Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[kranky al]

No, I'm not.

We're talking about a purely socialist society here. See the thread title.

The State own and control most (if not all) the means of production. Private property ownership is severely curtailed (if it's allowed at all).

To do the above, the State requires oppressive and all-encompassing legislation and powers. Powers to stop you from doing things, owning things, forming groups with like-minded people etc.

Leaving aside the invariable tyrannical nature of such a State (and we Liberals have been warning everyone for centuries about what happens when a State has too much power) there is the unavoidable fact that as you increase the amount of 'Socialism' your Nation becomes more stagnant, innovation is stifled, and personal liberty is curtailed.

When you get all the way to full blown Communism, you wind up with... well look around at literally every Communist nation that has actually existed ever. You can see what you wind up with.

Conversely, every single time a Communist/ Socialist State has gone the other way and wound back Socialist practices and laws (Vietnam, China, East Germany, Poland, much of the former USSR) its economy (and the quality of life for its people) drastically improve.

You can literally see the difference with East Germany vs West Germany, China v Hong Kong/ Taiwan, North v South Korea and other examples.

Same country, same people, same starting economies side by side. In every example the Capitalist versions produced better outcomes (economic development, personal freedoms, Human development, purchasing power, etc) for the people of the Capitalist countries over the Socialist versions, and it wasn't even close,

Socialism doesn't work. Marx is right up there with Freud as a great thinker who is often cited (and looked on with a level of reverence) but his theorems (like those of Freud) have been widely debunked and falsified with time.



Explain what happened with Workchoices then.

Landslide election victory, Government booted from office, now the Coalition are too scared to even say the 'W' word in public.

Corporations might have the money, but we have the vote, and Politicians answer to us, not the Corporations.

Ok let me attack this from a different angle.

What do you see as the difference between socialism and communism?


Here’s what dictionary.com has to say:

Socialism is a social theory. It theorizes that a collective cooperation of citizens will make all governmental institutions public. For example, no one will receive a healthcare bill when going to the doctor because they, and everyone else, have paid a hefty amount in government taxes. That’s where the collective cooperation comes in.

What is communism?​

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism. It’s similar in that it’s still founded on the idea of collective cooperation, but differs in that communists believe that cooperation should be run by a totalitarian government made up of one and only one government.

 

[Malifice]

Ok let me attack this from a different angle.

What do you see as the difference between socialism and communism?


Here’s what dictionary.com has to say:

Socialism is a social theory. It theorizes that a collective cooperation of citizens will make all governmental institutions public. For example, no one will receive a healthcare bill when going to the doctor because they, and everyone else, have paid a hefty amount in government taxes. That’s where the collective cooperation comes in.

What is communism?​

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism. It’s similar in that it’s still founded on the idea of collective cooperation, but differs in that communists believe that cooperation should be run by a totalitarian government made up of one and only one government.

From your own link:

Socialism has three main meanings:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

The State own (or control) the means of production and distribution of capital and land.

Government owned and controlled. Not in private hands. If those things are in private hands, and are being run or owned for profit in competition with other private citizens (and groups of citizens, arranged in a Corporation), that's not Socialism, that's Capitalism.

 

[kranky al]

From your own link:



https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

The State own (or control) the means of production and distribution of capital and land.

Government owned and controlled. Not in private hands. If those things are in private hands, and are being run or owned for profit in competition with other private citizens (and groups of citizens, arranged in a Corporation), that's not Socialism, that's Capitalism.

I think you really misunderstand.

In the community as a whole doesn’t mean the state owns it. It means the workers own it. Workers Co- ops for instance. Early socialist movements encouraged worker coops to buy shares in the companies they worked in so they had both a voice in what went on and a vested interest in the company doing well.

There’s a difference between socialism and communism - of course it’s blurred and argued about. Socialism is a broad church that runs from Swedish style democratic socialism to more austere versions - just like capitalism can have various forms.

But communism is an extreme thats so far to the left it’s got its own designation.

 

[Malifice]

I think you really misunderstand.

In the community as a whole doesn’t mean the state owns it. It means the workers own it. Workers Co- ops for instance.

Which is something you can do right now, here, in the USA and in every other liberal capitalist nation.

Early socialist movements encouraged worker coops to buy shares in the companies they worked in so they had both a voice in what went on and a vested interest in the company doing well.

Again, there is nothing stopping you owning shares in the place you work under liberal capitalism.

We just don't have a State forcing this system on anyone.

There’s a difference between socialism and communism - of course it’s blurred and argued about.

Communism is just 100 percent Socialism. Socialism taken the full monty.

Seeing as this thread is about a 'purely socialist' society (which is effectively indistinguishable from Communism at that point), it's much of the muchness.

I'm not saying liberal capitalism is perfect by the way. In a way it's like democracy, an imperfect system with flaws, but the best one we have to live under.

 

[kranky al]

From your own link:



https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

The State own (or control) the means of production and distribution of capital and land.

Government owned and controlled. Not in private hands. If those things are in private hands, and are being run or owned for profit in competition with other private citizens (and groups of citizens, arranged in a Corporation), that's not Socialism, that's Capitalism.

It’s right there in the link

<<<

What is socialism?​

Socialism has three main meanings:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism is a social theory … makes sense. It theorizes that a collective cooperation of citizens will make all governmental institutions public. For example, no one will receive a healthcare bill when going to the doctor because they, and everyone else, have paid a hefty amount in government taxes. That’s where the collective cooperation comes in.

What is communism?​

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism. It’s similar in that it’s still founded on the idea of collective cooperation, but differs in that communists believe that cooperation should be run by a totalitarian government made up of one and only one government.>>>

You are essentially arguing that there is no difference.

 

[Malifice]

It’s right there in the link

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

 

[btdg]

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

I think the error here is in assuming that a 'purely socialist society' can exist without almost everything else about society changing as well.

