Why Socialism?

[Jabberwocky]

Well, if there becomes a point where either A) production is so efficient that goods can be produced and exchanged for next to nothing, private control over the means of this production will become irrelevant and will be expropriated by the public after a global crisis. B) Production becomes so efficient through technological means that goods can be produced and distributed for next to nothing without much human labor, but the capitalist class remains keen on maxing it's growth potential, there will be a very small minority who control these means of production while reaping their benefits, with a vast majority of unemployed and subordinate consumers with no means to consume unless production is held in common. It doesn't take a logical somersault to understand that this won't last forever and the level of crisis this will create globally.

Think Marie Antoinette.

I don't get why this makes capitalism a requisite for socialism to function. I see how it makes it easier for socialism, as everything's there to be redistributed, thanks to capitalism, but that hardly makes it a good system for going forth (more a system for 'enjoying the fruits', than for planting new trees. A terrible idea when discussing production)
If socialism now needed capitalism before, and we 'went socialist', is it fair to think that we'd be missing much innovation by being socialist? Or that, for this last round (indust revolution, etc), capitalism was a requisite driving force, but for whatever is next, it won't be?

There are vast amounts of capital that 99.9% of any population has no access to. Like I argued earlier, Citigroup alone has $2.5 trillion in total assets. The total household assets for planet Earth are about $223 Trillion. 23 million individuals own about $88 Trillion or 40% of all global household assets. This means 40% of the global assets are owned by .06% of the global population. By 2017 this number is expected to reach $330 trillion.

To put that into perspective, hypothetically speaking, if all of Earths assets were divided up perfectly by it's 7 billion inhabitants, each adult in the world would own a $49k stake. Obviously this direct allocation of global assets isn't the objective we're getting at, but I fail to see how expropriation of these assets across the world wouldn't lead to massive gains in living standards across the globe. Especially in areas where an average income is less than $1000 annually, while their employer is pulling in billions.

To take $10k and split it amongst 10, instead of 2, people is more 'spread'/fair; that is not what I had asked you. I asked you whether socialism creates higher standards of living or not, and am still interested to know your stance on this (it's disingenuous to use citigroup's ill-gotten earnings being redistributed as your example of higher stadnard of living here. I'm asking you, if we did our best to go socialist now where we were capitalist, in 50yrs, by and large, do you think that standards of living will be higher or just 'fairer'?

It's not hysterical, it could be taken straight out of a macroeconomics textbook. Scarcity allows for comparative advantages, which allow for exploitation and domination. Capitalism has a design, as does everything else. It's privately held productive means with a working class who sells their labor in exchange for a wage to purchase the goods and services produced by the very same means of production.

A socialist mode would eliminate this pyramid scheme and allow the workers who produce these goods to also OWN the goods they create, as they would be the owners of the production itself. Rather than having a middle man between actual production and ownership of it's products and means of production.

I know what you meant, it's the way you phrase it (like the way you tossed the weasel-word 'pyramid' into this post where it was unnecessary and inaccurate- I'll explain what a pyramid is and why a capitalist market is not one, but I suspect you already knew) Scarcity doesn't make capitalism a boogeyman, it merely makes trade/markets relevant (this doesn't go away w/ socialism, either)

 

[Jabberwocky]

We rightly lack trust in government to make the economic decisions on a scale which can displace capitalism.

Good thing we kept our banking system capitalist then, right? lol

I consider your simplified definitions downright misleading.

WTF really? Capitalism is trade amongst consenting individuals, socialism is an org (the state) having a hand in all such trades. While capitalism may 'conceal domination' and all that you're espousing, that's not inherent to it, and thus not relevant to a definition (perhaps to an encyclopedic one, but not definition of the term. Capitalism is trade from POV of those in the trade; socialism is everyone ie society/state having a say in all trades - fucked if I understand how it's supposed to work in practical terms, but there it is)

The whole aim of socialism is collective, participatory ownership and control of production and distribution (in some socialist variants, via wholesale nonownership). Various societies have attempted to implement such via statist control of economic activity, but I think that these attempts have failed, due to the tendency of the state to function as a tool of class-rule rather than authentically represent collective interests.

