NationStates Jolt Archive

"...The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says that he does not steal anything from you.

But did you really consent?
When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.

Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children. You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman

What do you think?

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

nope, i have never felt compelled or forced. i chose to work where i want, and if i stop liking it i leave. only people with no skill or no character need to feel trapped by an employer.

Wait, did that ryme?

bottle thats because you are an educated professional (I am guessing) and not a laborer, get a job as a miner or a meat-packer and then say that again.

bottle thats because you are an educated professional (I am guessing) and not a laborer, get a job as a miner or a meat-packer and then say that again.

that's what i said: the unskilled have to worry. so they should get skills. i have been about as poor as a person can be in America, and i've gotten myself an education and left that trap behind...if i can do it, anybody can. i'm not especially smart or talented or unique, i'm just motivated, and anybody else could do as well.

That isn't true, because capitalism will always need a reasonably large amount of the population to be unskilled, unfortunately.

mult post

mult post

There is no compulsion to work for another. You are free to go forth and start your own business. People do it everyday. And if you don't like that idea, you are free to be unproductive and scavange as best you can, in the best hunter-gatherer traditions.

Yep, I consented.
As an ESL teacher, I have many options:

1) Work for a corporation.
Advanatages: I don't have to seek out customers. I don't have to supply teaching materials. I don't have to supply a space. I don't have to worry about financing any of the above. I don't have to negoitiate business transactions. All I have to do is show up and teach. I take no risks.
Disadvantages: I don't make profits, as I haven't invested. I can't make the business decisions.

2) Start my own business.
Advantages: I am my own boss. I teach whatever I want to whomever I want, whenever I want.
Disadavantages: I must provide all my own materials, scheduling, advertising, and other scut work. I take all the risks.

3) Frachise:
A mix of the above advanatages and disadvantages.

4) Change fields.

5) Drop out of society.

i have been about as poor as a person can be in America, and i've gotten myself an education and left that trap behind...if i can do it, anybody can. i'm not especially smart or talented or unique, i'm just motivated, and anybody else could do as well.

So you are of the opinion that anyone can get a good job if they're motivated?

bottle thats because you are an educated professional (I am guessing) and not a laborer, get a job as a miner or a meat-packer and then say that again.

that's what i said: the unskilled have to worry. so they should get skills. i have been about as poor as a person can be in America, and i've gotten myself an education and left that trap behind...if i can do it, anybody can. i'm not especially smart or talented or unique, i'm just motivated, and anybody else could do as well.

Im sorry but I have a hard time believeing that there has been a time in your life wher you couldnt afford shoes, clean water, electricity, or basic shelter, as many Americans cannot. (Have you ever been to a trailer park in the deep south, or an Indian reservation?) Also laborers HAVE skills they know how to mine and pack meat, things which an unskilled person would endanger themselves and others if the attempted. But they are unable to use these skill except by selling their time to the owners of the static labor (capitalists).
Not anybody can get an education, If your parents never educated you you are basically permanently hadicapped. (Adult education works, but it take much longer than teaching the smae things to children) I am sure that you graduated high school on time, beleive it or not this make a HUGE difference because of the "old dog/new tricks" factor. Being educated at a young age gives you mental access to higher education, without it, you wouldn't have been able to get yourself an education starting cold from nothing as many peole have to. Not having any money and being in poverty are two different things, You may have not had any money to speak of, but you had mental training that taught you how to learn and adapt, something which poverty precludes.

mult post

mult post

bottle thats because you are an educated professional (I am guessing) and not a laborer, get a job as a miner or a meat-packer and then say that again.

that's what i said: the unskilled have to worry. so they should get skills. i have been about as poor as a person can be in America, and i've gotten myself an education and left that trap behind...if i can do it, anybody can. i'm not especially smart or talented or unique, i'm just motivated, and anybody else could do as well.

That isn't true, because capitalism will always need a reasonably large amount of the population to be unskilled, unfortunately.

Very true Kanabia. Capitalism also needs a few lapdogs (no offense Bottle) to completely buy into the lies of the ruling class and to work hard and support their policies in return for a slightly freer and more affluent place in the social order.

Start my own business.

Do you really believe you could compete with Microsoft or Starbucks?

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

bottle thats because you are an educated professional (I am guessing) and not a laborer, get a job as a miner or a meat-packer and then say that again.

that's what i said: the unskilled have to worry. so they should get skills. i have been about as poor as a person can be in America, and i've gotten myself an education and left that trap behind...if i can do it, anybody can. i'm not especially smart or talented or unique, i'm just motivated, and anybody else could do as well.

Im sorry but I have a hard time believeing that there has been a time in your life wher you couldnt afford shoes, clean water, electricity, or basic shelter, as many Americans cannot. (Have you ever been to a trailer park in the deep south, or an Indian reservation?) I have been born on a reservation, and while the plight of my people and virtually all tribes is bad, we have been labeled as victims for so long we have believed it. I worked for a scratch poor farm with hand me down clothes, old shoes,yet I perservered determined that I wasn't going to stay that way, what one can think one can do, a person is his/her own worst obstacle Also laborers HAVE skills they know how to mine and pack meat, things which an unskilled person would endanger themselves and others if the attempted. But they are unable to use these skill except by selling their time to the owners of the static labor (capitalists).
Not anybody can get an education In the United States, every child has the capacity to attend school free of charge up to graduation from secondary education..i.e. High school, the only reason why you may not graduate is again..you, If your parents never educated you you are basically permanently hadicapped. (Adult education works, but it take much longer than teaching the smae things to children) I am sure that you graduated high school on time, beleive it or not this make a HUGE difference because of the "old dog/new tricks" factor. Being educated at a young age gives you mental access to higher education, without it, you wouldn't have been able to get yourself an education starting cold from nothing as many peole have to. Not having any money and being in poverty are two different things, You may have not had any money to speak of, but you had mental training that taught you how to learn and adapt, something which poverty precludes.

Your post was so pock-marked with descripancies I didn't bother to finish

bottle thats because you are an educated professional (I am guessing) and not a laborer, get a job as a miner or a meat-packer and then say that again.

that's what i said: the unskilled have to worry. so they should get skills. i have been about as poor as a person can be in America, and i've gotten myself an education and left that trap behind...if i can do it, anybody can. i'm not especially smart or talented or unique, i'm just motivated, and anybody else could do as well.

Im sorry but I have a hard time believeing that there has been a time in your life wher you couldnt afford shoes, clean water, electricity, or basic shelter, as many Americans cannot. (Have you ever been to a trailer park in the deep south, or an Indian reservation?) I have been born on a reservation, and while the plight of my people and virtually all tribes is bad, we have been labeled as victims for so long we have believed it. I worked for a scratch poor farm with hand me down clothes, old shoes,yet I perservered determined that I wasn't going to stay that way, what one can think one can do, a person is his/her own worst obstacle Also laborers HAVE skills they know how to mine and pack meat, things which an unskilled person would endanger themselves and others if the attempted. But they are unable to use these skill except by selling their time to the owners of the static labor (capitalists).
Not anybody can get an education In the United States, every child has the capacity to attend school free of charge up to graduation from secondary education..i.e. High school, the only reason why you may not graduate is again..you, If your parents never educated you you are basically permanently hadicapped. (Adult education works, but it take much longer than teaching the smae things to children) I am sure that you graduated high school on time, beleive it or not this make a HUGE difference because of the "old dog/new tricks" factor. Being educated at a young age gives you mental access to higher education, without it, you wouldn't have been able to get yourself an education starting cold from nothing as many peole have to. Not having any money and being in poverty are two different things, You may have not had any money to speak of, but you had mental training that taught you how to learn and adapt, something which poverty precludes.

Your post was so pock-marked with descripancies I didn't bother to finish

You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer


My dentist and orthodontist both own and operate their own offices and practices. They are the employer and the employee, they work for themselves. Likewise, the men who clean my carpets own their own trucks, vacuum systems, and business. They are the empolyer and the employee, they work for themselves. Both these groups do this within the American capitalist system. Their success is proof of the fact that the capitalist system allows self-employment, ergo, the above statement that such is not possible is false.


Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children... The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman


I used to argue a similar thing until I had an important realization. Capitalism does not create the compulsion to survive. Mother nature creates the compulsion to survive. Capitalism simply provides a means to satisfy this compulsion. The employeers and the capital cannot be blamed for this compulsion to survive. Remove the employers and the capital if one wishes, the compulsion to survive still remains. This compulsion to survive, therefore, is independent of any human political or economic system, sot is illogical to blame these systems for the existance of that compulsion.