We can't just slap down a socialist system tomorrow... rather it has to emerge, either gradually (with moderation progression made over time) or radically (out of a crisis - revolution, or a natural disaster etc) - the many varied and different socialist philosophers can all give different perspectives on that.

But I would assume that by the time we reach a 'purely socialist society' everything about society is different, including your perspectives, and the scenario changes too. In this case, I imagine it is more realistic to say something like:

"I and my mates recognise that our skills and talents could be utilised in a more fulfilling way if we started our own productive enterprise. We formed a new worker's collective, inviting fellow citizens to join with full ownership rights, and with everyone receiving both a living wage and share of the profits, while paying an appropriate level of taxation to support the vital services and infrastructure that supports our vibrant society. Our enterprise purchased suitable productive resources (which we will maintain sustainably, and relinquish when we can no longer use them efficiently) and made use of technology shared freely under an open source model, and having identified improvements to the productive process, we freely shared these so that others could benefit from our advancements"

Of course to get to that point requires radical changes in:

• the nature and relations of production; including the way that individuals organise themselves and participate in 'work'
• the way taxes are used, levied, and understood
• the legal system -> which evolves from something that aims to protect private property, to something that aims to provide equity and justice for all
• The way we view ourselves in relation to others - not in some sort of contest to extract as much as possible before others beat us to it, but as part of a community/network in which we all have a vested interest in seeing others thrive just as much as we are

That's a vastly different... everything... which is sort of the point. But without recognising that, it is easy to look and think 'well how does any of this happen without state violence...'

But go back to what predates capitalism and apply the same sentence: "I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth)."

Under the Feudal system, almost nothing in that sentence makes sense. There's no such thing as a company, for starters. Individuals don't have the right to start a business for profit. Work isn't arranged by 'hiring people, who we pay a salary to' - work is organised through a complex system of social relationships and ties. There's no 'ownership of property'; it's all provided by the grace of the King, and again tied to complex relationships and dues. There's certainly no 'intellectual property, such as trademarks', whatever that means...

And again, that's the point... capitalism changed everything; and a 'purely socialist' society could only be described in a way that requires a complete leap in thought from where we are today. The one difference, I think, is that in the modern world there has always been a much bigger emphasis on the 'what if...' way of thinking (which capitalism kind of requires... see you example about starting a business) and thus we are far more conditioned today to think about a different world than your typical medieval peasant (and thus capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction on something along those lines...)

 

[Malifice]

"I and my mates recognise that our skills and talents could be utilised in a more fulfilling way if we started our own productive enterprise. We formed a new worker's collective, inviting fellow citizens to join with full ownership rights, and with everyone receiving both a living wage and share of the profits, while paying an appropriate level of taxation to support the vital services and infrastructure that supports our vibrant society. Our enterprise purchased suitable productive resources (which we will maintain sustainably, and relinquish when we can no longer use them efficiently) and made use of technology shared freely under an open source model, and having identified improvements to the productive process, we freely shared these so that others could benefit from our advancements"

You can literally do the above right now. There is nothing stopping you.

My opposition is to the State telling people they must do it that way. I prefer the current model of 'do it how you want to, for profit or as a collective, it's up to you'.

As a side note, with the current freedom to do things either way (as a collective, or for profit) people generally don't run things as collectives and overwhelmingly run businesses for profit.

Which should answer your question about the odds of the majority of people in society suddenly shifting to desiring altruistic socialism absent any State compulsion.

It's not going to happen. Humans don't operate like that.

But go back to what predates capitalism and apply the same sentence: "I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth)."

Under the Feudal system, almost nothing in that sentence makes sense. There's no such thing as a company, for starters. Individuals don't have the right to start a business for profit. Work isn't arranged by 'hiring people, who we pay a salary to' - work is organised through a complex system of social relationships and ties. There's no 'ownership of property'; it's all provided by the grace of the King, and again tied to complex relationships and dues. There's certainly no 'intellectual property, such as trademarks', whatever that means...

Under the Feudal system, people were literally forced to work in communes based around the local Lords manor as Serfs and were forbidden from owning any property themselves (all property was owned by the King/ Barons/ Lords/ Knights in that order, and also by the Church).

So it was basically medieval Communism. The only difference being Feudalism contains an express hierarchy (Serf to Lord, to Baron to King etc) whereas Communism purports to abolish hierarchies (which of course, it never does with Party members becoming the new Lords pulling all the strings and wielding all the power, and the Party leader usually ruling as a dictator with vast powers).

It's no co-incidence that at least 1 Communist movement (the Khmer Rouge) sought to implement that exact system by murdering anyone with a high school education (literally millions of people) and seeking to turn the entire nation of Cambodia into an agrarian feudal society.

I'm a leftie. In that space I frequently associate with Socialists and Communists. I shake my head at them every time. It's not only never worked, but in the places it has actually been implemented (in literally scores of nations) it invariably (invariably) descends into a stagnant tyranny that only starts to improve when the market gets liberalized (Vietnam, Ukraine, Poland, China etc) and the Socialist measures get wound back.

If it was just that it didnt work that would be bad enough, but it also leads to a tyranny that is worse than what was present before.

Hard pass.

 

[barreness]

The minimum wage is a creature of Legislation; Corporations don't control that. They also don't control Unions.

They can throw money around, but ultimately Workers have more votes.



Quite the opposite. Profiteering (shifting manufacturing to 'third world former Socialist countries' like Vietnam etc) has actually resulted in the standards of living for literally billions of people drastically improving.

Look at every single former Socialist nation, that has now embraced capitalism. You'll see a sudden and dramatic spike in standard of living, and a booming middle class.

Quality of life improves under (liberal) capitalism. It stagnates under Socialism.




I agree more should be done to stop tax havens existing, and to ensure everyone pays a fair amount of tax.

The reality of globalization and competition means that it's a hard thing to pin down. Treaties would go a long way to fix it, but no-one wants that because large Corporations (like Amazon) generate trillions of dollars of economic activity in the places where they operate (making life better for everyone that lives in those places).

