News Statism Or Racism, Which Is Worse?

[Anarchy]

In @MsSpock 's racism thread, I quipped that:

I'm less disturbed by racists than I am by statists. a racist might be happy with separation and shunning, he doen't necessarily want to force others into the obsessive compulsive details of his system, or force others to pay for it. A statist does.

Rather than risk derailing that thread, here goes with a fresh one:

Arguably, without access to the coercive powers claimed by statists (I'm using Max Weber's definition of state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence ) , a racist is just an individual with some (IMO) rather bizzare likes and dislikes. If he acts out violently, then only his motive for acting out is different from any other violent individual - he's just another violent individual - is getting attacked by him made worse because the colour of my skin was the motivation, rather than say the clothes I was wearing?

With access to the coercive powers claimed by statists, he can have others beaten robbed or killed with impunity for not complying with his obsessions; an example of that could be a business or a university being fined (robbed) for having too many people or perhaps not enough people of a certain origin.

With a statist's blue costume and shiny badge, a racist can get to murder people on the street, or in the cell block, pretty much with impunity.

When it comes to seeking redress; the statists have largely obliterated any peaceful alternative to their monopolies. State sector courts and cops are funded with money taken from us under threat of violence (calling armed robbery "tax" doesn't change its nature - even when you get to vote for which gang will rob you for the next five years), and are operated on a predatory pricing system, in order to keep competitors from entering the market.

Thus the parents of Stephen lawrence had little alternative but to use the corrupt state sector police

The families of Eric Garner and Michael Brown must use members of the same monopoly that the killers belonged to, to investigate, perhaps prosecute and perhaps preside over the trial of the killers.

I am not trying to argue that racism is not a problem - but would it be as big a problem without statism? and is statism a bigger and more abusive problem than racism?

@

 

[shimmerz]

Systemic, imho is always a larger problem than individual. However you do have to take into account the human tendency of cliques. Take the KKK for example.

I am not well versed on politics (it hurts my head that things happen in this 'justice for all' society), so please forgive my very naive and minimalist answer.

 

[Ronin]

Different axis of trouble, different and intercrossing systems of power.

The questions beginning with 'which is worse' basically tend to get me shaking my head. Where are we talking, for whom, and for what reasons? The answers would so vary based on who you are and what your particular circumstances.

It's not comparable. Apples and oranges.

 

[Friday]

An ism for your schism?

It could be argued that particularism, once considered a Spanish vice, is the root of worse... As a sign of a sick culture. The beginning of the end, for countries & empires, once people start identifying with any particular group, instead of the collective as a whole.

Isms divide. Divisions can make whole things weak or make parts of things strong. Depends on what one's needs are. And in which faction one lays their head.

 

[Weemie]

racism is a systemic issue, too. racism informs societal monopolies and prejudices against entire groups of people based on their skin color & culture. racism results in masses of people being killed, genocides, homicides, people getting evicted from their homes, people being shot in the street.

you don't have to be in a position of tangible power to hurt someone with racism, and people who are racial minorities feel the sting of racism in every aspect of their lives, even including people accusing them of just playing the race card. and that said, racial majorities are always going to be in a position of institutionalized power. only difference is, dismantling the institution doesn't get rid of ingrained racism.

trying to compare the two subjects is like comparing apples and oranges. "statists" aka the brute force warmongering political warfare cop wingnuts, are easily identifiable and generally considered to be the wingnuts they are. most people today have a difficult enough problem acknowledging racism is even a problem.

like, if the guys who shot mike brown weren't in a position of power, they couldn't have hurt him?

meh. apples n' oranges.

 

[Pencil]

Good topic, @Anarchy. But perhaps ... too advanced.

 

[reallydown]

And no one has mentioned the economic system that breeds competition and greed...Competition is not necessarily a bad thing always but when you pair it with systemic racism etc. it can have devastating results.

 

[Anarchy]

Hi Reallydown,
You've got two separate things there.

Competition in an economic system, means that customers get a choice, and that every penny that they choose to spend, or choose not to spend, counts as a vote. (Economic democracy, but probably not in the way that the Reverend Jesse Jackson uses those words).

Time and again, people with big plans and lots of peoples savings behind them, have thought that they could buy up all of the small businesses, and then charge monopoly prices.

Examples of that from the late 19th and earlier 20th century, include Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and McCormick's International Harvester.

What they found was, that as soon as they bought up all the suppliers in an area, and tried to raise prices to take advantage of their local monopoly position, competitors popped up offering customers a better deal.

Rockefeller eventually found that he was actually better off trying to provide customers with a deal that was too good to attract competition.