Nature forces me to go to work in order to survive. Who I work for, or even if I work for anyone as I can indeed be self-employeed, is my choice, however, and so such a relationship is consentual.

Sure, there are instances where the employee-employer relationship is non-consentual, like slavery. The capitalist system, however, outlawed slavery a long time ago. Slavery is illegal because slavery violates private property rights, that is, slavery violates my right to use my own body, my private property, as I wish.

The compulsion to survive is only the fault of nature. Capitalism simply provides a means by which this compulsion can be satisfied in a consentual way.


"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)


It says nothing about capitalism. Instead of accepting Hitler's word, we should instead examine his actions. Hitler denied millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, and others of their private property and ultimately their lives. How can someone do this and still claim to support private property rights? He cannot. Ergo, Hitler is a liar. Hitler's actions prove that he had no reguard for private property. Indeed he had no reguard for any human rights at all.

Thus, I conclude that the statement quoted above is simply intended to be an ad hominem attack, meant to deride capitalism unfairly by creating a false link to nazism, an ideology which is completely opposed to private property, as this opposition is required in order for nazism to perpetrate its horrible crimes. Thus, the statement is illogical and false.

Start my own business.
Do you really believe you could compete with Microsoft or Starbucks?

Personally, I have chosen the first route. But no one held a gun to my head.

But have you not heard of Bill Gates or the origins of Starbucks?

With little surprise to anyone, the largest coffee roaster in the country is Starbucks. Starbucks was founded by Jerry Baldwin, Gordon Bowker, and Zev Siegl in 1971. Each of the partners contributed $1350 and borrowed $500 from the bank(Barbieri pp.25). With this initial investment, they set up their first shop on Pikes Place Market, shown in figure 2, and with some good decisions, are still growing today. (http://www.wsu.edu/~gmhyde/433_web_pages/coffee/student-pages/1history/history.htm)

These companies are actually perefect counter-examples to your arguments. Neither company existed 35 years ago. They didn't come into being without hardwork.


I am now totally convinced that you argue from either ignorance of the facts or (as more and more seems to be the case) jealousy.

That isn't true, because capitalism will always need a reasonably large amount of the population to be unskilled, unfortunately.

Untrue. Technology replaces the unskilled.

You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer


My dentist and orthodontist both own and operate their own offices and practices. They are the employer and the employee, they work for themselves. Likewise, the men who clean my carpets own their own trucks, vacuum systems, and business. They are the empolyer and the employee, they work for themselves. Both these groups do this within the American capitalist system. Their success is proof of the fact that the capitalist system allows self-employment, ergo, the above statement that such is not possible is false.


Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children... The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman


I used to argue a similar thing until I had an important realization. Capitalism does not create the compulsion to survive. Mother nature creates the compulsion to survive. Capitalism simply provides a means to satisfy this compulsion. The employeers and the capital cannot be blamed for this compulsion to survive. Remove the employers and the capital if one wishes, the compulsion to survive still remains. This compulsion to survive, therefore, is independent of any human political or economic system, sot is illogical to blame these systems for the existance of that compulsion.

Nature forces me to go to work in order to survive. Who I work for, or even if I work for anyone as I can indeed be self-employeed, is my choice, however, and so such a relationship is consentual.

Sure, there are instances where the employee-employer relationship is non-consentual, like slavery. The capitalist system, however, outlawed slavery a long time ago. Slavery is illegal because slavery violates private property rights, that is, slavery violates my right to use my own body, my private property, as I wish.

The compulsion to survive is only the fault of nature. Capitalism simply provides a means by which this compulsion can be satisfied in a consentual way.


"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)


It says nothing about capitalism. Instead of accepting Hitler's word, we should instead examine his actions. Hitler denied millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, and others of their private property and ultimately their lives. How can someone do this and still claim to support private property rights? He cannot. Ergo, Hitler is a liar. Hitler's actions prove that he had no reguard for private property. Indeed he had no reguard for any human rights at all.

Thus, I conclude that the statement quoted above is simply intended to be an ad hominem attack, meant to deride capitalism unfairly by creating a false link to nazism, an ideology which is completely opposed to private property, as this opposition is required in order for nazism to perpetrate its horrible crimes. Thus, the statement is illogical and false.

Ding, Ding, ding, ding! We have a correct answer. (Just don"t expoect L. to accept it. My attempt to correct his abuse of the Hitler quote went in one ear and out the other, without registering.)

You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer


My dentist and orthodontist both own and operate their own offices and practices. They are the employer and the employee, they work for themselves. Likewise, the men who clean my carpets own their own trucks, vacuum systems, and business. They are the empolyer and the employee, they work for themselves. Both these groups do this within the American capitalist system. Their success is proof of the fact that the capitalist system allows self-employment, ergo, the above statement that such is not possible is false.


Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children... The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman


I used to argue a similar thing until I had an important realization. Capitalism does not create the compulsion to survive. Mother nature creates the compulsion to survive. Capitalism simply provides a means to satisfy this compulsion. The employeers and the capital cannot be blamed for this compulsion to survive. Remove the employers and the capital if one wishes, the compulsion to survive still remains. This compulsion to survive, therefore, is independent of any human political or economic system, sot is illogical to blame these systems for the existance of that compulsion.

Nature forces me to go to work in order to survive. Who I work for, or even if I work for anyone as I can indeed be self-employeed, is my choice, however, and so such a relationship is consentual.

Sure, there are instances where the employee-employer relationship is non-consentual, like slavery. The capitalist system, however, outlawed slavery a long time ago. Slavery is illegal because slavery violates private property rights, that is, slavery violates my right to use my own body, my private property, as I wish.

The compulsion to survive is only the fault of nature. Capitalism simply provides a means by which this compulsion can be satisfied in a consentual way.


"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)


It says nothing about capitalism. Instead of accepting Hitler's word, we should instead examine his actions. Hitler denied millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, and others of their private property and ultimately their lives. How can someone do this and still claim to support private property rights? He cannot. Ergo, Hitler is a liar. Hitler's actions prove that he had no reguard for private property. Indeed he had no reguard for any human rights at all.

Thus, I conclude that the statement quoted above is simply intended to be an ad hominem attack, meant to deride capitalism unfairly by creating a false link to nazism, an ideology which is completely opposed to private property, as this opposition is required in order for nazism to perpetrate its horrible crimes. Thus, the statement is illogical and false.

...My attempt to correct his abuse of the Hitler quote went in one ear and out the other, without registering.)

Unfortunately, human beings have this nasty habit of accepting the word of politicians as truth without critical thinking. It is how Hitler was able to perpetrate his disgusting crimes in the first place.

I don't expect a response either, as the statement is only intended to insult, not create discussion.

Oh, and Letilia, you are an employer, at least indirectly.

You are posting from a computer. Your computer was manufactured and paid for. The electricity to power it was created and paid for. The software to operate it was created and paid for. An internet provider is operated and paid for.
Even if you do not personally pay for any of it, someone does so in your name.
Workers are employed to carry out the tasks involved in the above.
Those workers recieve compensation.
That compensation is made eithe by you or in your name.

Oh, and Letilia, you are an employer, at least indirectly.

You are posting from a computer. Your computer was manufactured and paid for. The electricity to power it was created and paid for. The software to operate it was created and paid for. An internet provider is operated and paid for.
Even if you do not personally pay for any of it, someone does so in your name.
Workers are employed to carry out the tasks involved in the above.
Those workers recieve compensation.
That compensation is made eithe by you or in your name.

That isn't true, because capitalism will always need a reasonably large amount of the population to be unskilled, unfortunately.

Untrue. Technology replaces the unskilled.

Untrue. After two centuries of struggle workers have now won a large enough piece of the pie that it's cheaper to develop technology to replace them.

My dentist and orthodontist both own and operate their own offices and practices. They are the employer and the employee, they work for themselves. Likewise, the men who clean my carpets own their own trucks, vacuum systems, and business. They are the empolyer and the employee, they work for themselves. Both these groups do this within the American capitalist system. Their success is proof of the fact that the capitalist system allows self-employment, ergo, the above statement that such is not possible is false.

And I doubt they are millionaires.

Nature forces me to go to work in order to survive. Who I work for, or even if I work for anyone as I can indeed be self-employeed, is my choice, however, and so such a relationship is consentual.

Just like nature forces you to give the highwayman your valuables to avoid getting your brain shredded. Because of capitalism, you have a choice between selling your labor and starving. In anarcho-communism, you have a third choice of activity that is self-managed and enjoyable.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Read the Communist Manifesto. It explains it all pretty clearly.

That isn't true, because capitalism will always need a reasonably large amount of the population to be unskilled, unfortunately.

