>the USSR was run by a central committee elected by the Communist Party
>The Communist Party were shareholders of the Soviet state
>the Soviet state was a giant corporation that acquired a monopoly over an entire country
>yfw the Bolshevik revolution was market deregulation
>yfw WWII was market deregulation
>yfw the US winning the Cold War by using nuclear arms to prevent the USSR from conquering all of Europe was government regulation on the free market
>yfw the USSR both paid every citizen and sold everything to every citizen
>yfw the USSR was a giant company town spanning the entirety of Eurasia
>yfw the Soviet government was literally just a company that destroyed its competitors, thereby establishing a monopoly
>yfw communism is the natural result of market forces
>yfw Donald Trump says he will run the country like a business
>yfw you realize that "run the country like a business means Stalinism
>yfw they referred to their leaders as Chairmen
>yfw the Politburo was a board of directors
Congratulations, /pol/, you are about to put a communist in the White House.
Pic related, it is the greatest capitalist in the history of man, who facilitated the victory of the free market to Russia, and would have brought the free market to everyone if it hadn't been for NATO and its damned regulations.
>>72920937
>monopoly
not free market
>>72921310
>the fucking leaf wants to regulate the market by not allowing the superior corporation to destroy its pathetic competition
>>72921454
>competition
required
This is one of the primary self-regulation mechanisms.
>>72921586
>self-regulation
Utter bullshit preventing the superior corporation from destroying its competition. There is absolutely nothing which should guarantee competition, because it is just placing artificial restrictions on the efficiency of the corporation.
>>72921763
>efficiency of the corporation
Without competition (or the plausible threat of competition) it has no incentive to be efficient, and hence it will not be. The market forces become ineffective. There is no more free market.
>>72923231
Yes, the final triumph of the free market it its own destruction. Do you understand now, anon?
>>72923377
But without competition, it isn't a free market by definition. In a free market-based country that wants to remain a free market, competition is enforced by law.
>>72923935
Enforcement by law is just regulation. There is nothing that says a free market must remain a free market. All protecting weaker competition does is prevent the free market from reaching its logical conclusion.
>>72923935
>But without competition, it isn't a free market by definition
congrats, you've discovered a fundamental dilemma of real life vs what you learned in high school social studies.
in a truly free market, a more successful organization will obliterate its competition and absolutely establish a monopoly.
whereas your view is that it wouldn't be a truly free market without competition. the only way to enforce that is with heavy government regulations, which nullifies the principle of a free market in the first place.
the latter scenario never achieves a free market, whereas the first at least leaves room for competitors to break a monopoly once it becomes too comfortable and inefficient.
which one is the truly free market?
>>72924006
>There is nothing that says a free market must remain a free market.
Sure, as long as no one claims a "degenerated" free market is still a free market. A country that claims to be based on free markets must have laws to protect it.
>>72924259
>what you learned in high school social studies
What the hell did they teach you back then? They told us that monopolies where one of the failure modes of capitalism. This has been well accepted for centuries. Only in the US the burgers brainwashed by cold war era programming can think otherwise.
>heavy government regulations
>which nullifies the principle of a free market in the first place
Not nullifies, but hinders it for sure. It's a trade off. Competition is difficult to enforce. It's so easy for people to collude...
>leaves room for competitors to break a monopoly
Or not. The entry barrier can be so high that it could only happen if the prices were extremely abusive. Instead, people will tolerate high prices, and this can become generalized for every product that is complex to produce. It would probably fix itself over the very long run, but a system that only becomes efficient once in a while every centuries isn't very interesting. It can also be that the only way to break monopolies would be with violent revolutions, so that system might not even be peaceful (on top of being oppressive).
>>72925116
> A country that claims to be based on free markets must have laws to protect it.
Agreed. This is part of what made Teddy so based. He understood what needed to happen to protected the free market without going too far.
>>72920937
No one will recognise your genius. No one. But know that anon did.
Is this economic illiteracy and word misrepresentation hour?
>>72925566
>Teddy so based
Oh man.. he seemed so great. But he wasn't even supposed to become president... they made him VP to get rid of him. If the US had a ranked voting system of some kind, he probably would have won its second term though!
Kinda like Trump trying to run for its "Reform Party". Pretty much pointless in the US. :/ He also seems "not supposed" to become president. Can only hope he'll be great too.
I like the post, but the thing is that the soviet state didn't conquer the market through uninhibited natural market forces. They conquered the market through the power of the state, which is the opposite of a free market. I do see what you're saying about capitalism in general, though.
>>72926551
How did they become the state in the first place? By providing a superior service in the civil war years, and capturing market share.
>>72926551
>I know your example is complete shit, but I believe the point you were trying to make with your super shitty example
>>72920937
Bingo. But it's still 1974 and the Nixon Ford debate or some garbage
>>72920937
OP has gone FULL retard.
Sage.
>>72926183
How is it economic illiteracy? He's merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the "free market" that requires there to be regulations and indeed less freedom in order to even exist.