In contrast to Rockefeller, was Vanderbilt. Various towns and states had awarded monopoly franchises to people to provide ferry boat services. As these were supposed to be monopolies, the providers had no incentives to keep prices down, be efficient, or to provide good customer service ( think of the long ques, signs warning of big penalties for assaulting staff, and all too frequent crap service from behind a protective screen at a post office, and contrast that to the service atmosphere and environment of virtually any privately owned shop or cafe - one is a monopoly that denies customers anywhere else to get service, the other has to attract every customer,every time).

Vanderbilt, operated lower cost ferries, in defiance of the local government granted monopolies, and customers loved it. In the end, he offered free ferry rides, and made money by offering food to his passengers. Sure, he had to avoid the cops and other thugs that were sent to try to protect the monopoly.

In that system of competition, anyone who doesn't attract and please customers, will soon find themselves sent a very clear message; find out how to attract customers and please them, or you'll need to find a new job to be able to buy the things you want and need.

In the competitive system, if a business refuses to deal with people on grounds of race, sexual orientation, which church they do or don't go to etc.

Is turning away their own income, and directing those customers to go to their competitors.

In that respect, so long as no politician offers subsidies or bailouts, even the boss of wallmart has to answer to his bosses, the customers.

Now to monopolies.
In a small way, there are monopolies everywhere. Only Kellogs make Kellogs corn flakes. But that has very little impact on my choice of what to eat for breakfast, and Kellogs cornflakes are priced in line with other breakfast food choices.

The damaging monopolies can only exist if force is used to stop you going else where. The only group in society that gets to use force legally, is the government. Anyone else who tries, is very obviously criminal.

Unlike the private sector, which has to attract customers, and one bit of bad publicity can cost someone their whole business. Few businesses can survive more than a week or two with no income.

The elected part of government is typically there to stay for 5 years.
The UN elected parts are there for their whole working lives and pensions. They have to really mess up badly to suffer any bad consequence themselves.

You've seen signs in China shops, saying "you break it, you bought it". Has anyone ever seen that applied to politicians, bureaucrats and cops?

The competition in government, is The competition to get to boss people about, to take money from them with implicit threat of violence (tax) and to award monopoly privileges and subsidies to your favoured group, at the expense of less favoured groups.

The famous 19th century American anarchist, Lysander Spooner, actually set up aa competitor to the US postal service. It was very popular with customers, and was efficient enough to both under cut the USPS and still turn a profit.

It came to an end, when the Fe'ral government threatened Spooner with violence.

Once something is under monopoly control. If its political bosses or some of their employees decide to discriminate against some group. Then that group has no where Else to go.

That is why I'm suggesting that racist cops, racist healthcare workers, racist state education bureaucracy etc, is far more dangerous than any private sector racist.

And that statism is more dangerous than any other ism, including racism.

 

[Friday]

The famous 19th century American anarchist, Lysander Spooner, actually set up aa competitor to the US postal service. It was very popular with customers, and was efficient enough to both under cut the USPS and still turn a profit.

And yet... We've had Western Union, Wells Fargo (nearly all banks provided mail service, as well as better hotels), Pinkertons & similar, Train Mail systems owned by the railroads, Pony Express & countless messenger systems... All delivering mail privately both before & after that time period. Modernly, we actually have fewer choices; USPS / UPS / FedEx / DHL. But we also send mail electronically, now. Both privately & corporations (corps in the past would send private mail out with their cables, accounting, shipments, etc.).

That is why I'm suggesting that racist cops, racist healthcare workers, racist state education bureaucracy etc, is far more dangerous than any private sector racist.

I have to rabidly disagree. Corporate States have no target. If you wish to attack a corporation, where do you go? Based in 121 countries, (or even 2) if the risk is great enough? They simply move their base of their operations or corporate headquarters elsewhere, to where local laws are more ameniable. Stateside, however, there is virtually no risk. At worst a corporation might be fined. The solution there is simple in the absolute worst case; declare bankruptcy & reorganize. Moreover, even though Company Towns are largely a thing of the past (not always), the threat of a Corporate State leaving (economic collapse, rise in unemployment, lost tax revenue, etc.)? Is usually enough that not only do they face zero real consequences, but are given incentive after incentive to stay. Slapped on the wrist with one hand, handshake with the other.

Corporate States have huge influence over Corporeal States. They can & do start wars, as the penultimate example of their power. Hell, the British Empire was founded on needing protect merchant interests... And modernly? OMFG. Too many examples to list.