Untrue. Technology replaces the unskilled.

Untrue. After two centuries of struggle workers have now won a large enough piece of the pie that it's cheaper to develop technology to replace them.

Ahem. How is "it's cheaper to develop technology to replace them" different from "technology replaces them":?:

Read the Communist Manifesto. It explains it all pretty clearly.

I hear Capital and What is Property are better for what I'm talking about.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

And I doubt they are millionaires.


Why do they have to be millionaires? I'd assume that they are satisfied with their situation, otherwise they would not be engaged in business as they are.


Just like nature forces you to give the highwayman your valuables to avoid getting your brain shredded. Because of capitalism, you have a choice between selling your labor and starving. In anarcho-communism, you have a third choice of activity that is self-managed and enjoyable.


The self-employed which exist in the capitalist system have chosen to follow an existance that is self-managed and enjoyable, and they need not rely on "anarcho"-communism to achieve this. Sure, they may not be millionaires, but, again, if they are satisfied with their existance, then why focus on making millions?

At any rate, the person you were quoting was blaming capitalism for the compulsion of nature. I have already proven this false, and reguardless of whatever choices "anarcho"-communism may or may not provide, it is still false. If you concede that nature is the source of the compulsion to survive, then what was the point of quoting the person and his false claim?

And I doubt they are millionaires.


Why do they have to be millionaires? I'd assume that they are satisfied with their situation, otherwise they would not be engaged in business as they are.

yeah, for a guy who's against property Letila sure seems to think people need a lot of it. i will never be a millionaire, and i don't care in the slightest. what the hell would i need a million dollars for? i just want work that i find fulfilling and enough pay to live comfortably...i will be fine on 50K or so, and that's a perfectly reasonable salary for anybody to acheive if they get a basic college education.

The self-employed which exist in the capitalist system have chosen to follow an existance that is self-managed and enjoyable, and they need not rely on "anarcho"-communism to achieve this. Sure, they may not be millionaires, but, again, if they are satisfied with their existance, then why focus on making millions?

If you're not focused on making millions, you might as well be anarcho-communist. You get worker self-management by default and you would have much better working conditions since profit is no longer a concern.

At any rate, the person you were quoting was blaming capitalism for the compulsion of nature. I have already proven this false, and reguardless of whatever choices "anarcho"-communism may or may not provide, it is still false. If you concede that nature is the source of the compulsion to survive, then what was the point of quoting the person and his false claim?

You fail to see that the capitalist gets much more out of the deal than the worker. The worker sells their freedom (They have to take orders when working) in order to survive.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I hear Capital and What is Property are better for what I'm talking about.


Based on what I've read in What is Property? myself, it is obvious that Proudhon hated communists and collectivists just as much as he hated capitalists. In fact, if I understand Mutualism correctly, the only difference between Proudhon's philosophy and capitalism is that in Proudhon's market there would be no state to enforce a system of absolute title to property. One could claim that Proudhon's focus on self-employment (the man was a flaming individualist afterall) stands in opposition to capitalism, but as I have already shown, self-employment is perfectly possible and does occur in the capitalist system.

At any rate, because you describe yourself as an "anarcho"-communist, I doubt that Proudhon should be considered an ally in your cause. :wink:

And I'm still waiting for a response to my refutation of the Hitler quote found in your signature.

mult post

mult post

You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer


My dentist and orthodontist both own and operate their own offices and practices. They are the employer and the employee, they work for themselves. Likewise, the men who clean my carpets own their own trucks, vacuum systems, and business. They are the empolyer and the employee, they work for themselves. Both these groups do this within the American capitalist system. Their success is proof of the fact that the capitalist system allows self-employment, ergo, the above statement that such is not possible is false.

True, Letila overstates the point in saying that you MUST work for an employer, but you are overstating your case as well. The few highly skilled workers like doctors and lawyers that can still remain independent of corporate control are few and even that has changed to a very large degree in the last two decades with the birth and growth of both profit and non-profit medical corporations and similar enterprises in other industries. As for the other small independent businesses such as your carpet cleaner, very few are one-man operations. Most small business is so pressured by corporate competition and tax laws that do not confer the same benefits on small business as large, that they're forced to employ their help at the minimum wage and struggle not to die, many of them failing.


Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children... The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman


I used to argue a similar thing until I had an important realization. Capitalism does not create the compulsion to survive. Mother nature creates the compulsion to survive. Capitalism simply provides a means to satisfy this compulsion. The employeers and the capital cannot be blamed for this compulsion to survive. Remove the employers and the capital if one wishes, the compulsion to survive still remains. This compulsion to survive, therefore, is independent of any human political or economic system, sot is illogical to blame these systems for the existance of that compulsion.

Nature forces me to go to work in order to survive. Who I work for, or even if I work for anyone as I can indeed be self-employeed, is my choice, however, and so such a relationship is consentual.

Sure, there are instances where the employee-employer relationship is non-consentual, like slavery. The capitalist system, however, outlawed slavery a long time ago. Slavery is illegal because slavery violates private property rights, that is, slavery violates my right to use my own body, my private property, as I wish.

The compulsion to survive is only the fault of nature. Capitalism simply provides a means by which this compulsion can be satisfied in a consentual way.

Reread the Berkman quote. It does not attack or question the compusion to survive. In fact, it is the key to his argument. Instead, Berkman is attacking the exploitation of that compulsion. The "gun" he is speaking of is not our compulsion to eat and drink to survive but is the ability of some to deny access to the means to meet those needs. Borrowing from Berkman's illustration, you are basically arguing that a person handing over his cash to an armed highwayman is doing so under a consentual agreement because it is the desire to live which underlies the action and not the highwayman's threat and ability to deny life.

Based on what I've read in What is Property? myself, it is obvious that Proudhon hated communists and collectivists just as much as he hated capitalists. In fact, if I understand Mutualism correctly, the only difference between Proudhon's philosophy and capitalism is that in Proudhon's market there would be no state to enforce a system of absolute title to property. One could claim that Proudhon's focus on self-employment (the man was a flaming individualist afterall) stands in opposition to capitalism, but as I have already shown, self-employment is perfectly possible and does occur in the capitalist system.

At any rate, because you describe yourself as an "anarcho"-communist, I doubt that Proudhon should be considered an ally in your cause.

True, but he did critique capitalism and though I don't agree with everything he said, the critique of capitalism was good.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

If you're not focused on making millions, you might as well be anarcho-communist.


I'm not focused on making million, but at the same time I am focused on not starving to death in a soup line. :wink: At any rate, because I own myself, and I make my own decisions, I will choose how to live and be satisfied with that choice reguardless of what the "anarcho"-communists have to say about it. :D


You get worker self-management by default...


...just as one gets, if one so chooses, in the capitalist system.


...and you would have much better working conditions since profit is no longer a concern.


unproven assumption.


The worker sells their freedom (They have to take orders when working) in order to survive.


The capitalist system has outlawed slavery, based on private property rights, so I am free to leave an employer at any time I wish. Employment agreements or contracts that deny the ability of an employee to walk away at any time are (and should be) void and invalid. If I do not wish to "take orders" then I do not have to. I am always free to take my labor to another employer who does not abuse his position. Because of this it is really the employee who has the position of power, as a business with no employees makes no profit, and a business which makes no profit dies.

I'm not focused on making million, but at the same time I am focused on not starving to death in a soup line. At any rate, because I own myself, and I make my own decisions, I will choose how to live and be satisfied with that choice reguardless of what the "anarcho"-communists have to say about it.

But you aren't being paid the full product of your labor in capitalism.

...just as one gets, if one so chooses, in the capitalist system.

Then why do people flip burgers? They wouldn't do it if self-employment was an option for everyone.

unproven assumption.

It's a simple fact that if you are trying to maximize profit, then you'll cut corners and lower working conditions.

The capitalist system has outlawed slavery, based on private property rights, so I am free to leave an employer at any time I wish.

And the victim is free to not give the highwayman their valuables, but they will pay for it.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

mult post

That isn't true, because capitalism will always need a reasonably large amount of the population to be unskilled, unfortunately.

Untrue. Technology replaces the unskilled.

Untrue. After two centuries of struggle workers have now won a large enough piece of the pie that it's cheaper to develop technology to replace them.

Ahem. How is "it's cheaper to develop technology to replace them" different from "technology replaces them":?:

They both describe the same phenomenon but one recognizes that there is a choice (and blame) involved while the other does not.

I'm not focused on making million, but at the same time I am focused on not starving to death in a soup line. At any rate, because I own myself, and I make my own decisions, I will choose how to live and be satisfied with that choice reguardless of what the "anarcho"-communists have to say about it.

