Divine works


eng deu рус


Antimonopoly = Anarchism:

It would probably be correct to single out Antimonopoly as an independent direction of anarchism or libertarianism.

§ Anarchist Inertia:

On the first hand, there are many excellent modern anarchist theorists.
On the other hand, they all continue to discuss only traditional problems, which were discussed 200 years ago.
There is not a single theorist who would:
First, I would attend to the End of history, at least as well as the problems of dictatorship and exploitation;
Secondly, I would consider anarchy as perhaps the only way for humanity to survive, and not just as an attractive utopia.

§ We need to set goals and priorities:

Yes, a monopolized economy reduces competition for worker labor, and thus wages.
Yes, the state itself generates monopolies to fight other monopolies.
Yes, one of the main consequences of government regulation is to increase capitalization levels, start-up costs and overheads in a way that protects existing producers and provides them with monopoly rents.

But today, when the question of survival has arisen, the orientation towards it will be wrong.
The correct orientation today is not towards the growth of well-being and not against the authorities, but towards survival.
Nevertheless, it may be correct to formulate in a simplified way that Monopoly is the main threat to survival. Therefore, today it is necessary to theoretically find, experimentally test and implement, where possible - forms of community without monopoly.

§ Focus on what matters most:

The 2nd benefit of highlighting Anti-Monopoly in Anarchism is the dispersion of the `` struggle '' in Anarchism.
Perhaps some anarchist theories of 'self-organization of labor' and are not a utopia, but in the face of the main threat of the 21st century, there is no time to dissipate forces on the secondary.
Analog: the Kremlin distracts bakers by appointing them to be the last ones to blame for expensive bread.
Here simplicity is the devil's weapon.

Accordingly, if anarchist theoretical constructions are utopian, then they are useful today at least by analyzing the possibilities of reducing monopoly.

§ Paternalism and monopoly:

The argument of information monopolists is to protect us from hate propaganda.

EDAP (European Democracy Action Plan), for example, uses monopoly to fight propaganda - the dependence of monopolistic social networks on monopoly power.
`` The decisions to combat the spread of disinformation will be made by the administrations of the social networks themselves. They are responsible for what their users distribute there. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. ”
EDAP formally retains Free Speech, but effectively abolishes it.

However, psycho-oriented AI has not yet gained strength - we ourselves can understand the harm of propaganda and disconnect from it - from below.
Instead of disconnecting us from propaganda, all we need is a recommendation and counter-propaganda, so that we disconnect ourselves.
But can propaganda defeat the arguments against it and spread widely? But:
1. On the Internet, even now, anyone can create a private propaganda social network. Actually, this is happening, and despite the absence of active counter-propaganda, propaganda has not won - yet.
2. An example of decentralized self-organization - Wikipedia - it was also predicted a quick collapse due to the dominance of child pornography and drug advertising.

§ Propaganda & quot; anti-monopoly & quot ;:

Anti-Monopoly Campaigns Against Google and Techno Giants Perhaps they are carried out, among other things, to lull concerns and to distract attention, since the antitrust measures taken are superficial and useless.

§ Google and SERP monopoly:

By & quot; Anti-Monopoly & quot; Wikipedia only offers:
& quot; Anti-Monopoly - board game 1903.
Google also only lists a few articles.
And Google gives out contacts of organizations, but not ordinary activists.

& nbsp;

§ "Not plagiarism, but anti-monopoly" -

& quot; Cisco creates artificial barriers and hindrances to the work of competitors.
Recently, Microsoft has also been spoken about patent barriers.
It is difficult to deal with internal and external enemies at the same time. ''
(www.comnews.ru/content/25307)

§ Monopoly in the USA:

By the early 1900s, almost all major industries in the United States were either already controlled or came under the control of a single monopolist.
By the early 1900s, nearly every major US industry was either already controlled by, or coming under the control of, a single monopolist.

" At stake was the question of who will control the country ".
(Richard Hofstadter)
“Nothing less was at stake than the entire organization of American business and American politics, the very question of who was to control the country”
(Richard Hofstadter)

`` The movement for monopolization marked a radical departure from the values ​​of the United States, from the humanistic traditions of Western civilization ''
The monopolization movement marked a radical break from values ​​once seen as foundational to the US Republic, if not the more humanist traditions of Western civilization.
(4 things you should know about tech stocks and ‘antitrust’
www.econlib.org/antitrust-and-ideology)

& quot; Fight & quot; in the West with digital monopoly is a propaganda deception just like the 'fight' the Kremlin's corrupt officials against corruption and for human rights.

§ & quot; Protecting Paternalism & quot; Is a propaganda deception:

Production monopolies are created only in conjunction with political monopolies, and rely on murders for disobeying the authorities.

"Monopolies cannot exist without government assistance.
Monopolies cannot last without government assistance

Institutions that guarantee freedom are part of its exceptions.
Institutions guaranteeing the liberty - are part of here exceptions.

It is not paradoxical that governments are the main creators and supporters of monopolies.
It is not a paradox that governments are the main creators and supporters of monopolies

In The Wealth of Nations , Adam Smith explained that government should limit itself to discouraging competition violations.
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explained that the government should be content not to encourage breaches of competition:

Left to their own devices, governments, even purely democratic governments, exploit some people for the benefit of others.
Left to themselves, governments, even pure democratic governments, exploit some individuals for the benefit of others & quot ;.
(www.econlib.org/antitrust-and-ideology)

§ Anarchism is, first of all, Antimonopoly:

However, the most popular anarchist portals Perspectives (IAS) and C4SS.org also pursue a monopoly policy, and, therefore, are anti-anarchist.
In particular, their business model is based on monopoly - they enter into agreements with publishers and monopolize the publication of anarchist content.