There's a difference between a free and unregulated market IMO, an unregulated market will degenerate to the stage where corporations are able to destroy their opposition and form monopolies.
A truly free market requires regulation to ensure that all corporations are equally able to compete without one forming a monopoly over an area or market.
The point OP is trying the make is that the natural progression of free markets is towards their own destruction.
>>72926916
The free market requires no regulation. Insisting it does will not make it so, no more than claiming the bolsheviks use market forces to gain power. That minarchist, seeking to sustain the structure of the nation state for non-economical reasons, approve of even small regulations is not prove the free market requires any of it. Ancap literarute abounds regarding the subject.
>>72926910
Heh. Well, I get now that he was making a point about unregulated free markets of some kinds which don't stay free for long. There are lots of people that don't believe that and that get triggered by all those -ists and -isms, this post may perplex the crap out of them!
>>72927386
Bullshit. Monopolies only exist through the forces of gubernamental fiat and nothing else. Even the concept of the natural monopoly is a bunch of bs.
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
>>72920937
This is the most fuck thing I have ever read.
Kudos
>>72920937
>Communism is capitalism because muh corporations are ebil!!!
nigger what the fuck are you doing?
>>72927683
>Ancap
CANCER
No nations will ever work like that. No one will ever take you seriously.
I try to, but you guys are so unlikable and annoying, I can't be assed.
>>72928079
>logical framework that shows you that you are wrong
>LALALALALA, I DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SAY SO I WILL IGNORE IT
Sad!
>>72920937
Oh look yet another retard who can't handle The Donald becoming president.
>>72927683
>Ancap literarute
The only interesting thing about ancap literature is that it surprisingly proves that a person dumb enough to be ancap is capable of writing a book.
>>72920937
Maximum autism.
>>72920937
Free market didn't exist until end of Socialism. Socialism didn't mix races among each other, it organized them. Socialism had borders and ban on international trade. There was no plastic money or stock exchange. You are comparing apples to elephants.
Trump will run the country like business man to compete with Mexicans and Chinese.
Soviet Union only competed with itself and salaries were more or less the same, while in USA they are very different.
>>72920937
You've been horifically indoctrinated
>>72928215
Well, I read what you said here. I heard that before. I have never been convinced though. You didn't explain yourself, but I'm not going to read all those pages you linked to. Everything I ever read about ancap was as stupid and intellectually dishonest as I expected it to be. Unless you can present condensed arguments, I really can't be assed to read long documents like that.
>>72927836
Natural monopolies very much do exist, however as you said they only exist in cases where the infrastructure required to provide a service or product is too expensive to allow for competition.
Monopolies can form when a single entity or corporation acquires so much capital that they are able to dominate a market simply through their ability to produce new goods far more efficiently than any possible competition.
You can also see this with companies outsourcing their labour to other countries because of how cheap it is, no company that manufactures in America can hope to compete with the pricing of a company that produces its goods in China.
>>72920937
So does being Marxist require an extreme level of autism
>>72928944
About the same amount as being an ANCAP or ANSOC
>>72928813
That's completely the opposite of what I said or what history shows us, you emu cuck. Natural monopolies aren't a real thing. There has never been a monopoly which didn't exist due to gubernamental actions.
>>72928722
Hey, you can keep refusing to deal with evidence and just concede your ooint has failed.
>>72928487
Not an argument, commiekin. If you can dispeove the data and arguments, feel free.
>>72929113
Whoa he's going full Molyneux on us!
>>72928813
The problem with monopolies and oligarchy is mostly that at end no new business company has a chance to enter the market and has to either go bankrupt after a while or be the lap dog to corporations. We see that with Facebook, Microsoft, you got lots of lapdogs that all feed and expand them, it's not really Facebook and Microsoft that have to do their own work. Same thing with car manufacturers, they join and prevent newcomers. Same with pharmacy, but in their case they sit on same table as telecommunication industry and shape the prices, but that's oligarchy, since in many cases they also control the chain of businesses all down to customer.
>>72929191
Another problem is that of patents in the technology and pharmaceutical industry, that's another regulation in your supposedly "free" market that allows corporations to dominate a field and pick their own prices, because competition is literally not allowed.
In a truly free market all intellectual "property" would be open source.
And there goes your incentive to innovate and invent.
So where's the healthy balance?
>>72929113
>Disprove a crapton of random infos I find off the Internet or else I'm right.
Panamanian education everyone!
>>72920937
This is the wrong narrative, you are a misguided fool.
>>72928487
Lmao, rekt.
>>72929649
>So where's the healthy balance?
Something else than what they're doing now for sure.
Just allowing the patents to expire sooner (or a system of royalties that diminish over time or whatever really) would probably be a start.
But anything "medical" looks like a legal nightmare. Pharmaceutical companies seem to hire more lawyers than researchers.
I guess it's not going to be a popular on this board, but I think the research part could be partly moved back to the universities and nationalized. The way the government will pay any price for their product really isn't all that different from that anyway.
Developing efficient production methods could be a privatized and highly competitive thing (but production is usually not the problem at all it seems...).