But you aren't being paid the full product of your labor in capitalism.

...just as one gets, if one so chooses, in the capitalist system.

Then why do people flip burgers? They wouldn't do it if self-employment was an option for everyone.

unproven assumption.

It's a simple fact that if you are trying to maximize profit, then you'll cut corners and lower working conditions.

The capitalist system has outlawed slavery, based on private property rights, so I am free to leave an employer at any time I wish.

And the victim is free to not give the highwayman their valuables, but they will pay for it.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Well in comunism you cant get any where no matter what you do. all the jobs pay the same no matter how much or how hard the work is. I Pilot who flies aircraft that take years of hard work to master gets the same pay as some dope who got stuck being a lazy janitor wich requires little skill. Capitalism you earn your way and can make something of yourself. You work to earn better things in life and there is something to look forward to and if you choose to you dont have to stick with the same job. You can choose what ever you want to be as long as you work for it. :?

It's a simple fact that if you are trying to maximize profit, then you'll cut corners and lower working conditions.


It's also a simple fact that capitalism allows me to abandon an employer if working conditions do not meet my standards. The employees leave and the business dies. The market has spoken.


And the victim is free to not give the highwayman their valuables, but they will pay for it.


If a principled stand requires that I die, and if I am principled, I will die.

intresting but in truth you did agree to work for your emplyer and you did not consent to be held up--

in other words- the actual difference between being robbed and being cheated by your employer is that you gave consent to be worked like a dog, but u never gave consent to be held up.

for those that will say that u were forced by the evils of capitalist to work for nothing--Minimum wage, and if you cant afford what you have dont buy it (that includes using medicare and foodstamps)

so if u make 20,000 a year dont have 6 kids and a flat screen HDTV with satalite.

dump the kids or the TV, and stop reading the godamn NS forums.

And you call yourself socialist. :roll:

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Nor is there such thing as a purely communist state. Ideologically they may both present beautiful equilibriums but neither entirely fulfills the inherently human mandate of happiness when applied to reality. Following a Maslow tree, or other similar theory, there are many steps to reaching complete fulfillment.

Capitalism offers freedom to the lucky and the powerful. The notion that hard work is the only element involved in success is utterly ridiculous. Criminals, disease, and accidents are some of many obstacles to your freedom, directly or indirectly, to become self-fulfilled.

Communism offers freedom in our basic physical needs and security. To progress beyond this level is exceedingly difficult for many. Inflation is one example of Marx's mistaken belief of communism's superiorty to capitalism. His economic theory is still much more sound than is his unbelievable naive sociological foundations.

Discussing theories of Adam Smith, Marx and Engels, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin and others is interesting and profitable. Nonetheless, ALL of them missed out on a century of economic theory that largley rejects many of their precepts. Try to add some readings of John Maynard-Keynes and Kenneth Arrow, to name a couple.

Start my own business.
Do you really believe you could compete with Microsoft or Starbucks?

...have you not heard of Bill Gates or the origins of Starbucks?

With little surprise to anyone, the largest coffee roaster in the country is Starbucks. Starbucks was founded by Jerry Baldwin, Gordon Bowker, and Zev Siegl in 1971. Each of the partners contributed $1350 and borrowed $500 from the bank(Barbieri pp.25). With this initial investment, they set up their first shop on Pikes Place Market, shown in figure 2, and with some good decisions, are still growing today. (http://www.wsu.edu/~gmhyde/433_web_pages/coffee/student-pages/1history/history.htm)


These companies are actually perefect counter-examples to your arguments. Neither company existed 35 years ago. They didn't come into being without hardwork.


I am now totally convinced that you argue from either ignorance of the facts or (as more and more seems to be the case) jealousy.

Actually, these companies are arguments against Capitalism. Not it's efficiency mind you--there's no denying that--but agianst it's morality and lack of benefit to the mass of society. You present the founders of Microsoft and Starbucks as examples of how far one can go in our current economic system. I would suggest instead, that they show how FEW can go so far and what the cost is to so many others for them to do so.

In the case of Starbucks, how many small local businesses have failed due to pressure from this corporate behemoth? In other words, how many former "moms-and-pops" that used to make a comfortable living serving the community they live in are now making $7 an hour as a Starbucks barista to support the lifestyle of some rich investor in Seattle or Manhattan?

The problem is not with "Capitalism". The problem is the corporate-driven economic system we have today that calls itself capitalism.

The People-Centered Development Forum has a very interesting analysis of Adam Smith. It contends that most economists have not even read "The Wealth of Nations" and that those who have have consciously misread and misrepresent its theory. Check it out: http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/betrayal.htm

G.K. Chesterton says much the same thing, though, much more simply: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." - The Uses of Diversity, 1921

And Microsoft...what can I say? A company which was born by stealing technologies, grew by obliterating rivals, and became a superpower by cornering the market is something we should fear and detest rather than revere as something to emulate.

It's a simple fact that if you are trying to maximize profit, then you'll cut corners and lower working conditions.


It's also a simple fact that capitalism allows me to abandon an employer if working conditions do not meet my standards. The employees leave and the business dies. The market has spoken.

Actually, the employee leaves and, because the government has established economic policies that keep the unemployment rate at at least 3%, there is some other poor desperate slob to take his place. Or the company brings in some even more desperate poor slob under a new guest worker visa program.


And the victim is free to not give the highwayman their valuables, but they will pay for it.


If a principled stand requires that I die, and if I am principled, I will die.

How can that be principled, though, if you support the actions of the highwayman?

Well in comunism you cant get any where no matter what you do. all the jobs pay the same no matter how much or how hard the work is. I Pilot who flies aircraft that take years of hard work to master gets the same pay as some dope who got stuck being a lazy janitor wich requires little skill. Capitalism you earn your way and can make something of yourself. You work to earn better things in life and there is something to look forward to and if you choose to you dont have to stick with the same job. You can choose what ever you want to be as long as you work for it. :?

Arguments like these make me picture a mother telling her child "You can eat your spinach or you can get a spanking. It's one or the other, now choose!"

First of all, what you state has not been the case in any country that has called itself communist.

Second, and much more important, this version of communism that you present and the version of capitalism that we currently suffer under are not the only two options available to us!

intresting but in truth you did agree to work for your emplyer and you did not consent to be held up--

in other words- the actual difference between being robbed and being cheated by your employer is that you gave consent to be worked like a dog, but u never gave consent to be held up.

You're misstating the analogy.

our world......................................analogy
worker...............................................traveler
food/water/housing...........................desire to live
owners...............................................highwayman
controlled access to resources...........gun
work for pay......................................hand over money to highwayman

We did not consent to being born into our economic system like the traveler did not consent to being held up. In the same way, working for pay is no more consentual than the traveler handing over his money.

My dentist and orthodontist both own and operate their own offices and practices. They are the employer and the employee, they work for themselves. Likewise, the men who clean my carpets own their own trucks, vacuum systems, and business. They are the empolyer and the employee, they work for themselves. Both these groups do this within the American capitalist system. Their success is proof of the fact that the capitalist system allows self-employment, ergo, the above statement that such is not possible is false.

And I doubt they are millionaires.

I know millionaire dentists and doctors and especially orthodontists.

Communism? Anarchy? These are the systems you believe are superior alternatives to capitalism?

Anarchy doesn't work. Never has and never will. Why do people insist on believing in something that has no historical success? Communism? A system that is a PROVEN failure.

Amazing. It took less than a century to prove that communism doesn't work while capitalism has been around in one form or another for most of human history. Yet here we are with these same tired old arguments.

Systems that don't work will inevitably vanish while those that work will survive. Capitalism was around long before communism and will be around long after the last communist is buried.

Now if you want to talk about the current situation where the megacorporations are bending politics to suit their own needs and in effect creating an oligarchy then I can agree with that. The situation in the United States is more and more becoming a perversion of capitalism where the ultra-wealthy are gaining an ever larger portion of the wealth and the poorest are getting an ever smaller portion.

But that's a lesson in corruption, not a statement about capitalism itself. Would anyone here say that democracy is the wrong way to choose government? Remember that democracy is government by the will of the people? Yet democracy can also be corrupted and has been on numerous occasions.

The fact is that any system can be corrupted. Think of just how corrupt communism is in North Korea right now. Not only that but communism lends itself to totalitarianism as communism elevates the importance of the state above the individual while capitalism stresses the importance of the individual controlling his or her own destiny. Communism is much more a system that enslaves than capitalism will ever be.

"...The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says that he does not steal anything from you.