Tax them harder, and that economic activity slows down making life worse for everyone. There are fewer jobs, more competition for the jobs that do exist, which leads to lower wages and so on.

Low corporate tax rates actually has a net positive impact for workers.

Of course, the Companies themselves then want to pay CEO's tens of millions per annum, and that's what needs to be stopped.

Almost all former soviet countries suffered a catastrophic loss of quality of life and a decade or more in the doldrums, similar with Yugoslavia. Shock doctrine was not kind to any of them

 

[Seeds]

There is no difference between purely socialism and communism.

Workers owning capital rather then the government simply means the workers are capitalists. Just like equity owners are today. Thus such a system is not purely socialist cos it involves capitalist elements.

 

[Malifice]

Almost all former soviet countries suffered a catastrophic loss of quality of life and a decade or more in the doldrums, similar with Yugoslavia. Shock doctrine was not kind to any of them

Poland (Polish Peoples Republic dissolved in '89 following USSR perestroika in'88):



Vietnam (In 1986 Vietnam launched the 'Doi Moi' campaign that switched the economy from a centrally planned socialst one, to a free market economy):



Germany (and again, notice the spike in Eastern Germany following perestroika in 1989 and the end of socialism in the East. notice also the marked difference in the economies of West v East, under capitalism and socialism respectively leading up to that point):



Socialist China vs Capitalist Taiwan (note the changes in China following free market economic reforms in the late 20th century):



North Korea vs South Korea:



I could go on, and on, and on.

The data is in. The evidence is overwhelming.

While liberal capitalism is not perfect (poverty at one end, and excess at the other) for the majority in the middle, the standard of living is far superior to socialism, and the freedoms that go along with it (including the freedom to start a non for profit Co-Op and live in a commune, if that's what you want to do) are simply unsurpassed.

I know I rail on about this a lot, but it still surprises me that people other than 1st year Uni students with (unironic) Che Guevara shirts and a copy of the Manifesto at home next to their bongs actually think Socialism is a good thing.

Well intentioned, but terrible in actual practice.

 

[barreness]

Lies and statistics right

Poland (Polish Peoples Republic dissolved in '89 following USSR perestroika in'88):

View attachment 2153614

Poland yeh, was one of the worst run communists states, thats why the shock doctrine dip is so low. Go through every SSR or former Yugoslav state and the main trend is a massive loss in quality of life for a decade or more

.
Vietnam (In 1986 Vietnam launched the 'Doi Moi' campaign that switched the economy from a centrally planned socialst one, to a free market economy):

View attachment 2153616

Still a marxist leninist state to this day, so your point is moot. A market reform in a communist state is no more a capitalist move than single payer health care is socialism in a capitalist state

Germany (and again, notice the spike in Eastern Germany following perestroika in 1989 and the end of socialism in the East. notice also the marked difference in the economies of West v East, under capitalism and socialism respectively leading up to that point):

View attachment 2153619

GDP per capita is no measure of inequality within a state, it's a crude measure. It doesn't reflect a workers standard of living

Socialist China vs Capitalist Taiwan (note the changes in China following free market economic reforms in the late 20th century):

View attachment 2153621

So you don't think China lifted 100's of millions out of poverty? I'm sure you were a fan of the brutal dictatorship of taiwan

North Korea vs South Korea:

View attachment 2153626

Again, another former dictatorship that you're a big fan off. You need PPP for this measure because NK was above SK by almost every metric until the fall of the USSR and the famines hit(sanctions/climate/poor management all had an effect)

I could go on, and on, and on.

The data is in. The evidence is overwhelming.

Nah, you're using one metric, GDP per capita(sometimes PPP and sometimes 'real' figures). No one sane would suggest this reflects the quality of life of an average individual in a society.

There is no one measure that can do this, you could add inequality measures(gini) or medium ppp income to get a better idea

Then throw in these days when we need to be de industrialising and talking about sufficiency rather than growth

While liberal capitalism is not perfect (poverty at one end, and excess at the other) for the majority in the middle, the standard of living is far superior to socialism, and the freedoms that go along with it (including the freedom to start a non for profit Co-Op and live in a commune, if that's what you want to do) are simply unsurpassed.

I agree, "Capitalism is both the best thing that ever happened to humanity and the worst thing"*

*I stole this from somewhere and google isn't being helpful


It's currently the hegemonic politico economic ideology that is killing the biosphere. I consider suicide cults a bad thing so I'm willing to explore more options, there would be no reason to repeat the mistakes of any state

I know I rail on about this a lot, but it still surprises me that people other than 1st year Uni students with (unironic) Che Guevara shirts and a copy of the Manifesto at home next to their bongs actually think Socialism is a good thing.

It's quite simple. The profit and growth model central to capitalism will kill the earth, its an infinite model in a finite reality.

You're a lawyer right? Almost every agrees that it's a Byzantine practice that serves itself far more than anything else. Yet you still do it? why?

Well intentioned, but terrible in actual practice.

It's a mode of production, that comes with politics(as they all do). If all the mistakes of capitalism were added up you'd surely say the same thing, or is it ideological?

 

[kranky al]

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

A state run fire service is socialism
A state run medical system is socialism
A state run military is socialism
A state run emergency service is socialism


If you want to start your own business and pay people to work for you that’s fine, what you won’t be able to do is pay off politicians to keep an artificially low minimum wage so you can make more profit.

What you won’t be able to do is pay politicians to engage in aggressive anti - union policies.

You won’t be able to use zero hour contracts

You won’t be able to keep full time employees as casual with no benefits.

If your company goes public you will be encouraged to have part of your remuneration to employees be in the form of shares whether that be as individuals or as a collective employees group. This means you will have employees with a vested interest in your company doing well.

You will be competing with other companies that are entirely owned by workers collectives for available talent. Chances are if you are paying your ceo 351 times what your average worker gets, as is the case in 2020* - you aren’t going to be able to afford to pay your lower end people what they would earn at a collectively owned business. This means you will get a lower grade of employeee.