>>72921310
It's a result of real free market. Ancap ftw, fuck regulators!
>>72929649
You are free to use low paying Romanian/Indian workers to write apps for Microsoft & Facebook and pay them nothing or little as possible, then somebody at Microsoft copies the code they like and put their logo on it and copyright it as inventors. That's the freedom to work on limited contract or without a contract, so corporations don't need to waste money on all this market research themselves. Market research is done by individual lapdogs or lapdog companies. Those directly employed by Facebook really don't have to do nothing at all when they have all those programmers writing free apps for them, expanding ideas, all Facebook has to do is pick one out of billion and reward that person for work and then promote it. During Socialism if you complained about working conditions you had a round table of employees at company and Communistic party members and you wouldn't get fired, but you might get re-educated if you couldn't come to agreement. Nowadays if you complain, you get fired, why? Because corporations own worker unions, they sit at same table and there is no 3rd party(Communists), you are basically peeing in your own mouth when complaining. So those oligarchs are basically police to themselves in most cases, unless they really fuck it up, then country jumps in and either saves them with bailouts or they get punished, but they escape anyway due to their money, so next time the same CEO is in different company and so the ball keeps rolling, CEOs washing each other ass and hands.
>>72929715
>believe my arguments because Imsay so
>no, I can't disprove yours, but because you gave me so many it must be wrong
I will be sad the day chinoot range bans canadians and australians, I really will.
>>72926910
Agreed.
>>72930397
I do consider my arguments were more self-contained than yours. You did not elaborate on your arguments very much apart from disagreeing and posting links, so I'm not even sure what you are arguing for other than "governments cause monopolies", which you did not explain.
It's true that they are the cause of many monopolies though! But all of them? How?
Trump's company has a Human Resources department, which Soviet Russia lacked.
Also you fail to realize that the ultimate goal of capitalism is to destroy itself BECAUSE an objectively better economic system becomes feasible. This will happen when we are able to produce such massive surpluses that we no longer need humans to work. People will simply have all their basic needs at all times. This is the only way socialism can become doable - the elimination of human labor via computer automation.
We simply can't make socialism work when there is a huge demand for human labor because socialism removes the incentive for people to exert above-average effort toward their work to keep the economy growing. As people check out of the labor pool because they are comfortable enough on welfare checks, the government eventually runs out of other people's money. There must be an incentive for people to exert themselves in their labor, and capitalism alone provides this in the best way possible.
>>72930908
>provide links that answer questions he keeps making
>still refuses to address them and insist they are so,ehow not valid
Not fooling anyone, leaf.
>>72931265
I told you, not reading any more of this. Dumping a book on the ground in front of people is not arguing. If you cannot explain yourself, with your own words, in a reasonably succinct manner, then you are not arguing at all.
>>72931487
Leaf, if you can't read less than 1000 words, you aren't really worth the effort of a custom response when a complete one already exist
>>72931625
Seems to be around 5000 words.
>>72931249
Sounds great. Aren't we're already almost there with most of the "productive" labor?
That many people on welfare with nothing to do is bound to cause problems too. We're not enlightened enough... :/
>>72925116
agreed
>>72932444
No, because we still have a gigantic service economy. Just because you don't work in a factory does not mean your labor is not incredibly valuable.
Until all basic needs can be met with automation, we cannot move past capitalism. It is the only system with the required embedded effort/reward incentives to make human civilization become progressively better.
When there is no need for human labor, mankind can devote itself toward intellectual and scientific growth at all times, and we will achieve things only the ancients could conceive of.
But that time is still far away. Perhaps our grandchildren may experience it. Or, perhaps we will reach it in 10 years thanks to a breakthrough in AI technology. Who knows? We live in extremely interesting times.
>>72934384
Oh. Eh so you mean automated FOR REAL. We would basically be like children being taken care of by machines that don't even need maintenance. I don't even want to think about who would hold authority over the AIs.
I wish there were an in-between.
>won WW2 and got an empire out of it to boot
>industrialized the country
>made them the first nation into space
>made them a nuclear power on par with the US, the most powerful country on the globe
>killed a shitload of commies
Are you trying to make Trump sound good or bad?
>>72929649
>And there goes your incentive to innovate and invent.
I find it hard to believe that all human innovation would just come to an end because people can't make money off patents anymore. Couldn't they just, I dunno, make their money by selling the product to people? Maybe they won't be making crazy profits but they'll hardly go out of business either.
>>72930397
How can you actually disprove ancap arguments though? It's always just get rid of government = wonderous utopia with very little explanation as to why that should be so. You never really explain how introducing the profit motive to absolutely everything somehow solves corruption while democratic elections don't. if it's more profitable to be corrupt why wouldn't companies pursue that policy? What's to stop a company from investing all it's profits into military spending so it can become the new state and just rule over everybody else? Would the NAP even allow other groups to attack that company per-emptively or do they have to wait until it actually starts taking over? It all just seems to really too much on everyone being nice to each other all of a sudden, much like any other form of anarchism.