But did you really consent?
When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.

Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children. You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman

What do you think?

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I'm compelled to work for local business and the government, I don't know about you...

"...The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says that he does not steal anything from you.

But did you really consent?
When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.

Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children. You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman

What do you think?



I think that you are leading up to spouting some communist propaganda or argument. Let me read the rest of the thread to see if I was right.

intresting but in truth you did agree to work for your emplyer and you did not consent to be held up--

in other words- the actual difference between being robbed and being cheated by your employer is that you gave consent to be worked like a dog, but u never gave consent to be held up.

for those that will say that u were forced by the evils of capitalist to work for nothing--Minimum wage, and if you cant afford what you have dont buy it (that includes using medicare and foodstamps)

so if u make 20,000 a year dont have 6 kids and a flat screen HDTV with satalite.

dump the kids or the TV, and stop reading the godamn NS forums.

And you call yourself socialist.


This is SO ironic, and is the perfect example of why socialism/communism is such a crock of BS. So Letila, if I understand you correctly, you're admonishing his position. Does that mean this person should be able to have it all - 6 kids, flatscreen TV, sit around reading NS all day - and not able to afford any of it on his own? And who is going to pay for him to do this? Me? Why the heck should I have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility? What is amazing though is that you seemed so blatantly for it.

Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Wealth does not have to be redistributed. It can be, and is, created every day. Thus everyone gets richer. Example. My grandparents on both sides of my family were dirt poor all their lives. But taught their kids the value of hard work, motivation, and perseverance. My dad and mom took those lessons and went out and bettered themselves. Got college degrees and the like. My parents, then, were better off than the previous generation but not by all that much. I grew up lower middle class. Maybe poorer class, I dunno; I qualified for free lunches back in grammar school. But they also taught me the value of hard work. I went out and bettered myself; now I make just as much as my parents. With great future outlooks for my income to be multiplied.

What would I get under your system? I don't know, but suffice it to say that no one in my family would have ever been rewarded for their motivation.

Most of the arguments here seem to be focusing purely on economic theory rather than economic practices. Even in the cases where examples have been used, these examples are being abused by looking only at what these companies could do, not what they are able to do. I hear all of these wild claims about capitalism allowing unrestricted exploitation of the worker, and these have a grain of truth to them. But frankly, there are no purely capitalist countries in the war (and ironically only an anarchy could be truly capitalist, contrary to anarcho-communist reasoning). There are varying degrees of socialist (yes, the dreaded 's' word) policies that exist in many countries that protect the rights of workers, especially minimum-wage laws and safety laws.

If the argument of these anti-capitalists is that there is a flaw in purely capitalist theory, than I would agree with you. But stop trying to claim that there is some sort of gigantic emergency in the economies of the world in which some tremendous conspiracy of businessmen have been keeping the working man down. This is the 21st Century, look around! Some people do very well, and some people do very poorly. I believe that is natural, although it is regretable, and perhaps it is possible to limit the extremeness of the gap between the two. That is why programs exist to help people so that no matter how hard they fall, there is a chance they can lift themselves up again. I do not claim that it is easy, but it is possible. Communist theory sounds nice, with its promise of the elimination of such strife entirely, but it can be reasonably claimed that that type of government does not work. I am not claiming this based upon the success and failures of various countries that have called themselves communist, but based upon what I view as fundamentally flawed assumptions in communist theory. If you are interested in seeing some of my ideas on this topic, look at the debate I had with The Armed Republic of the Peoples Scotland awhile ago, it's all there.

That isn't true, because capitalism will always need a reasonably large amount of the population to be unskilled, unfortunately.

Untrue. Technology replaces the unskilled.

Untrue. After two centuries of struggle workers have now won a large enough piece of the pie that it's cheaper to develop technology to replace them.

Ahem. How is "it's cheaper to develop technology to replace them" different from "technology replaces them":?:

They both describe the same phenomenon but one recognizes that there is a choice (and blame) involved while the other does not.

To finish my original statement:

Not everyone in a capitalist society can get a good education. As technology replaces certain work, education will rise in price. Even though as a whole society might be earning more, the cost of living will continue to rise.

There will [i]always[/b] be an underclass under capitalism. Not everyone can earn enough money to call themselves rich. This whole situation does not have to be confined to one country either...looking at the issue from a world perspective does my argument even more justice.

wow, good thread. Still reading over it but I think a few points should be raised if they've not already.

The Capitalist economy is Global by nature.
The reason you can work in the type of white collar jobs that are availible is becaues alot of other people a continant away are doing the basic work to prop your job up.

Capitalists have no qualms in admitting this next point, and it is often forgoton.
FOR SOMEONE TO BE AT THE TOP, SOMEONE HAS TO BE AT THE BOTTOM.
And it's not a level playing field were everyone has the same oppertunity.

-You think you can go to harvard and become CEO of a multi-national corperation if you're born into poverty in a non-US state? But you can process one of thier products because your manual labour is worth many, many times lesss than inside thier own state.

-American schools DO NOT OFFER AND EQUAL EDUCATION. Tax for schools is not on a level basis, rich areas produce more tax for the local school, poor areas producs little tax for the local school, it is not fair, it is not a level starting point. Instantly, the wealthy recive a better education though better teaching reasources, small classes becasue more teachers can be hired and the obviouse productive learning enviroment free from the knock on effects of poverty. The system addmitted this UN-FAIR aspect when it tryed to introduce Busing in US schools, rather than set a straigh level of educational funding for all schools on a direct 1puplil=this amount of funding, or even better, putting MORE funding in shitty poor schools than thew richer ones.

-Since we're all m/c we are in-directly exploited on a lower level, Capitalism is still matureing and the only way the West sustains such large m/c's is becuase of the exploitation of poorer states. We have a relative freedom to pick form a range of jobs depending on our educaton that assists in those areas of commurce (another point, learning for a job, not learning for attaing any form of universal understanding about humanity or what is right) , and because of the level of luxuary availible to most western classes on some level we are pacified.

FINALY, the most important point.

The statement that anyoen can go out, start a business and succed is based on a very vital premise that needs understanding.

-You can only survive if you make a profit, to make a profit you sell many products at a price that is more than it cost to make them. In order to ensure that this is possible you cannot pay the people invovled in making the product the true price of it, but have to pay them less, and indeed as little as you can get away with to keep them productive and to keep the business profitable. (this is a very basic description of this process)

It is only those who do this as efficiently as possible who grow and grow. This is why big corperations excist, they do it the best. And this is why they grow bigger, and why the numbers of rivals decreases.
Exploiting someones work is paying them less than the true value of the amount of time put into making a product.

What about countries were people work 12 hours a day for below minimum wage? There are countries where child labor is still legal.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Neither communism nor capitalism works perfectly

Neither system is better than the other

This thread is an excellent example of the pros and cons of both sides of the argument

And for my personal opinion: an ideal communist society is far-fetched. Under capitalism, you dont always have the choice to find a new job. Although technically you do, theres the factor that some people cant find any other jobs. Sometimes that job is the only choice.

No form of economic ideology is perfect. Whatever economic policies you have you are relying on someone's compassion to make it fair.

I'll stick with centrist economics personally.

Just thought about something when reading Scotland's post about schools:

I agree with your point, that schools in poor neighborhoods are at a big disadvantage, but I just wanted to point out that more money won't necessarily fix the problem. Keep in mind that the school systems in the nation (in my country, the US) that cost the most taxpayer money are not actually the best. This indicates that something more than money is required to convince students to work harder and actually try to learn. Part of the problem is cultural, in that the children of the poor often lack the encouragement from their parents that would enable them to succeed in school.

I am actually speaking from first-hand (after a fashion) knowledge on this matter. I attended the poorest school in my area (although of course that still makes it a little better than the worst in most of the rest of the country), and I often witnessed the fact that many of the students there really couldn't care less about school. You can't expect more money to solve this problem (although I imagine some of them would pay more attention if you paid them to, although I really don't think people that age ought to have too much disposable income...). I succeeded because I came from a different part of town, and was attending that school rather than the school that was a few blocks away because it offered a special program there that was not available anywhere else. That is an example of the state trying to equalize the educational opportunities in the school system, but although I and others like me may have boosted the average scores for the school, we didn't really make the average student any better.

I'm not sure what could solve this problem, since I am against wholesale redistribution of wealth, and that would seem to be the only way of disbanding this culture of ignorance. Other solutions might be to increase teacher pay to attract and keep better teachers and to enforce higher standards from those teachers, but if the students don't want to learn there isn't much that can make them. That's why socialised education systems tend to perform better (on average) than more capitalistic ones. I will concede that socialism has its advantages on an educational level, although I still believe that capitalism provides more overall benefits.

