), which feature capitalist market economies with robust social safety nets.

7. Achieving Socialism Without the State
     Contrary to what the current Chinese regime may argue, state ownership is certainly not the only way to achieve socialism.

     As I explained, socialism is an economic system which doesn't necessarily imply either statism or anarchism. Many socialists want to achieve socialism without political action, by having workers own businesses and turn them into cooperatives, rather than having the state own them. However, only about one tenth of one percent of American businesses are currently cooperatives. Granted, the number of non-profits and the like, added to that, would make the number of non-for-profit enterprises higher. But that does not ensure cooperative ownership or cooperative management.

     What we need to talk about is E.L.M.F.s (Egalitarian Labor-Managed Firms) and W.S.D.E.s (Workers Self-Directed Enterprise). These would be worker-owned companies that set up stock ownership plans (like E.S.O.P.s; Employee Stock Ownership Plans). Bernie Sanders and Kristin Gillibrand have supported laws which would require large companies to establish such stock ownership plans. However, a true anarchist could not rightfully support political means to achieve the same.

     The idea behind employee stock ownership plans is called “funds socialism”. Examples of “funds socialism” include the following: 1) the Meidner Plan in Sweden, calling for the establishment of "wage-earner funds"; 2) the American Solidarity Fund, proposed by the People's Policy Project; 3) the Norwegian G.P.F.G. (Government Pension Fund Global); 4) the U.K. Labour Party's proposed "Inclusive Ownership Funds"; and 5) the NSW Generation Fund in New South Wales, Australia.

     But again, these are all laws and legal proposals, rather than plans regarding how anarchists should seek to achieve the maximum number of cooperativized businesses, without relying on violence or the assistance or the state. If truly voluntary socialism is actually possible, then only peaceful actions are permissible in order to achieve this; like persuasion, argumentation, conversation, and instruction. Additionally, market pressures (like boycotts) when fairly applied against owners and sellers (but that only works if refusal to purchase can actually be achieved, both logistically and legally).

     Basically, in a free society, the workers would have to convince managers and bosses and C.E.O.s that they deserve better pay (and benefits, conditions, etc.), instead of going through legal and political avenues to secure those conditions for themselves. Bosses who refuse to reward their workers sufficiently when it is fiscally responsible to do so, are only making it more likely that their workers will resort to political action and violence to achieve their goals, and less likely that their workers will appreciate capitalism and the supposed benefits it offers.

     As John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make political reform impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

8. Unequal Distribution of Wealth, and Corporate Taxation

     In my opinion, it is completely unjustifiable that one person can have as much money as 300 million or even a billion people.

     Primarily because it would be impossible to make frequent and efficient enough use of all that wealth, to justify owning it. And additionally, due to the high economic power and leverage which ownership affords a person. This is dangerous because it allows a person to acquire currency while doing little actual work and risking little (if any) capital in the process; through lending and renting their property out to (usually propertyless) people who have none of their own.

     That may seem “equal enough” or "fair enough", or seem like “the result of different levels of effort by different people”, but it is not fair because it suppresses economic opportunity and competition. Land owned by one person, cannot be developed by another, without consent and payment. Similarly, an invention owned by one person (through a patent), cannot be developed by another, without consent and payment.

     We cannot compete against those who monopolize their land and their inventions, because it is literally illegal to compete against an entity protected by a monopoly privilege granted by the state. And that is the nature of land title registration and the granting of patents. The “minimum government” crowd may consider physical and intellectual property protections as necessary to create a free society which is sufficiently ordered, secure, and fair; but the need to protect dead property and intangible ideas, often distracts from the need to protect actual people's physical human bodies.

     Defenders of capitalism tend admit that it is morally wrong to redistribute wealth, especially earned income, and I agree with them, as there are ways to achieve socialism and more cooperative ownership without political action. However, defenders of capitalism are nearly always against the taxation of corporations, which receive special protections, and insulation from lawsuits and market competition, through Limited Liability Corporation status protections issued by the state. Thus, corporations are a creation of the state.

     I don't object to the existence of “companies” or “corporations”, if that means enterprises which are funded voluntarily by whomever wants to, and enterprises in which employees can be held accountable for their actions. But I take issue with leaving corporations untaxed, because corporations are creations of the state (at least corporations with L.L.C. status are). I consider corporate income “unearned income” which is gained with the assistance of the state (and the legitimized violence upon which it relies to enforce its order and acquire its revenues). It's not that I want to see corporations taxed; it's that I want to see corporations not created by the state in the first place, so that we don't have to tax them (because they wouldn't exist).

     If businesses don't want to follow regulations and pay taxes, then they shouldn't lobby for privileges and accept subsidies and bailouts. I would like to see less companies accepting subsidies, but I would also to see the federal government stop tempting the states and businesses into accepting them (because there are strings attached that allow the federal government to control how they spend it, which tend to undermine the liberties of the states and the localities).