* source: https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/#:~:text=CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322% since 1978 CEOs,not simply reflect the market for skills


Basically it returns us to your average workers conditions in the 60’s and early 70’s - or you know, the Nordic countries now….

Where families with a low income could afford to buy a house.

 

[Malifice]

A state run fire service is socialism
A state run medical system is socialism
A state run military is socialism
A state run emergency service is socialism

None of those things are 'the means of production'.

And liberalism (which has nothing to do with socialism) is why we have those things. Because its the duty of a Liberal State to protect its citizens from harm.

That's the only reason the State exists.

 

[Malifice]

Lies and statistics right

Poland yeh, was one of the worst run communists states, thats why the shock doctrine dip is so low. Go through every SSR or former Yugoslav state and the main trend is a massive loss in quality of life for a decade or more

Firstly, Yugoslavia is an outlier because it's been wrought with a raging ethnic conflict in the decades post perestroika. You cant ignore the fact its been tearing itself apart for most of the past 40 years.

And secondly, I didnt just post economic results for Poland, I also posted them for China, Vietnam, North Korea and East Germany (which account for over 1/3 of the world's population).

China (vs Taiwan), East Germany (vs West Germany) and North Korea (vs South Korea) were even starker examples because they show clear and overwhelming evidence of literally the same peoples, with the same starting position, the same culture and the same ethnicity but each going a different way - and hazard a guess which (out of the capitalist vs the communist States) fared infinitely better?

The evidence is overwhelming.

In literally every single former Communist State, since ditching Communism and embracing the free market (and I mean in literally every single one of them) GDP has drastically increased, quality of life has drastically improved, freedoms and liberty have drastically expanded, and there is also this:

So you don't think China lifted 100's of millions out of poverty?

No I'm saying 'Free Market liberal capitalism would have been quicker and less genocidal'.

Chinas 'Great leap forward' killed 15-40 million people in famines in the 60's.

An original estimate of the final death toll (of the Famine) ranged from 15 to 40 million. According to Frank Dikötter, a chair professor of humanities at the University of Hong Kong and the author of Mao's Great Famine, a book which details the Great Leap Forward and the consequences of the strong armed implementation of the economic reform, the total number of people who were killed in the famine which lasted from 1958 to 1962 ran upwards of 45 million. Of those who were killed in the famine, 6–8% of them were often tortured first and then prematurely killed by the government, 2% of them committed suicide and 5% of them died in Mao's labor camps which were built to hold those who were labelled "enemies of the people".[195] In an article for The New York Times, Dikötter also references severe punishments for slight infractions such as being buried alive for stealing a handful of grain or losing an ear and being branded for digging up a potato.[196]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

Of course, after that, millions more were purged during the Cultural revolution:

The Cultural Revolution was characterized by violence and chaos across Chinese society, including a massacre in Guangxi that included acts of cannibalism, as well as massacres in Beijing, Inner Mongolia, Guangdong, Yunnan, and Hunan.[1] Estimates of the death toll vary widely, typically ranging from 1–2 million. Red Guards sought to destroy the Four Olds (old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits), which often took the form of destroying historical artifacts, cultural and religious sites, and targeting others deemed to be representative of the Four Olds. Tens of millions were persecuted, including senior officials: most notably, president Liu Shaoqi, as well as Deng Xiaoping, Peng Dehuai, and He Long. Millions were persecuted for being members of the Five Black Categories. Intellectuals and scientists were considered to be the Stinking Old Ninth, and many were persecuted. The country's schools and universities were closed, and the National College Entrance Examination were cancelled. Over 10 million youth from urban areas were relocated under the Down to the Countryside Movement policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll

You're putting China forward as an example of 'Good Socialism'? Even leaving the above aside, China only started getting its shit together (and people's lives actually improved) when they ditched pure socialism and implemented free market reforms.

NK was above SK by almost every metric until the fall of the USSR and the famines hit(sanctions/climate/poor management all had an effect)

You mean to say 'as soon as Russia stopped propping the economy of North Korea up, it went utterly **** up.'

Here is a map of the Korean peninsula at night:



There is no starker an image that shows the discrepancy between Communism and Capitalism that I could show you than above.

Again, Liberal capitalism is not perfect. In that glowing wealthy bit to the South there are hundreds of thousands in abject poverty (even if millions in the middle classes are doing it well).

I still reckon even they the impoverished of the South it better than literally everyone North of the 38th parallel (barring Kim and his cronies running the show of course).

Nah, you're using one metric, GDP per capita(sometimes PPP and sometimes 'real' figures). No one sane would suggest this reflects the quality of life of an average individual in a society.

What? Quality of life in the Capitalist nations was significantly better (for the majority). People fled Cuba to head to the USA, crossed the Berlin Wall to head West and defected from North Korea to the South for a reason (and not, generally speaking, the other way around).

Life in Communist States was (and is) utterly ****ed. You have zero freedoms. Shit is stagnant. The State controll every aspect of your life.

Everyone is poor (but at least they're equally poor).

Well.. everyone is poor except the Communist party hierarchy that run the show of course. They have billions. Gold plated Lamborghinis and harems of women.

And those people exist at the top in every single communist shithole.

Just like us Liberals warned you would happen.

You're a lawyer right? Almost every agrees that it's a Byzantine practice that serves itself far more than anything else. Yet you still do it? why?

I'm a community legal sector lawyer. I help people in not for profits.

And no, Law doesnt serve itself. Punters get into trouble with the law (or wish to avoid trouble with the law) so they come to us for advice and assistance.

If you want to describe that as 'Byzantine' be my guest.