I saw this example on a poster at school one day. Thought it described capitalism fairly well.

"You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull and have more cows."

This is opposed to such systems as fascism, which said:

"You have two cows. The government shoots you and takes both."

No form of economic ideology is perfect. Whatever economic policies you have you are relying on someone's compassion to make it fair.

And that brings us to the heart of the matter. Thank you Clonetopia.

Any system of oligarchy, whether it's Soviet-style communism or American-style capitalism, is going to be lacking in that compassion. I'm an anarchist for exactly that reason. The larger the system of organization and the more top-down it's decision-making structure, the less compassionate it will be, the more abstract "the people" will be to the decision makers, and the more power available to those who would seek to abuse it.

I personally hold the principles of anarchism as the ideal that should be striven for. But at the same time I fully recognize that any substantial shift in economic or political structures to an anarchistic model is not going to happen so will fully support any economic/political philosophy or movement that results in even a slightly more compassionate, democratic, just, and sustainable society. I'm much more concerned with goals than the ideological class of the methods (so long as the methods are just).

And your point also brings us back to the original question posed by this post: What is the true nature of Capitalism? That's a very complicated question. Capitalism does not, by definition, preclude the existence of compassion in the economic system. The current form of neo-liberal capitalism we labor under, though, with its extreme concentration of wealth and power, dog-eat-dog competition, encouragement of waste and consumerism, subjugation of the third world, reliance on military power to impose political and economic conditions favorable to the multi-national corporations, and its conscious decision to shrink the social safety net is almost completely devoid of compassion. Under this system, in fact, compassion is a weakness to be exploited.

"...The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says that he does not steal anything from you.

But did you really consent?

Yes.

When the highwayman

False analogy. Your boss is not trying to rob you.

Are you not compelled to work for an employer?

Are you not compelled to breathe? Nature is a thief! You must breathe, but did you consent?

And Alexander never thought of working for himself, either, it seems.

*tosses Alex on the trashheap with the rest of the loonies*

False analogy. Your boss is not trying to rob you.

If he's trying to make a profit, he is.

Are you not compelled to breathe? Nature is a thief! You must breathe, but did you consent?

And the employer takes advantage of your needs to make a profit off your labor.

And Alexander never thought of working for himself, either, it seems.

If that was an option for everyone, then there would be no one to flip burgers.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

False analogy. Your boss is not trying to rob you.

If he's trying to make a profit, he is.

Are you not compelled to breathe? Nature is a thief! You must breathe, but did you consent?

And the employer takes advantage of your needs to make a profit off your labor.

And Alexander never thought of working for himself, either, it seems.

If that was an option for everyone, then there would be no one to flip burgers.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The employer doesn't take advantage of the employee, in a truly capitalist system the employee controls the employer, the employee can leave at any time he / she wants, and choose any job that he/she wants, thus chapitalism makes the benevolent succeed, if you're not nice to your employees, they leave and join the competitor, now you're fucked... In addition there's no "rich poor" gap, as you call it, there's no structural reason preventing any person from working... the poor can become rich, rockafeller was an extremely good example of this. there is no reason why other people cant do the same. the reason there is a poor, there is a heiarchy is because of the welfare state, since the state funds the poor by TAKING from the rich, what it does is that it robs the rich, the only people ABLE to hire the poor and make them not poor. The structural reason of the rich poor gap lies in the welfare state, not capitalism

False analogy. Your boss is not trying to rob you.

If he's trying to make a profit, he is.

Are you not compelled to breathe? Nature is a thief! You must breathe, but did you consent?

And the employer takes advantage of your needs to make a profit off your labor.

And Alexander never thought of working for himself, either, it seems.

If that was an option for everyone, then there would be no one to flip burgers.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The employer doesn't take advantage of the employee, in a truly capitalist system the employee controls the employer, the employee can leave at any time he / she wants, and choose any job that he/she wants, thus chapitalism makes the benevolent succeed, if you're not nice to your employees, they leave and join the competitor, now you're fucked... In addition there's no "rich poor" gap, as you call it, there's no structural reason preventing any person from working... the poor can become rich, rockafeller was an extremely good example of this. there is no reason why other people cant do the same. the reason there is a poor, there is a heiarchy is because of the welfare state, since the state funds the poor by TAKING from the rich, what it does is that it robs the rich, the only people ABLE to hire the poor and make them not poor. The structural reason of the rich poor gap lies in the welfare state, not capitalism

False analogy. Your boss is not trying to rob you.

If he's trying to make a profit, he is.

Are you not compelled to breathe? Nature is a thief! You must breathe, but did you consent?

And the employer takes advantage of your needs to make a profit off your labor.

And Alexander never thought of working for himself, either, it seems.

If that was an option for everyone, then there would be no one to flip burgers.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The employer doesn't take advantage of the employee, in a truly capitalist system the employee controls the employer, the employee can leave at any time he / she wants, and choose any job that he/she wants, thus chapitalism makes the benevolent succeed, if you're not nice to your employees, they leave and join the competitor, now you're fucked... In addition there's no "rich poor" gap, as you call it, there's no structural reason preventing any person from working... the poor can become rich, rockafeller was an extremely good example of this. there is no reason why other people cant do the same. the reason there is a poor, there is a heiarchy is because of the welfare state, since the state funds the poor by TAKING from the rich, what it does is that it robs the rich, the only people ABLE to hire the poor and make them not poor. The structural reason of the rich poor gap lies in the welfare state, not capitalism

And the employer takes advantage of your needs to make a profit off your labor.
Employees exploit employers because all they bring is their ability to work while without the employer and the commitment of his capital and vision there would be no work to be done and the employee would starve.

Or perhaps we can think of it this way: it's a fair deal. In a free market (which we don't have since we have state industry) no one is compelled to work and both employee and employer are recognized as sovereign individuals who make an agreement where both benefit from the transaction.

If you don't think you are getting proper value for your labour: quit.

So.... the employee forces the employer to pay him, if the employer doesn't pay for someone to do the work he will go out of business and starve. Therefore the emplyee exploits (robs?) the employer.

Or.... Robinson Crusoe has to climb trees if he wants coconuts. He didn't consent to it therefore the coconuts exploited him.

Letila, you keep parroting the same squawk and I keep replying to it. When are you going to get it? Just because somebody makes you a good offer when every other offer is much worse does not amount to compulsion.

Is a wife "forcing" her husband to mow the grass if she "threatens" to leave him for not doing chores? Is a woman "forcing" a man to wed her if she insists that she won't have sex before marriage? How then is it compulsion to expect someone to scratch your back before you scratch theirs?

Only the direct application of agression (or threat thereof) against yourself or your property can count as compelling you to do something against your will. Either adress the issues that have been raised or shut your bong hole, hippy.

But you aren't being paid the full product of your labor in capitalism.

You don't get paid anything in Anarcho-Communism. Let's face facts, Letila. Anarchism. Does. Not. Work. It didn't work in the Ukraine. It didn't work in Spain. It is a Utopian ideal, and thus, it fails.

Then why do people flip burgers? They wouldn't do it if self-employment was an option for everyone.

Someone has to do it.

It's a simple fact that if you are trying to maximize profit, then you'll cut corners and lower working conditions.

How strange...that must be why most products improve over time...cutting corners. Places which cut corners generally fail. And lower working conditions are still better than the death and chaos (hell, anything is better than a lack of external control. Yes, including a nazi dictatorship. Generally because the anarchists are the first to disappear in the night.) inherent in the anarchist system. Times have changed, Letila, from the first half of the twentieth century.

Anarchism has even less chance of success now than it did 70 years ago.

But you aren't being paid the full product of your labor in capitalism.

You don't get paid anything in Anarcho-Communism. Let's face facts, Letila. Anarchism. Does. Not. Work. It didn't work in the Ukraine. It didn't work in Spain. It is a Utopian ideal, and thus, it fails.

Then why do people flip burgers? They wouldn't do it if self-employment was an option for everyone.

Someone has to do it.

It's a simple fact that if you are trying to maximize profit, then you'll cut corners and lower working conditions.

How strange...that must be why most products improve over time...cutting corners. Places which cut corners generally fail. And lower working conditions are still better than the death and chaos (hell, anything is better than a lack of external control. Yes, including a nazi dictatorship. Generally because the anarchists are the first to disappear in the night.) inherent in the anarchist system. Times have changed, Letila, from the first half of the twentieth century.

Anarchism has even less chance of success now than it did 70 years ago.
Why would producing inferior products and having unhealthy unhappy workers lead to higher profits?