     I would like to see more supporters of free enterprise, distance themselves from capitalism, and fully oppose all forms of business assistance. It's one thing to say “don't accept subsidies if you don't want to be regulated”, but it's another thing to say “we need to abolish all subsidies and artificial business privileges, or there won't be any truly private companies in this country anymore.”

     I feel like capitalism and minarchism, with their “minimum regulation” idea, tends to excuse and even invite government involvement. If the state didn't exist, regulation of companies' activities would still happen; it would just occur through self-responsibility, voluntary association, and mutually beneficial negotiation and decision-making.

     “Regulation of business”, in a stateless society, could easily be performed by each business's employees and clients, negotiating as directly with one another as possible (without the state to guide or direct them), while retaining the full right to boycott. The Taft-Hartley Act (with its prohibition on boycotts spanning multiple industries), and the facts of subsidies and redistribution, now make full boycott – and, thus, “ethical consumerism” and “voting with our wallets” - impossible.

That's why the system is much more rigged than defenders of capitalism suspect it is.

     Redistribution of earned income is wrong, and should not be done. But the redistribution of opportunity to compete – from the rich to the poor – should also be a concern. The poor pay little taxes, but it's because they have little opportunity in the first place to acquire enough skills and education to be a viable competitor in the market. And again, it's literally illegal and impossible to compete against – or boycott - monopolists and entrenched business interests (including companies which hold patents and trademarks).

     It is impossible to calculate the value which the working poor lose, from having their money taken away to fund agencies that profit off of turning work from a right into a licensed privilege, and from being unable to adequately compete in some of the most highly oligopolized industries.

9. Minimum Wage Laws Are Bad, But Enslaving Children to Mammon is Worse

     I don't support minimum wage increases. But I also disagree with the idea that a high minimum wage “deprives teenagers of their first jobs”. I understand that high minimum wages tend to result in low teen employment levels, but that is not the fault of teenagers. I know that because teenagers can't vote and have no political power, and therefore couldn't possibly cause such a state of affairs to arise.

     Here's the thing: nobody said to pay teenagers less than older workers. Some teens are more skilled than some adults. There is no reason to assume that, just because someone is younger, they haven't justified or earned that kind of pay yet.

     Teens don't get paid less because they deserve less or don't work as hard as older people; they get paid less because they're younger, and have had fewer opportunities than older people to acquire skills and work experience and money.

     As a result, teens are coerced into a state of dependence upon the old, and the entrenched business interests, and the existing set of jobs, in order to survive. Which gives the old free rein to prey on the young, insisting that they must help the old, because they (with their stronger bodies) are the only ones capable of helping the helpless old decrepit people who have all the money and property. Society already looks at young people as a cheap source of labor and a free source of favors.

     Saying high minimum wages “deprive teenagers of their first jobs” is just saying that high minimum wages “prevent child labor”. I thought we wanted to prevent child labor! Maybe we can prevent child labor by simply paying workers enough money to give their children gifts of cash. That way, we will not hear about phenomena such as teenage girls being tempted into whoring themselves out to fifty-year-old men on yachts, nor teenagers whoring themselves out for employment by corrupt and polluting companies, or by police departments or the military, which will expect them to shoot at innocent people.

     Which is more important: The need to protect the right to compete in the market? Or the need to protect workers' "freedom of opportunity" to sell themselves our and sign away their rights to compete?
     Which is more important: The need to protect children's innocence, or the need to make sure they have a stable flow of money into their pockets? It does matter if that flow of money comes through Jeffrey Epstein's penis. Actually existing capitalism has given our children U.S. Dollars covered with toxic ink and stripper sweat and cocaine, which we should be ashamed that we're encouraging our children to handle, and it has given us the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

     Every parent should understand that Epstein's handler, Ghislaine Maxwell, was able to persuade teenage girls into becoming masseuses (and then prostitutes and sex slaves) by promising nothing more than a little extra money to spend on themselves and on their families at the holidays. To some degree, we cannot blame desperate parents for allowing their children to fall into the hands of people like that, but to some degree we can blame them for exploiting their children. But I contend that the real problem is the artificial, manufactured need for currency and money, which is achieved by inserting currency between the buyer and everything they need to survive and feed their families.

     Additionally, some teenagers (i.e., teen parents as old as 19) have more dependent minors to support than some adult workers do (i.e., single workers without children). So why should a person be paid more for having more skills, when a less skilled person might have more mouths to feed? Of course effort and skills should affect pay, but so should a person's level of need. At one job I had, I needed a lot less money as a temporary janitor with no dependents, than a unionized janitor with a family, needed. I did not need $30,000 per year, and I did not have the skills to justify earning that much. The fact that unionized employees sometimes get sick, does not justify forcibly unionizing all people who might temporarily replace them.