 

[Mags98]

What? Quality of life in the Capitalist nations was significantly better (for the majority). People fled Cuba to head to the USA, crossed the Berlin Wall to head West and defected from North Korea to the South for a reason (and not, generally speaking, the other way around).

youre ignoring a lot of context in these scenarios though. states like Cuba and the DPRK have suffered from global embargoes for decades just for one small example, how can these small nations be expected to flourish in these circumstances?

like sure in a vacuum seems like socialist states are failing but theres a lot more to it than that

 

[Malifice]

youre ignoring a lot of context in these scenarios though. states like Cuba and the DPRK have suffered from global embargoes for decades just for one small example, how can these small nations be expected to flourish in these circumstances?

North Korea yes, but Cuba has only had to deal with a US embargo.

Firstly, the bits of the USSR that were not Russia (and non-USSR States like Cuba and NK) were only viable due to money pumped into them from the Russians (which ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Union).

You can see what happened here after the USSR stopped propping up the Cuban economy (in 1989 post perestroika):



Their economy tanked once the Soviets pulled out.

And why should it matter to a Socialist State if it's banned from doing business with a Capitalist one (like the USA)?

There aren't any traders in Cuba trying to make a profit selling their wares overseas (or indeed even allowed to), or Cuban companies investing in factories overseas, or any trade to speak of (because no-one owns anything, and you're expressly not allowed to invest for profit).

Unless you're talking about the Socialist State itself selling the goods and services of its own people (which the Socialist State owns) for a profit overseas, for the benefit of the States citizens?

If so I'd retort with the fact that if the Socialist State is doing this (selling its citizens goods and services for a profit overseas, something that is banned within the country), what the heck does that say about Socialism when the best way to improve the lives of the members of your Socialist society is to... capitalize on the work of those members by selling their labor for profit?

Or, you know... by being capitalist.

If trade for profit is so important to improve the lives of your citizens, then maybe allow them to trade for profit.

like sure in a vacuum seems like socialist states are failing but theres a lot more to it than that

Socialist States are (by nature) insular. There is literally no such thing as 'foreign investment' in a socialist State. As an individual you cant exactly benefit from globalism when you can't invest (or indeed you dont even own the goods you produce) and if a Socialist State is selling goods overseas, it's doing so for a profit, which defeats the whole purpose of being socialist in the first place (and kind of highlights why socialism doesnt work).

Marx was wrong. J.S. Mill was right.

The invisible hand of competition and commerce is the tool that provides for economic prosperity for all.

Two bakers in a village, under a free market, will compete with each other and attempt to bake the best possible bread, for the lowest possible price to attract the biggest market share.

Who benefits from that system? Everyone else in the village.

In a Socialist economy, some dude just gets appointed the village baker and he makes what he makes, and then goes home to the house that was given to him. People in his town, get what's fed to them, whether they like it or not.

Now scale the above system up and see why socialism is a stagnant awful mess that badly lags behind free market capitalism in every metric (political and economic freedoms, quality of life, HDI, GDP and so forth).

 

[peetoo]

Is commonwealthism a thing.

Australia is a commonwealth

 

[peetoo]

North Korea yes, but Cuba has only had to deal with a US embargo.

Firstly, the bits of the USSR that were not Russia (and non-USSR States like Cuba and NK) were only viable due to money pumped into them from the Russians (which ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Union).

You can see what happened here after the USSR stopped propping up the Cuban economy (in 1989 post perestroika):

View attachment 2156165

Their economy tanked once the Soviets pulled out.

And why should it matter to a Socialist State if it's banned from doing business with a Capitalist one (like the USA)?

There aren't any traders in Cuba trying to make a profit selling their wares overseas (or indeed even allowed to), or Cuban companies investing in factories overseas, or any trade to speak of (because no-one owns anything, and you're expressly not allowed to invest for profit).

Unless you're talking about the Socialist State itself selling the goods and services of its own people (which the Socialist State owns) for a profit overseas, for the benefit of the States citizens?

If so I'd retort with the fact that if the Socialist State is doing this (selling its citizens goods and services for a profit overseas, something that is banned within the country), what the heck does that say about Socialism when the best way to improve the lives of the members of your Socialist society is to... capitalize on the work of those members by selling their labor for profit?

Or, you know... by being capitalist.

If trade for profit is so important to improve the lives of your citizens, then maybe allow them to trade for profit.



Socialist States are (by nature) insular. There is literally no such thing as 'foreign investment' in a socialist State. As an individual you cant exactly benefit from globalism when you can't invest (or indeed you dont even own the goods you produce) and if a Socialist State is selling goods overseas, it's doing so for a profit, which defeats the whole purpose of being socialist in the first place (and kind of highlights why socialism doesnt work).

Marx was wrong. J.S. Mill was right.

The invisible hand of competition and commerce is the tool that provides for economic prosperity for all.

Two bakers in a village, under a free market, will compete with each other and attempt to bake the best possible bread, for the lowest possible price to attract the biggest market share.

Who benefits from that system? Everyone else in the village.

In a Socialist economy, some dude just gets appointed the village baker and he makes what he makes, and then goes home to the house that was given to him. People in his town, get what's fed to them, whether they like it or not.

Now scale the above system up and see why socialism is a stagnant awful mess that badly lags behind free market capitalism in every metric (political and economic freedoms, quality of life, HDI, GDP and so forth).

What when they conspire to make themselves rich at the expense of the rest of the village?

Mr coles and Mr Woolworth. They also work with village leaders to prevent any further competition.

What ‘ intrinsic’ part of capitalism ensures they compete?

 

[btdg]

North Korea yes, but Cuba has only had to deal with a US embargo.

Firstly, the bits of the USSR that were not Russia (and non-USSR States like Cuba and NK) were only viable due to money pumped into them from the Russians (which ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Union).

You can see what happened here after the USSR stopped propping up the Cuban economy (in 1989 post perestroika):

View attachment 2156165

Their economy tanked once the Soviets pulled out.

And why should it matter to a Socialist State if it's banned from doing business with a Capitalist one (like the USA)?

There aren't any traders in Cuba trying to make a profit selling their wares overseas (or indeed even allowed to), or Cuban companies investing in factories overseas, or any trade to speak of (because no-one owns anything, and you're expressly not allowed to invest for profit).