I agree wholeheartedly on the tendency of the state to trend towards things unrepresentative of the collective interests, and think we're seeing much of that right now (which is why I'm a small-government advocate)
Is there any reason so suspect more/less government abuses in a socialist setup? Because my problems w/ socialism center around fairness(we'll leave this one aside for this thread, would clumsy things up wayy too bad right now), and efficiency/innovation; if I can get past those, I'm still just perplexed at the practical implementation of a socialist system that wouldn't make today's 'mixed' american system seem downright wholesome in comparison. *IMO*, the bigger a gov is, and the more points that can be abused, there will be; A socialist setup requires more 'administration' than a capitalist one does, and in a practical administratino sense, I wonder at how it could ever be implemented irl w/o being a nightmare)

ebola[/QUOTE]

yo

in the natural universe ...
we got the power laws and shit

some of if goes in 80-20
some is different

people are subject to the same shit.

we just fairly intelligent primates. we invented money to replicate the power system.

.. 'we just fairly intelligent primates'. fucking winning!

 

[Bardeaux]

If socialism now needed capitalism before, and we 'went socialist', is it fair to think that we'd be missing much innovation by being socialist? Or that, for this last round (indust revolution, etc), capitalism was a requisite driving force, but for whatever is next, it won't be?

The industrial revolution is what created the industrial proletariat on a large scale throughout Europe and America in the first place. By concentrating large numbers of people into urban areas to occupy factory positions, two things happened; capital began concentrating on a scale never before seen and people began being alienated from their labor on an unprecedented scale.

I think you're hung up on the idea that capitalism will never out grow it's usefulness or over stay it's welcome. Concentrating capital and productive forces where there are none is what makes capitalism useful. The fact that this concentration eventually becomes a hindrance to society by perpetually sifting capital into the hands of fewer and fewer people and creating conflict within itself is what makes it unstable and unsustainable.

To take $10k and split it amongst 10, instead of 2, people is more 'spread'/fair; that is not what I had asked you. I asked you whether socialism creates higher standards of living or not, and am still interested to know your stance on this (it's disingenuous to use citigroup's ill-gotten earnings being redistributed as your example of higher stadnard of living here. I'm asking you, if we did our best to go socialist now where we were capitalist, in 50yrs, by and large, do you think that standards of living will be higher or just 'fairer'?

This is why I tried to make it clear that I was describing a hypothetical situation and that "Obviously this direct allocation of global assets isn't the objective we're getting at".

To answer your question as simply as I can, both.

I know what you meant, it's the way you phrase it (like the way you tossed the weasel-word 'pyramid' into this post where it was unnecessary and inaccurate- I'll explain what a pyramid is and why a capitalist market is not one, but I suspect you already knew)

Be sure to include how capitalism IS working, not how it ought to work.

My analysis suggests:

NSFW:

A pyramid has a very broad base (working class) and an extremely narrow peak (ruling class). If we take into consideration the wealth allocation mechanism put in place by a capitalist mode of production, the rate of growth for the top of the pyramid has been climbing to record high profits, whereas the base hasn't seen a growth in wages in several decades, while at the same time taking on unprecedented levels of debt in place of rising wages. So much so that non-productive speculative debt trading and finance has become the backbone of the post-industrial capitalist economy.

Now, how does a pyramid scheme work?

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

A centralized state of some sort provides the legal framework (and entailed exercise of penal violence) to guarantee proliferation of such social relations

But this is what the state is--it monopolizes legitimated violence to reinforce social relations of domination. It's rare (perhaps unprecedented) for these means to be directed otherwise due to the dynamics of status privilege emergent in bureaucracies and the influence of class-elites.

I agree. That is what the state is. However, in an ideal, objective, transparent, etc... state this monopoly over legitimated violence keeps people from each others' throats. Ideally this forced cooperation leads to less violence, legitimized or other, and to a higher standard of living. I would say that a requirement of such an ideal state is that the monopoly over legitimated violence stays pure and objective. This leads to the question that I think is hardest to answer. Who or what should or does have control over the monopoly (don't feel the need to answer lol)? I disagree that the monopoly should or must be controlled by the class-elites indefinitely.

Looking at it in such a black and white way it is fairly depressing, but I try to remain positive that people trying to do their best still balance out those with less than scrupulous morals, and that there is a massive grey area.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

A pyramid has a very broad base (working class) and an extremely narrow peak (ruling class). If we take into consideration the wealth allocation mechanism put in place by a capitalist mode of production, the rate of growth for the top of the pyramid has been climbing to record high profits, whereas the base hasn't seen a growth in wages in several decades, while at the same time taking on unprecedented levels of debt in place of rising wages. So much so that non-productive speculative debt trading and finance has become the backbone of the post-industrial capitalist economy.