Anarcho-communism is utopian. Libertarianism is sound in theory and has a proven track record for each element of the programme.

bottle thats because you are an educated professional (I am guessing) and not a laborer, get a job as a miner or a meat-packer and then say that again.

that's what i said: the unskilled have to worry. so they should get skills. i have been about as poor as a person can be in America, and i've gotten myself an education and left that trap behind...if i can do it, anybody can. i'm not especially smart or talented or unique, i'm just motivated, and anybody else could do as well. :lol: :o

i so totally agree wid u!! i hav done it 2 and it is sooo not hard. anyone can do it just trust urself :lol:

5) Drop out of society.

I'd recommend this option for the person that started this post. She can take the first step of her journey by starting here (http://www.thefec.org/). Unfortunately she'd actually have to discriminate against the others when she chooses her favorite...how will she ever live with herself.

Start my own business.

Do you really believe you could compete with Microsoft or Starbucks?



Do you really believe you would have been able to post this crap on the Internet if it were not for a company like Microsoft?

Reread the Berkman quote. It does not attack or question the compusion to survive. In fact, it is the key to his argument. Instead, Berkman is attacking the exploitation of that compulsion. The "gun" he is speaking of is not our compulsion to eat and drink to survive but is the ability of some to deny access to the means to meet those needs. Borrowing from Berkman's illustration, you are basically arguing that a person handing over his cash to an armed highwayman is doing so under a consentual agreement because it is the desire to live which underlies the action and not the highwayman's threat and ability to deny life.

How do you explain the person who likes working? Are they holding the gun to their own head?

Start my own business.

Do you really believe you could compete with Microsoft or Starbucks?



Do you really believe you would have been able to post this crap on the Internet if it were not for a company like Microsoft?
Microsoft is in trouble. Yay Linux! Once people realise that they can get free operating systems instead of paying tonnes there'll be no Windows. Of course you can compete with Starbucks. No matter how many stores they have it is nowhere near the number of small tea shops. On the market size isn't the key factor it's efficiency.

And Microsoft...what can I say? A company which was born by stealing technologies, grew by obliterating rivals, and became a superpower by cornering the market is something we should fear and detest rather than revere as something to emulate.

One is always free to buy an Apple and much of the profit made will go to a pretty far Left businessman to boot...even though this is an oxymoronically concept.

Second, and much more important, this version of communism that you present and the version of capitalism that we currently suffer under are not the only two options available to us!

Do you have the fortitude to explain to us just how much you personally are suffering?

What about countries were people work 12 hours a day for below minimum wage? There are countries where child labor is still legal.

Yes but whose minimum wage?...and what is its puchasing power in the country being discussed. Also those people generally do not have property rights and they work for a benevolent central planning dictatorship...for the GOOD of all its people of course. Kind of hit close to your ideological home, doesn't it?

False analogy. Your boss is not trying to rob you.

If he's trying to make a profit, he is.

That begs the question of how. Please demonstrate.

Are you not compelled to breathe? Nature is a thief! You must breathe, but did you consent?

And the employer takes advantage of your needs to make a profit off your labor.

That begs the question of how. Please demonstrate.

And Alexander never thought of working for himself, either, it seems.

If that was an option for everyone, then there would be no one to flip burgers.

Non sequitur.

Hmm.....2 of the same fallacy and a 3rd. Almost a jackpot.

Of course, you could in theory have a burger joint where everyone who worked there owned shares in the company. But then there is a lot of risk in case the burger joint goes belly up so you'd probably make a deal with some other shops whereby you own some shares in them and they own some in yours (i.e. trade them) to minimise the risk. Oops, you just reinvented capitalism.

Then again, most burger flippers are more interested in earning a quick buck and aren't that interested in owning a business. They don't want to save up, they want to spend it now. They want to earn some cash and get on with other things. Is that so immoral? These socialists, they think wealth is so important. Sheesh.

I say, I feel many of you are missing the point here. Capitalism is just so vulgar. It allows no room for the wantonly indolent. And without the honest lounger, we would have no quality love poetry with which to woo the fillies.

That begs the question of how. Please demonstrate.

His profit is your unpaid labor. You don't receive the full product of your labor because he takes a part of it.

That begs the question of how. Please demonstrate.

If you don't sell your labor, you can't buy food, which is kept out of your reach by violence.

Non sequitur.

Hardly. If everyone could own their own business, then why would anyone choose to flip burgers?

How do you explain the person who likes working? Are they holding the gun to their own head?

If you like working, it still works in favor of anarcho-communism. Afterall, it's based on voluntary labor.

I'd recommend this option for the person that started this post. She can take the first step of her journey by starting here. Unfortunately she'd actually have to discriminate against the others when she chooses her favorite...how will she ever live with herself.

I'm male.

Anarcho-communism is utopian. Libertarianism is sound in theory and has a proven track record for each element of the programme.

You mean in the 1800s when workers had to work 12 hours a day and child labor was allowed?

You don't get paid anything in Anarcho-Communism. Let's face facts, Letila. Anarchism. Does. Not. Work. It didn't work in the Ukraine. It didn't work in Spain. It is a Utopian ideal, and thus, it fails.

It worked before the communist betrays in both places.

Someone has to do it.

But no one would if self-employment was an option for everyone.

So.... the employee forces the employer to pay him, if the employer doesn't pay for someone to do the work he will go out of business and starve. Therefore the emplyee exploits (robs?) the employer.

Or.... Robinson Crusoe has to climb trees if he wants coconuts. He didn't consent to it therefore the coconuts exploited him.

Letila, you keep parroting the same squawk and I keep replying to it. When are you going to get it? Just because somebody makes you a good offer when every other offer is much worse does not amount to compulsion.

Is a wife "forcing" her husband to mow the grass if she "threatens" to leave him for not doing chores? Is a woman "forcing" a man to wed her if she insists that she won't have sex before marriage? How then is it compulsion to expect someone to scratch your back before you scratch theirs?

Only the direct application of agression (or threat thereof) against yourself or your property can count as compelling you to do something against your will. Either adress the issues that have been raised or shut your bong hole, hippy.

For one thing, those examples mostly wouldn't kill you. Second, the employer makes a profit off of your non-voluntary labor.

Employees exploit employers because all they bring is their ability to work while without the employer and the commitment of his capital and vision there would be no work to be done and the employee would starve.

They wouldn't be able to work without means of production that just happen to be bound to the employer by government violence (or the euphemism "property rights").

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

your non-voluntary labor.

when you get hired, then you agree to the contract -- that includes labour. sorry buddy, but the world isn't as lazy as you'd want it to be. the employer does a helluva lot of work too. you're ignorant, man. real ignorant. stop eating whatever any propaganda feeds you.

when you get hired, then you agree to the contract -- that includes labour. sorry buddy, but the world isn't as lazy as you'd want it to be.

You have to agree to the contract to survive. If a slave owner threatens to shoot you if you don't work, it would hardly qualify as voluntary. Why is it that if you will starve if you don't agree to a contract that is is considered voluntary.

he employer does a helluva lot of work too.

If they are a small business owner, then yes, but I have a hard time believing a CEO works hundreds of times harder than a worker.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

dbl post

Second, and much more important, this version of communism that you present and the version of capitalism that we currently suffer under are not the only two options available to us!

Do you have the fortitude to explain to us just how much you personally are suffering?

Obviously I am not personally suffering materially. I have both the resources and time to be able to post on a forum like this. I am struggling, yes, but not suffering materially.

I am suffering morally, though. Check back a page for the posts about compassion which, quite relevant to the question at hand, means "to suffer with". My morality is based on compassion. Therefore, I "suffer with" those who are exploited and at a disadvantage under our current political and economic order.

But enough about me. When I said "we suffer" that's exactly what I meant. We all suffer when humans are dehumanized. We all suffer when our leaders make a mockery of democracy. We all suffer when hegemony is enforced with an iron hand. And we all suffer when Christianity kisses the ring on the hand of political and economic power.

If you don't sell your labor, you can't buy food, which is kept out of your reach by violence.

Hardly. If everyone could own their own business, then why would anyone choose to flip burgers?