Corporate States have all the same powers as Corporeal States, up to and including annual profits that's exceed that of many nations GDPs... and none of the vulnerabilities of being tied to a physical location, or needing popular approval to remain in power. Most find no need to employ their own armies, their lobbyists do just fine promoting their interests / there is no profit in it for them. But many (most, once a certain size is reached) do in fact have mercenaries of many different flavors in their direct employ. And now that the US has wriggled out from the constitutional loss of citizenship for becoming a soldier for hire (via the two little words "Private Security"), they don't even have to hide it, anymore. They have contracts with Blackwater et al... Snort... And then claim them as a business expense! Outside the US? Holy f*cking shit. Not even gonna touch that. It's a huge and complicated business. One that I worked in for several years. In the US & 1st world countries corporations tend to go after individuals legally or financially. In 3rd world countries? Soldiers. Life & limb. ((Okay, I touched it. Leaving it there, though.))

In that system of competition, anyone who doesn't attract and please customers, will soon find themselves sent a very clear message; find out how to attract customers and please them, or you'll need to find a new job to be able to buy the things you want and need.

In an idealized version of capitalism, perhaps. In the real world? Not only do companies talk amongst themselves at a bare minimum, but their Boards are often comprised of the selfsame members. Companies, not consumers, set the market value & standards for goods & services offered, not consumers. Influencing markets is a complicated science (even art form), overlaid with political & legal maneuvering. Oversimplifying a tad; companies that are good at it prosper, those who don't both fail, and are largely meaningless. Ranging from the food truck & mom/pop ventures, to DeBeers & OPEC.

A company may take a couple of weeks to bankrupt, if they're not diversified enough... but if the food & goods supply is cut, the average city will starve (no food, medicine, or disposable goods) in 2 days.

***

Corporate & Corporeal States coexist, at best, as a fairly balanced stalemate. But in a fight between the two? There is simply no way for territorial nations to win against corporate nations. The private sector allows the illusion of control to governments, and actively promotes the illusion to consumers, but they're the big dogs in this arena. And their only loyalty is to their own boards, and what's best for the company. Territorial nations, otoh, at least have to attempt to take care of their people. Even the most feared dictators get deposed given enough abuses of power, and neglect of their duties, given time.

 

[Anarchy]

Hi Friday,
I'll touch on pricing cartels, joint ventures and collusion first.

Cartels are inherently unstable. Just as individuals differ in ability, so do groups of individuals.

In any cartel, you are going to have more efficient and less efficient members. There is always going to be frustration and temptation amongst the more efficient members to begin to compete on price and to increase their market share at the expense of the weaker cartel members.

Where we do see cartels, is in government regulated areas of the economy, banking telecoms etc. Where a "regulator" controls entry. Or tries to.
A current example of this pattern of cartel breaking down, is the effect of uber on the value of NY taxi cab plates. These had been selling for up to $1m. Each. They're currently unsalable.

Regarding multi national corps. If they don't serve customers effectively, they won't succeed in a market. I can give a couple of examples of Britain s bigger shop chains that tried to launch in the united state, and failed badly.

I wish I could avoid paying taxes (protection money to the largest local gang) in the manner that the likes of Google do!
I take the discrepancy in tax victimisation as a good argument against the principal of legal extortion, rather than one against businesses.

For size of business. There are diseconomies of scale as well as economies of scale. I suspect that you will find a government connection, socialising the costs of the diseconomies, or even blatantly subsiding them.

Again, that is s more of an argument against the institution of government, than against businesses. An argument which has it's most egregious examples in " too big to fail" bailouts of businesses that had either been rejected by customers, had problems that were better cured by liquidation than reform, or both.

An unspoken corrollary of tbtf is "too small to succeed", central planners picking winners" must also pick loosers.

Have you read Perkins "confessions of an economic hitman"?
His knowledge of basic economics is lousy, but he paints a fairly believable picture of the big crony businesses, that serve as a tool of imperialism. They have everything to do with cronyism and neo imperialism, and zero to do with a free market.

I don't know enough about blackwater to be able to comment on whether it was just a convenient route to claim plausible deniability for bad deeds, or whether it had deeper crony connections with the military industrial complex.

Certainly in the historical example of the Pinkertons, much of the size of the business came from government contracts.

Company store towns are interesting. Who would take a job in such a place? And what sort of employee would you expect to get if they fell for something as simple as that?

 

[void]

Affected by racism = only some people
Affected by statism = ALL people

 

[Stickler]

Company store towns, meaning one works for the company yet ends up with a giant debt keeping one there because one must buy all supplies from the store, on credit?

Beats starving to death.

...Note that our elites are sawing away at the American social safety net...