Now, how does a pyramid scheme work?

Well put. Something has got to give before too long.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

We rightly lack trust in government to make the economic decisions on a scale which can displace capitalism. People like to own stuff including businesses and they'll purse those aims in any system.

I agree, well said.

Bardo, I was thinking about your comment that businesses provide a once useful service but then begin to serve a negative purpose. I think everyone would agree that getting something to market that takes off and revolutionizes society is worth something in reward. That is precisely what makes capitalism so innovative-- the chance at this reward. The check to this reward in my opinion should be competition: A business that is conscious of social responsibility should be able to easily outcompete a non-socially conscious competitor, and so there should be a race to the bottom of sorts to have the least burden on society possible. This doesn't happen because of regulation that creates barriers to entry in the market and consumers that do not collectively look out for their own best interests. Businesses are unified in their approach to making money from society. Society can be unified as well in its response to such behavior.

 

[Bardeaux]

^But you're romanticizing a small portion of the real market while ignoring the vast majority of it. For every Bill Gates or Steve Jobs there are 100 Goldman Sachs debt traders or other profiteers that produce absolutely nothing. I'm not seeing how changing the relationship to a cooperative structure will reduce reward and innovation. If there is a need for something, and a means to provide that need, why wouldn't the providers be rewarded for their efforts? Business as it is functions a lot like politics. Every once in awhile a genuinely nice guy with good intentions will pop up and he'll be absolutely destroyed in the political realm by those who are willing to be ruthless and win at any cost.

This doesn't happen because of regulation that creates barriers to entry in the market and consumers that do not collectively look out for their own best interests.

The regulatory barriers you speak of exist for a reason. Also, it's not only governments that provides barriers to market entrance, businesses do it to each other. Hence the reason Standard Oil was broken up and anti-trust laws were put in place. You're absolutely right in that capitalism incentivizes billions of mindless consumers to irrationally work against common interest by acting in their own self interests without a second thought regarding the greater consequences of their actions.

 

[superelephant]

The regulatory barriers you speak of exist for a reason.

Yeah, because mega corps need them in place or they might eventually become compromised, having to completely restructure their business model to stay afloat.

Also, it's not only governments that provides barriers to market entrance, businesses do it to each other. Hence the reason Standard Oil was broken up and anti-trust laws were put in place.

? standard oil was broken up because anti-trust laws were put into place, (though not enforced yet) not the other way around. Standard oil was on it's way to losing it's monopoly anyway, as they couldn't keep up with the coming demand for oil no matter how many dirty tactics were used, no matter hard they tried. The fact that it was dismantled by the government just served to convince the public that big government was the solution. It was downright cunning to break it up right before the market was about to do so on it's own.

You're absolutely right in that capitalism incentivizes billions of mindless consumers to irrationally work against common interest by acting in their own self interests without a second thought regarding the greater consequences of their actions.

A markets participants are suppose to realize that the "common interest" (as you put it) and self interest are one in the same. This would be a lot easier without billions being spent by mega corps (which can't exist for very long in a true free market, as they can only be formed on the cusp of a serious innovation that others cannot yet duplicate or compete with.) to distract and entertain people so they'd rather not consider their actions within the marketplace.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

I'm not seeing how changing the relationship to a cooperative structure will reduce reward and innovation.

Still not, huh? It's about survival. People work and innovate harder when it gives them a distinct evolutionary advantage to do so.

Business as it is functions a lot like politics. Every once in awhile a genuinely nice guy with good intentions will pop up and he'll be absolutely destroyed in the political realm by those who are willing to be ruthless and win at any cost.

So you agree then that the problem is inherent to government? Why would a socialist government necessarily be any different?

The regulatory barriers you speak of exist for a reason. Also, it's not only governments that provides barriers to market entrance, businesses do it to each other. Hence the reason Standard Oil was broken up and anti-trust laws were put in place. You're absolutely right in that capitalism incentivizes billions of mindless consumers to irrationally work against common interest by acting in their own self interests without a second thought regarding the greater consequences of their actions.

So what do you think about the cost of telecom service in the US? Health care? Education? Regulation of all these industries is also what creates the framework for exploitation to occur in the first place. Capitalism itself can't be blamed when the US government has enabled certain entities to dominate the landscapes of their respective industries. Nothing in capitalist theory says that is a good idea. In many respects it is the antithesis of capitalism as it fixes the "invisible hand". I can imagine pretty easily a world where the services mentioned were provided at a fair cost and we wouldn't have half of the problems we have today.