     We shouldn't have minimum wage laws, nor should we endorse the Labor Theory of Value. But nor should we allow children to be pressured into signing employment contracts before they're capable of fully understanding all the consequences. Some of those employment contracts include anti-competition clauses, which could limit teenage workers' freedom to compete until years after their employment with that company ends. Consumers and workers must be sufficiently informed, and never defrauded nor swindled, in order for markets to be fully free. And a truly voluntary market can only be participated in by people who are old and mature enough to be able to give fully informed consent to do the work they do, and they need to not be pushed into it by adults.

     On the matter of wages in general: I disagree with the frequent claim, made by defenders of capitalism, that bosses don't make profits by stealing from their employees. I believe that many bosses make money by coercing and depriving employees into parting with their opportunities to compete, and into parting with a huge degree of self-determination and autonomy while on the job. Wage theft is a real thing, of which companies have actually been found guilty, and forced to provide compensation.

     I explain a few forms of wage theft in Section 5 of the following article, why I believe that bosses' collection of wages on state-secured “private” property, is a form of monopoly privilege, and therefore an unfair violation of free market principles:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/05/rent-profit-interest-and-usury.html.

10. Stalin Didn't Kill Sixty Million People, You're Thinking of Hitler

     Stalin tends to get a bad rap in the capitalist, C.I.A.-influenced American mainstream media and academia. However, he helped defeat the Nazi menace, and he understood that people need enough shelter and sleep, and enough food security and job security, to be able to contribute and produce adequately while on the job. And, since a well-rested worker is a productive worker, that arguably makes Stalin more capitalistic than the capitalists.

     I, personally, would rather be driving next to a truck driver who's worked 40 hours a week and slept for 56; instead of a driver who's worked 56 and slept for 40. People have the right to work hard and work long hours, but as a security guard, I can tell you that the more hours I work during the week, the higher the chance that I'll fall asleep while on duty.

     At some point, working harder doesn't pay off any more than it does to take a little time off to rest and recuperate. And of course, people should have to be healthy enough to work, instead of expected to work for their health needs, and instead of coerced into keeping a bad job because of the health insurance it offers.

     A wise man once said the following: “It is difficult for me to imagine what 'personal liberty' is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society, personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” That man's name was Joseph Stalin. Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has been saying similar things in his campaign. But whomever says it – Yang, Stalin, or anyone else – I think it's correct.

     Furthermore, capitalists tend to blame Stalin for a lot more deaths than the number for which he was actually responsible. I think that is one of the key factors contributing to socialism's bad reputation, and also a key factor causing people to suspect that Hitler killed less than Stalin (when my research shows that the opposite is true).

     Stalin's actions in the Ukraine were somewhat justified. First, because he waited three years before doing anything to address food shortages, and thus cannot be accused of using too much political action to solve problems. Second, what Stalin did was punish people who resisted collectivization. Kulak farmers made the food shortages worse; by slaughtering their livestock, and refusing to turn food over to the authorities. They chose, instead, to attempt to profit off of the desperation of starving people in their own country, by selling to foreign buyers, during a time when most of those foreign buying nations were aligned against the U.S.S.R.. Stalin tried to relieve the suffering of the famine; by collectivizing farms, confiscating grain, and redistributing it. Only a well fed Russian people, and a well fed army, could have survived the rapid agricultural and industrial expansion that the U.S.S.R. was undergoing, or could have created a defense against the Nazi menace which was coming (and which they all knew would eventually come, unless it underwent revolution). The alternative to refraining from punishing farmers, was to allow them to sell food to foreign countries, feeding the enemies of the U.S.S.R. in the process.

     The idea that Stalin killed more than Hitler, is an extremely destructive (and untrue) idea. I believe that people who regret America's alliance with the U.S.S.R. during World War II – especially those who admit that America should have allied with the Nazis to defeat “the true enemy” communism” - are Nazi sympathizers. That idea is also invalid because America did try to work with the Nazis at the beginning of World War II; Americans were trading with the Nazis at a higher volume than the U.S.S.R. was in 1940, and America allowed Nazis to march in Grafton, Wisconsin, and Madison Square Garden, before America joined the Allies.

     Please see the following links to learn more about my views on Josef Stalin:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/04/stalin-killed-fewer-people-than-hitler.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/02/60-links-that-will-change-way-you-think.html
11. Conclusion

     I think it's important that "libertarian capitalists" and "libertarian socialists" have conversations such as the debate between libertarian capitalism and free-market anti-capitalism. I also think that more public debates on these topics would really benefit liberty lovers' education to understand socialism, whether for the purposes of criticizing it or not.

     That's why I will be participating in a “Voluntaryism vs. Libertarian Socialism” debate – on Saturday, November 9^th, 2019, in West Lafayette, Indiana – with Marcus Pulis (of Aquarian Anarchy). Follow Aquarian Anarchy and JoeKopsick4Congress on YouTube for updates about that debate.

Written on September 2^nd and November 3^rd, 2019

Published on November 3^rd, 2019