Unless you're talking about the Socialist State itself selling the goods and services of its own people (which the Socialist State owns) for a profit overseas, for the benefit of the States citizens?

If so I'd retort with the fact that if the Socialist State is doing this (selling its citizens goods and services for a profit overseas, something that is banned within the country), what the heck does that say about Socialism when the best way to improve the lives of the members of your Socialist society is to... capitalize on the work of those members by selling their labor for profit?

Or, you know... by being capitalist.

If trade for profit is so important to improve the lives of your citizens, then maybe allow them to trade for profit.



Socialist States are (by nature) insular. There is literally no such thing as 'foreign investment' in a socialist State. As an individual you cant exactly benefit from globalism when you can't invest (or indeed you dont even own the goods you produce) and if a Socialist State is selling goods overseas, it's doing so for a profit, which defeats the whole purpose of being socialist in the first place (and kind of highlights why socialism doesnt work).

Marx was wrong. J.S. Mill was right.

The invisible hand of competition and commerce is the tool that provides for economic prosperity for all.

Two bakers in a village, under a free market, will compete with each other and attempt to bake the best possible bread, for the lowest possible price to attract the biggest market share.

Who benefits from that system? Everyone else in the village.

In a Socialist economy, some dude just gets appointed the village baker and he makes what he makes, and then goes home to the house that was given to him. People in his town, get what's fed to them, whether they like it or not.

Now scale the above system up and see why socialism is a stagnant awful mess that badly lags behind free market capitalism in every metric (political and economic freedoms, quality of life, HDI, GDP and so forth).

I think you need to broaden your understanding of socialism and what it is (and could be). You seem intent on defining it in very narrow ways that then lead to very specific conclusions.

Socialism isn't just the Soviet Union or China (under Communist Party leadership); it's a wide and varied set of philosophical ideas that essentially boil down to 'democratisation of the economic sphere'. It's a broad philosophy that incorporates unionism, political parties like the ALP and a broad range of thinkers - from Albert Einstein and George Orwell, to Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King, and yes, of course, Marx, Lenin and Mao ( although these fit more under a very specific subset who advocate for 'communism' - depending on your viewpoint that's something else entirely).

There's so much here that could be explored further, but to start with I think your characterisation of Marx and Mill is worthy of a question or two. For example, here's two quotes:

"(capitalism) during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together"

"First, I must repeat my conviction... The industrial economy which divides society absolutely into two portions, the payers of wages and the receivers of them, the first counted by thousands and the last by millions, is neither fit for, nor capable of, indefinite duration: and the possibility of changing this system for one of combination without dependence, and unity of interest instead of organized hostility, depends altogether upon the future developments of the Partnership principle."

The first quote is from Karl Marx, who was an ardent admirer of the capitalist mode of production (at least in contrast to what came before it) and recognised its transformative impact on people and living standards. The second, is, of course, from John Stuart Mill, who recognised the limitations (and inherent instability) of capitalism and the need to leverage the tremendous wealth created in the system to build a society based on mutual interests. The two weren't actually that far apart in their views (and there's a pretty good game you can play trying to 'guess the writer' with quotes by Adam Smith and Marx...)

Beyond that, the assertion that socialist states wouldn't engage in international trade is silly. All societies trade, and the benefits of trade are undeniable. A socialist society might aim to ensure that trade is leveraged towards the benefit of the people (rather than multinational corporations), and that those affected by free trade (ie workers in trade-competing industries) are better supported and looked after, but no-one has ever suggested banning it, and the trade embargoes on Cuba, Venezuela and other states simply for electing socialist governments are simply inhumane.

Likewise, the example of bakers is completely silly. Independent, self-employed bakers aren't 'capitalism' - they existed for thousands of years prior, and could exist under almost any socialist (or other) system. 'Capitalism' might be just as accurately described by imagining a scenario as:

"there are two bakers operating independently in a village, competing with each other and baking healthy, nutritious bread that is affordable for the people of the town. A large multinational corporation comes to town, and sets up a massive supermarket. It mass produces bread, using unhealthy ingredients, in a foreign country where labour is cheaper, using industrial equipment purchased with borrowed money. The corporation undercuts the prices of the local bakers, driving them out of business, then once it has established monopoly power raises them above where they were to start with. One of the bakers gets a job at a local shoe factory, where he earns far less money than before. The other remains an unemployed 'failure', spirals into depression and alcoholism. Both are pretty miserable but satiate themselves by watching netflix and arguing on internet forums'

You can go likewise back and forth on the merits of the USSR, Cuba, whatever, as well. And communist (and socialist) countries do have a history of authoritarianism, poor policy decisions, etc. But capitalist countries also have a dark past - of slavery, genocide, colonisation, poverty, and war. The famines of China (caused by a vulnerable agricultural sector and freak weather events, and exacerbated by the disastrous 'Great Leap Forward') have their counterparts in the Great Bengal Famine (caused by a crop failure and smallpox outbreak, and exacerbated by the disastrous actions of the East India company).

Ultimately, I think it worth at least asking the question about a 'purely socialist society' while recognising that we are leagues and miles off such a thing ever occurring- in Australia, but also even in countries led by Communist parties, who mostly seem to have recognised the problems with trying to change too much, too fast, and lent into a mixed economy while still maintaining a level of government control. But the hypothetical itself lends itself to thinking about what change IS realistic, even the types of change that might create a better society for all of us

 

[kranky al]

None of those things are 'the means of production'.

And liberalism (which has nothing to do with socialism) is why we have those things. Because its the duty of a Liberal State to protect its citizens from harm.

That's the only reason the State exists.

North Korea yes, but Cuba has only had to deal with a US embargo.

Firstly, the bits of the USSR that were not Russia (and non-USSR States like Cuba and NK) were only viable due to money pumped into them from the Russians (which ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Union).

You can see what happened here after the USSR stopped propping up the Cuban economy (in 1989 post perestroika):

View attachment 2156165

Their economy tanked once the Soviets pulled out.