Regulation of some sort is necessary-- I wasn't arguing against regulation. I was arguing against the current regulatory environment.

 

[Bardeaux]

Yeah, because mega corps need them in place or they might eventually become compromised, having to completely restructure their business model to stay afloat.

Are there any regulations that you do like, or are they all business stifling government oppression in cahoots with corporatist interests? Labor standards for example. Would you personally eliminate the minimum wage and work for $2 an hour for 16 hours a day?

? standard oil was broken up because anti-trust laws were put into place, (though not enforced yet) not the other way around. Standard oil was on it's way to losing it's monopoly anyway, as they couldn't keep up with the coming demand for oil no matter how many dirty tactics were used, no matter hard they tried. The fact that it was dismantled by the government just served to convince the public that big government was the solution. It was downright cunning to break it up right before the market was about to do so on it's own.

I didn't mean that they were related. Both were cases where actions to correct the market were needed. Should there be (enforced) laws in place to prevent monopolies from rising in the first place, or should we trust the market mechanism to eventually, possibly, correct itself if one does occur? The idea of living with monopolies until disadvantaged competitors finally knock it off sounds like a bleak dystopia of ever changing kings and lords.

A markets participants are suppose to realize that the "common interest" (as you put it) and self interest are one in the same. This would be a lot easier without billions being spent by mega corps (which can't exist for very long in a true free market, as they can only be formed on the cusp of a serious innovation that others cannot yet duplicate or compete with.) to distract and entertain people so they'd rather not consider their actions within the marketplace.

This sounds lovely. Wouldn't it be amazing if consumers were mindful participants in the economy, who's endless personal wants coincided with the needs of the common interest? If it just weren't for those pesky government and corporate entities, people would produce and consume wisely!

It's not only limited liability that make corporations a toxic influence. If there were no government and no legal corporate structure, capitalism would still be capitalism. A highly volatile, exploitative and unstable race for profits regardless of the consequences. If someone is able to produce and distribute goods and services at an extremely low price on a massive scale, people are willing to look the other way as to how the prices got to be so low. They will choose the low prices over the responsible but more expensive enterprise. It doesn't matter if this is Walmart or whatever cartel exists in the libertarian capitalist utopia.

Still not, huh? It's about survival. People work and innovate harder when it gives them a distinct evolutionary advantage to do so.

This doesn't answer my question though.

So you agree then that the problem is inherent to government? Why would a socialist government necessarily be any different?

To be honest, there's nothing in this quote that reflects my opinion. I described that business is a cut-throat endeavor, that in a confrontation between a nice and responsible business person and a ruthless shark willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, the shark is going to win. How did you get the idea that this means the problem is inherent to government?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "socialist government". Can you elaborate on this a little? My idea of socialism has very little to do with bureaucratic state influence.

So what do you think about the cost of telecom service in the US? Health care? Education? Regulation of all these industries is also what creates the framework for exploitation to occur in the first place. Capitalism itself can't be blamed when the US government has enabled certain entities to dominate the landscapes of their respective industries. Nothing in capitalist theory says that is a good idea. In many respects it is the antithesis of capitalism as it fixes the "invisible hand". I can imagine pretty easily a world where the services mentioned were provided at a fair cost and we wouldn't have half of the problems we have today.

For starters, all of these things should be provided free of charge, not just at low prices, I think.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

To be honest, there's nothing in this quote that reflects my opinion. I described that business is a cut-throat endeavor, that in a confrontation between a nice and responsible business person and a ruthless shark willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, the shark is going to win. How did you get the idea that this means the problem is inherent to government?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "socialist government". Can you elaborate on this a little? My idea of socialism has very little to do with bureaucratic state influence.

You compared business practices to politics. I agreed with that comparison and pointed out that a nation with a socialist economy would still have a government and therefore politicians trying to win at any cost. People in positions of power would still exist and so would competing interests. It is a moot point though as we have already established in this thread that socialism on the state level doesn't work.

For starters, all of these things should be provided free of charge, not just at low prices, I think.

This is prime example of what bothers me about your posts and why I keep responding negatively. You're being too idealistic. "Big ideas" are called that for a reason. Without a detailed and plausible plan of how to get your ideal into practice, it is not worth much. I can explain how my scenario can be plausibly implemented in today's society. Can you?

 

[Droppersneck]

In all honesty if I got back a huge opiate addiction and lost all motivation and potential I would love the idea of full blown socialism being implemented in the US of A.