§ Anti-monopoly is also liberalism:

The freedom of an individual is expressed only in his activities, and activities cannot but be associated with objects and information.
Consequently, personal freedom is expressed in the freedom to use objects and information.
And since the same objects and information are used by different people, then true liberalism is a balance of freedom to use them.

Anti-monopoly does not need to deny ownership of the means of production, but only to make freedom more balanced.
Especially in the field of contrived Intellectual Property.

Yes, ownership of the means of production is not tantamount to a natural monopoly on territory. - There is simply no other land.
The deception lies in the fact that ownership of the means of production is everywhere associated with many monopoly restrictions that impede free competition.
The meaning of property liberalization is precisely the elimination of restrictions that reduce freedom.

Poor taxes are artificial. They exacerbate relationships and do not eliminate the power of the rich.
Liberalization will reduce economic polarization much more effectively.

Antitrust laws are deception.
There is only one effective antitrust remedy, and that is the prohibition to ban.
Instead of Antitrust Law, legislation is needed to regulate the use of funds that are not personal.
Yes, people will not go to the liberalization of public funds, even under the threat of death, but the reform of Intellectual `` property '' is quite real today.
Music, films, entertainment are not important, but it is quite possible to achieve the prohibition of the transfer of copyright to scientific articles and books - IT allows you to reliably provide payment to direct authors for the use of their labor.
All you need to do is start distributing blockchain torrents.

The climate hasn't killed anyone yet, but pharmacists have killed more people in the 21st century than the Nazis in World War II.
If not for the limitations of Intellectual Property and trade, solar panels would have supplanted fossil fuels.

§ & quot; Property is theft & quot;

The anarchists' extremist plan to socialize property is utopian.
Economic inequality can be viewed as a natural phenomenon. Envy is a sin.
However, today economic inequality is dangerous using mental and other manipulations to maintain it.
In the near future, manipulation will pose a threat to the very existence of humanity.

3 countermeasures are possible:
1. Fighting with the use of political and economic advantages - for manipulation;
2. Reducing political inequality, that is, further democratization;
3. Reducing economic inequality.

Even for the application of the 1st 2nd measure, a political and legal justification is needed.
In this regard, the evidence of the anarchists that `` Property is theft '' is useful.
However, to be used in counter-propaganda, the evidence of the anarchists must be more scientific.
We believe that antitrust is the most effective direction for this:

For profit, "capitalists" enjoy monopoly social conditions, which they themselves create.
If I bought an item, then I have the right to individually apply it as I please.
True, even individual application can affect the interests of other people and living beings.
But if I use the subject to generate income with the help of other people, not individually, then I use the social conditions of unequal exchange, although I personally did not create these conditions.
Illustration: Titanic - I, the captain's acquaintance - in the boat, the woman on board asks me to pick up her child. As a proper businessman, I maximize profits, take her last panties from her, and only then agree to save her child. Note, I did not take off the woman's panties - she took them off herself. Maybe I also paid with my soul so that Someone helped me to get into the boat.

It would be nice if anarchists - quantitatively, mathematically, proved that profit is created - due to monopoly social conditions.
And, then, they proposed not a radical `` socialization '', but a compromise solution, and not in the form of taxes, which require centralized execution by the authorities formed by the same `` capitalists '', but in the form of demonopolization - partial liberalization of socially created property.
The goal is nothing, movement is everything. True, the goal is the salvation of humanity.

§ Monopoly is for corruption:

- In authoritarian states, monopoly is primarily associated with corruption - in order to receive rent, officials introduce a `` Permissive Economy '',
- In the Free World monopoly is primarily associated with the receipt of rent - by corporations - due to their receipt of special rights - above all - `` intellectual '' - today.

If & quot; Permissive Economy & quot; makes African countries, including Russia, uncompetitive - absolutely,
then `` intelligent '' etc. rights make the countries of the `` Free World '' potentially uncompetitive with respect to pirate free zones.

§ The communists went in the wrong direction. -

In fact, not to the liberal left, but to the right.
After the collapse of the USSR, the inertia of the left political culture of super-monopolized Russia was not enough to slip through wild capitalism.

§ Lenin is a parasite:

Lenin, along with Trotsky, parasitized on the communist enthusiasm of the people at the beginning of the 20th century.
Yes, they partly fed it, but they did more harm than good to communism. - Their theories of the state = factory were completely ill-conceived, superficial.
There were even large factories in the USA, but they had competitors. In the USSR, the mistakes of the invented organization did not lead to bankruptcy.
Only because of faith in the idea, the communists tolerated Soviet arakcheevism (`` execution for indiscipline '' (Lenin)), serfdom (`` labor ... deserters ... to a concentration camp ''), autocracy (`` the will of the class is sometimes carried out by the dictator '' (Lenin)) and Taylorism (Lenin proposed to introduce it at a meeting of the Supreme Economic Council).

NEP was not Lenin's ideology, just as Stalinism was not only Stalin's ideology.
NEP was a 100% compulsory measure. - Lenin understood that in 2 years he would lose power.
Although not without calculation, too. - Lenin hoped to allow the market formation of trusts in order to then copy the organization from the most successful of them, since the plant itself = the state did not work out. The market trusts can then be liquidated.

§ The Economy of the Gift vs. Monopoly:

The best remedy against Monopoly is the Gift Economy.
Only the Economy of the Gift gives true economic independence and freedom of `` entrepreneurship. ''
See:
Gift Economy vs. End of History.docx
Gift Economy vs. End of History 2.docx