Comment: Gathering Understanding...I Think

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: No bother from bear (see in situ)

Gathering Understanding...I Think

Still working on http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

When you say Socialism is the study of society is this what you are saying:

“Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be.”
------------------
On the deal about renting houses, if I understand Social Anarchism correctly, the application does not disallow anyone from renting, but rather removes the obstacles that make the “playing field not level,” and those obstacles being government monopoly whereby legal criminals make their crimes legal thereby putting labor at a disadvantage to capital. So, if capital (products) were only the price of cost, then capital would be within everyone’s reach.

So, then, with my understanding of capitalism is that prices are set upon supply and demand, then that would not work with the idea of cost being the limit to price. Am I thinking correctly?

It is very hard for me to conceptualize cost being the limit to price…for everything. It is hard for me to put into concrete ideas. I think I understand the “theory” of it, but not how to apply it. My imagination is not very good, and I find trying to concentrate and imagine the implication almost past my capability or desire as it makes my brain hurt. The ability to do that is like seeing a whole chess game at once. So, that link I handed you this morning…the guy was talking about federated voluntarism…would anarchistic socialism work in limited area, or would it take a great country of space and people to realize the benefit? i.e. if socialists had to compete next door to capitalists, would that work? Would a socialist society be able to purchase capitalist priced raw goods needed within the socialist society?
---------------------------
OK, this bothers me too:

“Their attitude on this is a key to their attitude on all other questions of a political or social nature. In religion they are atheistic as far as their own opinions are concerned, for they look upon divine authority and the religious sanction of morality as the chief pretexts put forward by the privileged classes for the exercise of human authority. “If God exists,” said Proudhon, “he is man’s enemy.” And in contrast to Voltaire’s famous epigram, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him,” the great Russian Nihilist, Mikhail Bakunin, placed this antithetical proposition: “If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.” But although, viewing the divine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose.”

Not that they would not deny religious freedom, but that Bakunin says if God exists, it would be necessary to abolish Him. That sure would leave a vacuum for evil, since of course God does exist and so does Evil. If God were removed, Evil would run rampant.

James 1:16 Do not er , my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

...