And why should it matter to a Socialist State if it's banned from doing business with a Capitalist one (like the USA)?

There aren't any traders in Cuba trying to make a profit selling their wares overseas (or indeed even allowed to), or Cuban companies investing in factories overseas, or any trade to speak of (because no-one owns anything, and you're expressly not allowed to invest for profit).

Unless you're talking about the Socialist State itself selling the goods and services of its own people (which the Socialist State owns) for a profit overseas, for the benefit of the States citizens?

If so I'd retort with the fact that if the Socialist State is doing this (selling its citizens goods and services for a profit overseas, something that is banned within the country), what the heck does that say about Socialism when the best way to improve the lives of the members of your Socialist society is to... capitalize on the work of those members by selling their labor for profit?

Or, you know... by being capitalist.

If trade for profit is so important to improve the lives of your citizens, then maybe allow them to trade for profit.



Socialist States are (by nature) insular. There is literally no such thing as 'foreign investment' in a socialist State. As an individual you cant exactly benefit from globalism when you can't invest (or indeed you dont even own the goods you produce) and if a Socialist State is selling goods overseas, it's doing so for a profit, which defeats the whole purpose of being socialist in the first place (and kind of highlights why socialism doesnt work).

Marx was wrong. J.S. Mill was right.

The invisible hand of competition and commerce is the tool that provides for economic prosperity for all.

Two bakers in a village, under a free market, will compete with each other and attempt to bake the best possible bread, for the lowest possible price to attract the biggest market share.

Who benefits from that system? Everyone else in the village.

In a Socialist economy, some dude just gets appointed the village baker and he makes what he makes, and then goes home to the house that was given to him. People in his town, get what's fed to them, whether they like it or not.

Now scale the above system up and see why socialism is a stagnant awful mess that badly lags behind free market capitalism in every metric (political and economic freedoms, quality of life, HDI, GDP and so forth).

Again.

What’s the difference between socialism and communism….

 

[peetoo]

That doco on tv about Cuba where the lady went to see world class ballet concert for peanuts, but had been waiting years for the govt to fix a big hole in her roof

 

[Malifice]

What’s the difference between socialism and communism….

Communism is what you get when you have a purely socialist society.

 

[Malifice]

I think you need to broaden your understanding of socialism and what it is (and could be). You seem intent on defining it in very narrow ways that then lead to very specific conclusions.

Socialism isn't just the Soviet Union or China (under Communist Party leadership); it's a wide and varied set of philosophical ideas that essentially boil down to 'democratisation of the economic sphere'. It's a broad philosophy that incorporates unionism, political parties like the ALP and a broad range of thinkers - from Albert Einstein and George Orwell, to Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King, and yes, of course, Marx, Lenin and Mao ( although these fit more under a very specific subset who advocate for 'communism' - depending on your viewpoint that's something else entirely).

Socialism is not 'democratization of the economic sphere'. Under socialism, the economic sphere is controlled (or owned, or both) by the State. The economy is not democratic, it becomes tyrannical.

The most democratic form of economics is the free market.

The second, is, of course, from John Stuart Mill, who recognised the limitations (and inherent instability) of capitalism and the need to leverage the tremendous wealth created in the system to build a society based on mutual interests.

You're partially correct here. But you're characterizing Mills strong support for Liberal checks and balances on the free market (prohibitions on cartels, price fixing etc) as some kind of wink and a nod towards socialism.

To characterize the Wealth of Nations (or Mill generally) as in any way advocating for Socialist economics is a bridge too far.

Im not one of those libertarian fools who tries to position Mill as arguing for an economic system totally free from Government regulation. Mill expressly argued for a regulated (by the State) free market, as he quite clearly saw the inevitability and the problems that cartels, monopolies etc (and other nefarious trade practices) could create (by weakening or removing the benefits of the invisible hand).

The two weren't actually that far apart in their views (and there's a pretty good game you can play trying to 'guess the writer' with quotes by Adam Smith and Marx...)

Mill and Marx were polar opposites in what they advocated for. Marx may have been prepared to accept some good in Capitalism, but that doesnt mean he was a supporter of it.

And you can't argue that JS Mill advocated in any way for State ownership and control of the means of production (beyond that which is required of the liberal State, to protect people from harm). His central thesis was freedom from State ownership and control (beyond that which was liberal) was what allows for the invisible hand to operate, which advances society, and provides the greater good for all (or at least for most).

Beyond that, the assertion that socialist states wouldn't engage in international trade is silly. All societies trade, and the benefits of trade are undeniable.

Yet under socialism the members of the society itself are forbidden from benefitting from trade.

Your whole position here is:

1. You agree with the obvious, that trade is beneficial.
2. You simultaneously argue for socialism (a system that literally holds that people should be forbidden from trading their goods and services to others for benefit).

Let me give you an example of how crazy this is.

take Mikhail Kalashnikov. Soviet designer and inventor of the AK-47 Rifle.

Of the estimated 500 million firearms that exist worldwide, approximately 100 million belong to the Kalashnikov family, three-quarters of which are AK-47s. The Soviet Union (and Russia) exported tens of millions, making billions of dollars from the sale of those weapons.

Guess how much money Mikhail got for his invention?

Mikhail didnt get a ****ing penny. His invention was taken from him by the Soviet State, and they made money off it. Soviet apparatchiks got rich off Mikhails labor and hard work.

Acknowledging the benefit of trade, while forbidding people from trading is just hypocrisy of the highest order.

socialist society might aim to ensure that trade is leveraged towards the benefit of the people

Which has always been the purported intent under every single socialist society, but in practice literally never actually happens in every single socialist society so far, with apparatchiks getting wealthy and the people getting shot at dawn, sent to the camps, or starving to death by the millions.

Socialism is like the mythical 'benevolent dictatorship'. The problem being the truism of 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. You give the State that level of power, and you're going to wind up with a tyranny.