 

[Bardeaux]

You compared business practices to politics. I agreed with that comparison and pointed out that any economic system, capitalist or socialist in nature, would still have politicians trying to win at any cost. People in positions of power would still exist and so would competing interests. I am curious what type of government you could propose that would not have this problem.

The idea is to de-concentrate power and authority. The reason Marxian critics of capitalism are so critical is because of this extraordinary concentration of wealth, power and influence of the capitalist class, thus creating social conflict and instability. The problem with socialist experiments in the past is that the result has been a shifting of the heavily concentrated power held by the wealthy to a bureaucratic elite. This doesn't solve the issue, and doesn't address the aim of decentralization and egalitarianism that socialism is supposed to represent.

A plausible socialist environment would be a decentralized economy and government.

This is prime example of what bothers me about your posts and why I keep responding negatively. You're being too idealistic. "Big ideas" are called that for a reason. Without a detailed and plausible plan of how to get your ideal into practice, it is not worth much. I can explain how my scenario can be plausibly implemented in today's society. Can you?

But these things already exist today and within the capitalist framework in some countries. Not only are free education and healthcare not delusions of grandeur, but in the places where they exist, it's difficult to imagine actually charging a fee to be educated or to see a doctor. This isn't idealism, these are practical suggestions with real world examples to back it up.

Now, where in the world does a truly free market exist?

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Still not, huh? It's about survival. People work and innovate harder when it gives them a distinct evolutionary advantage to do so.

I would address more points, but I have little time today. This is utter poppycock. Check out birthrates of the wealthy and educated compared to birth rates of the poor. Evolution is all about propagation, and those not propagating are not spreading their genes nearly to the same extent as those having 3+ kids. Wealth has nothing to do with survival in the vast majority of the western world in this day and age. That is one of the reasons for getting away from a purely capitalistic system. Sure wealthy people are normally healthier and live longer, but that means nothing in the context of evolution because we can already reproduce in our mid teens!

The most important question of all regarding capitalism is, "how much is enough"? Most capitalists would probably answer there can never be 'enough'. This is sick and perverse mind set linked to primitive instinct.

 

[superelephant]

Are there any regulations that you do like, or are they all business stifling government oppression in cahoots with corporatist interests? Labor standards for example. Would you personally eliminate the minimum wage and work for $2 an hour for 16 hours a day?

That's a red herring. (what I would do) I do think minimum wage should be eliminated. This way corporations don't get to have an employee "up in the air" so to speak. Let me try an example. (I'm bad at these) Let's say an old lady wants to greet customers at walmart for 5 dollars an hour. She is not interested in doing anything else. If she was able to get the job, she would not let her supervisor assign her a task, in any circumstance, that isn't a greeter. at a minimum wage the employer doesn't have to worry about what they ask you to do, you are an "up in the air" employee. They simply ask you to do something else because the cart pusher and shelf stocker are paid the same. You might as well be doing what they are doing as far as your supervisor is concerned. If the old lady was a greeter and they asked her to do something else she would resist, because those guys make more. This works out a lot better because people have assigned task for the wage they agreed upon and would not let their employer push them around, and the employer would recognize this as well and not expect an employee paid substantially less to perform the same duties as someone paid more. Wages would be all over the place for each specific task. This results in more employment, and happier employees. The old lady may only be getting 5 dollars an hour, but she isn't and will never end up working that hard either.


I can't think of a regulation I agree with.

I'll respond to the rest later, I've been playing GTA for hours and I was looking forward to reading a bit (Cloud Atlas) before I go to bed, so I'm gonna go do that.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

That sure is an ideal scenario superelephant. The problem is that without any sort of social net or living wage people end up being abused to a pretty awful extent. All you have to do is go back in history to points where there was no minimum wage to see the abuse that is spawned by such a policy. I personally would rather overpay some retard than be having to walk by his starved corpse on my way to work in the morning.

Now, if we were in a situation where it was my life or his my viewpoint would change. However, today, Nov. 19 2013, it is no longer about me and him. It is about the fact that through technological and social advance we (the 1st world) have removed the necessity of the him or me mentality. Now it is about us, he is going to be there, and so am I. I could let him die, or become so desperate that he turns to violence in order to sustain his life. I could also make a small sacrifice to insure that as a living creature his right to life is upheld, and that maybe through not having to constantly worry about his survival, that he can start to think about the finer details in life a little more.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Still not, huh? It's about survival. People work and innovate harder when it gives them a distinct evolutionary advantage to do so.