We liberals have been telling everyone this for centuries. It's why we have term limits on politicians, an open and free press, a separation of the powers between the legislature, executive, and the judiciary, a constitution, adherence to the Rule of Law, and the Liberal threshold test for laws being made in the first place.

Likewise, the example of bakers is completely silly. Independent, self-employed bakers aren't 'capitalism' - they existed for thousands of years prior, and could exist under almost any socialist (or other) system. 'Capitalism' might be just as accurately described by imagining a scenario as:

Capitalism has existed for thousands of years. The first person to trade a thing or service to another person for a thing or service of value in return was demonstrating capitalism.

The system has been dulled down or abrogated by certain other systems (feudalism, socialism, slavery from the position of the slaves) but yeah, if you were lucky enough to be a Freeman baker (and not a Serf) in 8th century England, you were a capitalist, selling your goods for a profit.

"there are two bakers operating independently in a village, competing with each other and baking healthy, nutritious bread that is affordable for the people of the town. A large multinational corporation comes to town, and sets up a massive supermarket. It mass produces bread, using unhealthy ingredients, in a foreign country where labour is cheaper, using industrial equipment purchased with borrowed money. The corporation undercuts the prices of the local bakers, driving them out of business, then once it has established monopoly power raises them above where they were to start with. One of the bakers gets a job at a local shoe factory, where he earns far less money than before. The other remains an unemployed 'failure', spirals into depression and alcoholism. Both are pretty miserable but satiate themselves by watching netflix and arguing on internet forums'

Firstly, if the Corporation bakes better bread, for a lower price than the towns bakers, it's still the (thousands of people of the town) who benefit. They're getting dirt cheap tasty bread.

You're missing the point of the example I gave. The benefit provided by the invisible hand of competition is provided to the townsfolk, not the bakers. The bakers compete with each other (attempting to provide the best bread for the lowest price) which benefits society as a whole (who get the tastiest possible bread, for the lowest possible price).

And secondly, yes, monopolies are bad (because they extinguish the benefit to society provided by the invisible hand). I (and JS Mill) agree with you on this point. We both argue strongly that business will attempt to create monopolies (removing competition makes life easier for you after all) and that a Liberal State has an obligation to legislate to stop monopolies, cartels and price fixing.

That's the whole purpose of a liberal State. It's why it exists. To protect people from harm.

You can go likewise back and forth on the merits of the USSR, Cuba, whatever, as well. And communist (and socialist) countries do have a history of authoritarianism, poor policy decisions, etc. But capitalist countries also have a dark past - of slavery, genocide, colonisation, poverty, and war.

Big difference being that Capitalist States rarely murder their own citizens and send them off to the Gulags by the millions like Socialist States like Cambodia, the USSR, China, Cuba and others tend to do.

Heck you could lump Germany in that category as well under National Socialism, who despite nationalizing a ton of stuff in Germany never went 'full blown Socialist' because Hitler didnt want to piss off German Industrial backers and Prussian Junkers who owned the factories and the land.

Rohm of course wanted to go 'full blown socialist' so Hitler had him shot at dawn.

Despite literally (and I mean literally) every single Socialist State going utterly **** up into a stagnant tyrannical shithole (every single time) you socialists like to blame 'bad luck and mismanagement'.

Dude, it's not bad luck and mismanagement. It's the inevitability of power corrupting at the top, and people lives stagnating down the bottom.

How many times do we have to try it, and for it to go the exact same way, before you acknowledge its glaring fatal flaws?

 

[Malifice]

What when [the bakers] conspire to make themselves rich at the expense of the rest of the village?

Thats where liberalism comes in. No-one (and I mean no-one) is arguing for an unregulated free market. The market is regulated by the Liberal State to prohibit cartels, monopolies and unfair (or unethical) Trade practices (all of which are a natural byproduct of competition).

JS Mill was a liberal economist. He said the exact same thing I just said above (in different words).

In Australia we have ASIC, the ACCC, the State Consumer Protection agencies, the Fair trading and Trade practices Acts (now known as the ACL), various Ombudsman's, the Courts (and rules in relation to fiduciaries, trusts, equity and more), employment protection legislation, fair work commissions etc etc.

All of which are mechanisms to regulate the market.

I dont support monopiles or cartels. I hate systems like the London Underground being privatized, or a single Catering company getting the role of providing food at footy grounds, or private companies owning major toll roads (where they can charge what they want, because there are no other really viable options other than to use their service except starve, drive an hour longer to get to places, or walk a long distance).

There are still options, and I always urge people to vote with their wallet. Money talks.

Our regulation of corporations and companies is not perfect of course (see our supermarket Duopoly or Media ownership). Even the former President of my Footy club got done for price fixing (Pratt owned a virtual monopoly on cardboard containers, and Visy got fined up the wazoo for abusing that power).

Although I would argue in the latter case, that's the system working to catch the monopolies and cartels.

Mr coles and Mr Woolworth. They also work with village leaders to prevent any further competition.

What ‘ intrinsic’ part of capitalism ensures they compete?

You, the consumer. Pick the cheaper one.

https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/...markets/articles/cheapest-groceries-australia

They're still competing with each other remember, with the ACCC watching closely for price fixing or anticompetitive behavior (which is a crime in Australia).

For what its worth, the ACCC is already taking them to Court, with 4 billion dollars wiped off their share price in a day a week ago:

The allegations against Woolworths and Coles, levelled by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on Monday, have wiped $4 billion from the value of the supermarkets as investors worry about a lengthy political brawl over their profits.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federa...ms-come-at-tough-time-for-bca-20240924-p5kczm

I'm not arguing for an unregulated no holds barred free market. I'm a liberal not an anarchist. As a liberal I believe the market must be regulated by the State, to protect people from harm (just like every other aspect of our lives is regulated by the State, but only so far as necessary to protect people from harm).

The only reason the Liberal State exists to protect people from harm. That includes the harm that would be caused by a monopoly eradicating the benefits of the invisible hand.