Well, in the US, to strike out on your own frequently involves giving up your healthcare.

So I presume people are thus motivated to stay cogs in some company instead of taking the risk to innovate on their own.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Businesses are unified in their approach to making money from society. Society can be unified as well in its response to such behavior.

How are businesses unified here, exactly?

^But you're romanticizing a small portion of the real market while ignoring the vast majority of it. For every Bill Gates or Steve Jobs there are 100 Goldman Sachs debt traders or other profiteers that produce absolutely nothing.

I keep hearing this sentiment from you...are you against banking/lending or just not understanding how integral lending is to innovation? You keep phrasing it in a manner implying that financial products are not actual products ('produce absolutely nothing'), and that their markets are somehow inferior to markets for physical widgets. This is completely inaccurate.

If there is a need for something, and a means to provide that need, why wouldn't the providers be rewarded for their efforts?

^right here enters the need for the 'worthless' bankers who produce nothing. Allocation of capital (via free markets, not state-allocation) is one of the most fundamental girders upon whihc modern society is built.

Business as it is functions a lot like politics. Every once in awhile a genuinely nice guy with good intentions will pop up and he'll be absolutely destroyed in the political realm by those who are willing to be ruthless and win at any cost.

I couldn't disagree more with this. Maybe it's the types of work we've done, but I have zero idea what you mean by being nice will destroy you in business, or that business is like politics. Business is about production, politics is about popularity; there's very little overlap theoretically, and *IME* there's little/none in practice (I'll give you that, of the businesses we hear about on television, there's the 'crony capitalism' phenomena wherein the two arenas overlap significantly, but that's not capitalism and it's the exception not the norm)

Well, in the US, to strike out on your own frequently involves giving up your healthcare.

So I presume people are thus motivated to stay cogs in some company instead of taking the risk to innovate on their own.

And those are the types that were unlikely to ever do anything innovative anyways, so..yeah.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

^right here enters the need for the 'worthless' bankers who produce nothing. Allocation of capital (via free markets, not state-allocation) is one of the most fundamental girders upon whihc modern society is built.

Please explain to me why the most unscrupulous people in the world should be in charge of allocating capital. If you haven't noticed they haven't been allocating it all that well.

 

[superelephant]

I didn't mean that they were related. Both were cases where actions to correct the market were needed. Should there be (enforced) laws in place to prevent monopolies from rising in the first place, or should we trust the market mechanism to eventually, possibly, correct itself if one does occur? The idea of living with monopolies until disadvantaged competitors finally knock it off sounds like a bleak dystopia of ever changing kings and lords.

People decide if a monopoly rises though, and they can certainly end one. All it takes is a little coordinated purchasing.

This sounds lovely. Wouldn't it be amazing if consumers were mindful participants in the economy, who's endless personal wants coincided with the needs of the common interest?

What I meant was whether or not people realize it, they want good companies that practice good business procedures providing them with these wants. People would be a lot more keen to this if they weren't more worried about how well their favorite sports team was doing this season.

If it just weren't for those pesky government and corporate entities, people would produce and consume wisely!

Again, the current climate is extremely detrimental to any sense of consuming wisely.

It's not only limited liability that make corporations a toxic influence. If there were no government and no legal corporate structure, capitalism would still be capitalism. A highly volatile, exploitative and unstable race for profits regardless of the consequences. If someone is able to produce and distribute goods and services at an extremely low price on a massive scale, people are willing to look the other way as to how the prices got to be so low. They will choose the low prices over the responsible but more expensive enterprise. It doesn't matter if this is Walmart or whatever cartel exists in the libertarian capitalist utopia.

This is false, the only reason people look the other way currently is because the climate is so skewed away from true capitalism that they have no real choice in the matter.

That sure is an ideal scenario superelephant. The problem is that without any sort of social net or living wage people end up being abused to a pretty awful extent. All you have to do is go back in history to points where there was no minimum wage to see the abuse that is spawned by such a policy.

History is not an apt example. The situation I referred to is almost guaranteed to work in the current economic climate. Inflation tends to make people weary of such abuse, and having a lower wage makes people more inclined to simply quit when things get to tough. Employers would have to reconcile with employees unless they wanted to do the work themselves, which isn't likely to occur. Also, Having the ability to negotiate a wage on any terms would keep people fed, rather than make them go hungry.