Anarcho-communism is utopian. Libertarianism is sound in theory and has a proven track record for each element of the programme.

i./ You mean in the 1800s when workers had to work 12 hours a day and child labor was allowed?

ii./ But no one would if self-employment was an option for everyone.

iii./ For one thing, those examples mostly wouldn't kill you. Second, the employer makes a profit off of your non-voluntary labor.

iv./ They wouldn't be able to work without means of production that just happen to be bound to the employer by government violence (or the euphemism "property rights").

i./ It was *much* better than the 1700s. 12 hours of factory work beats 14 hours of back breaking agricultural labour any day. Child labour wasn't "allowed", it was necessary. And why shouldn't children be allowed to work? There were many un-Libertarian elements in the 19th century. Imperialism, restrictions on trade, state interference in industry (noteably banking). The beginnings of the 19th century weren't so good for the "worker" but the whole continent of Europe was at war (Napoleon). After that it was *progress* unparalelled in human history, despite massive immigration and population increases. The 19th century would have sucked under any system and would have been worse under communism. You'd benefit from reading "Capitalism and the Historians" edited by F.A. Hayek.

ii./ It is. And even a wage labourer can be considered as self employed with a single customer. Working for a wage is often more rewarding than being self employed. Compare a good doctor in a large hospital with a hot dog stand owner.

iii./ Losing a job won't kill you either. Stop parroting this nonsense. If the husband mows the grass to keep his wife does that make it involuntary? Is she "profiting from his involuntary labour"? If you perform an action in hope of a reward that obviously doesn't make that action involuntary.

How is "making you sell your labour under threat of losing your job" less 'exploitative' that making you work under threat of being expelled from the commune?

iv./ Stateless societies have in general enjoyed more secure property rights than states.

Child labour wasn't "allowed", it was necessary. And why shouldn't children be allowed to work?

Do you really believe children wanted to work? You sound like Mugatu from Zoolander. I don't know where you got the idea that children loved getting paid almost nothing for hard work, but I suggest you check your sources.

Also, it was not necessary. It was profitable. Look at today. Technology has advanced immensely since then, yet we still work 8 hours a day.

There were many un-Libertarian elements in the 19th century. Imperialism, restrictions on trade, state interference in industry (noteably banking).

Then what was the libertarian paradise you were refering to when you said it had been shown to work?

It is. And even a wage labourer can be considered as self employed with a single customer. Working for a wage is often more rewarding than being self employed. Compare a good doctor in a large hospital with a hot dog stand owner.

I doubt flipping burgers is more rewarding than owning your own business. At least try to be reasonable. It might possibly pay more, but it is much more degrading.

Losing a job won't kill you either. Stop parroting this nonsense. If the husband mows the grass to keep his wife does that make it involuntary? Is she "profiting from his involuntary labour"? If you perform an action in hope of a reward that obviously doesn't make that action involuntary.

Losing a job can kill you. If you don't have money, you can't pay rent, you can't buy food, you can't pay taxes, etc. You would be in a lot of trouble.

How is "making you sell your labour under threat of losing your job" less 'exploitative' that making you work under threat of being expelled from the commune?

You choose to live at the commune. You can always leave and farm your own land because there is no private property, only possession.

Stateless societies have in general enjoyed more secure property rights than states.

Stateless societies have actually generally had no property "rights".

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Employees exploit employers because all they bring is their ability to work while without the employer and the commitment of his capital and vision there would be no work to be done and the employee would starve.
That's hilarious. :lol: All people bring is their ability to work? But there are so many skills, surely organised workers could be self-sufficient without the intervention of any capitalist. You don't need someone exploiting you to live. But what of the employer? You're not going to see her/him doing the dirty work. They need people to work for them.

Or perhaps we can think of it this way: it's a fair deal. In a free market (which we don't have since we have state industry) no one is compelled to work and both employee and employer are recognized as sovereign individuals who make an agreement where both benefit from the transaction.

If you don't think you are getting proper value for your labour: quit.

So, to summarise...capitalism is a strictly voluntary affair. You choose to work, your employer chooses to employ you. But if the entire point is the pursuit of surplus value; and the fewer people the capitalist employs, the more money s/he makes; then s/he will keep their workforce to a minimum necessity. Which creates job shortages.
So...you choose to work, a voluntary decision. But because employment brings in your income, and there are a limited number of jobs, you don't want to leave, because then you might not get enough money. Working for someone is a completely voluntary decision: you can choose between starving and being worked to death. It's a free market, it's a free choice.

[Sorry if this is a double post. Please delete if it is]

most burger flippers are more interested in earning a quick buck and aren't that interested in owning a business. They don't want to save up, they want to spend it now. They want to earn some cash and get on with other things. Is that so immoral? These socialists, they think wealth is so important. Sheesh.

That is unbelievably insulting. Most "burger flippers", as we're calling the working poor, are most interested in feeding their families. They may not be aware, not educated enough, or not capable of competing in the entrepreneurial world. Or their priorities dictate that they not spend every waking moment concentrating on a business. Or they have moral qualms about participating as a "boss" in our economic system.

Regardless, you're missing the point. It is very unfair and dishonest to look at an individual and blame his or her state on a lack of initiative. Yes, anyone can become an entrepreneur but not everyone can.

You also seem to be blind to the hypocrisy of your statement. Corporations spend billions of dollars per year on advertising encouraging people to spend their money on unneeded items. This consumerism, in fact, is the primary driver of the American economy and the creator of profit and wealth. To turn around then and hold this against the poor is despicable. It's all part of the system.

And it's not wealth that's important, it's human dignity. Nor is everyone who questions the excesses and abuses of neo-liberal capitalism a socialist.

That begs the question of how. Please demonstrate.

His profit is your unpaid labor.

Labor Theory of Value. Refuted to death.

That begs the question of how. Please demonstrate.

If you don't sell your labor, you can't buy food, which is kept out of your reach by violence.

By violence? Prove it.

Non sequitur.

Hardly. If everyone could own their own business, then why would anyone choose to flip burgers?

What about people who own burger joints? DUH!

Labor Theory of Value. Refuted to death.

No, it's a simple fact that a CEO doesn't work 500 times harder than a worker. It simply isn't possible. Therefore, the wealth of the rich must be from some other source than actually working for it.

I don't believe in value. It is a construct of society and is backed up only by force. If you think anarcho-communism promotes laziness, then you should definitely oppose capitalism because there is no way Bill Gates works thousands of times harder than the average worker.

On the other hand, you could claim that Bill Gates is more important than the workers. If that's the case, then why are actors paid more than farmers even though food is more important than entertainment?

By violence? Prove it.

Police keep people off of property. You call it defending individual rights to own huge pieces of land you don't use. I call it violence. If government is violent when it taxes, it's violent when it enforces property.

What about people who own burger joints? DUH!

The burger flippers don't own the burger joint, though. They are hired and sell their labor. While they are there, they must take orders. The net result is that capitalism forces you to sell your freedom.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Labor Theory of Value. Refuted to death.

No,

Yeah, it has been. Keep up with the times.

it's a simple fact that a CEO doesn't work 500 times harder than a worker.

So?

It simply isn't possible. Therefore, the wealth of the rich must be from some other source than actually working for it.

You keep wanting to narrowly define labor, it seems, as hard physical. The real world defines it otherwise.

Not to mention that someone has to take the chance with the capital, and is rewarded more as a result.

Did you fail basic economics?

I don't believe in value.

Then why did you use the LTV?

It is a construct of society and is backed up only by force.

No, it's a construct of being HUMAN. Everyone has values and everyone values something. A value is that which you act to gain or keep, and I'm certain that you act to keep your life. Your life is a VALUE!

Or do you want to admit to being a hypocrite since you haven't killed yourself yet. Your choice.

If you think anarcho-communism promotes laziness, then you should definitely oppose capitalism because there is no way Bill Gates works thousands of times harder than the average worker.

I don't think anything of the sort about anarchocommunism. I'm of the correct factual stance that anarchocommunism is a contradiction in terms.

On the other hand, you could claim that Bill Gates is more important than the workers. If that's the case, then why are actors paid more than farmers even though food is more important than entertainment?

Subjective value preference and supply/demand. How much corn is grown in the US? Now how many REALLY TALENTED basketball players are there? See the difference?

By violence? Prove it.

Police keep people off of property.

So can you.

You call it defending individual rights to own huge pieces of land you don't use. I call it violence.

Then you have a very warped definition of "violence.

If government is violent when it taxes, it's violent when it enforces property.

Ignorantio elenchi/non sequitur. The first part of your sentence is correct because the government is VIOLATING property rights. The second is ENFORCING them, which isn't.

What about people who own burger joints? DUH!

The burger flippers don't own the burger joint, though.

That didn't answer my question. Why don't you take a stab at answering it, m'kay?

So?

Doesn't it matter if someone gets paid for work they didn't do?

You keep wanting to narrowly define labor, it seems, as hard physical. The real world defines it otherwise.

I realize that mental labor exists, but I refuse to believe that CEOs are hundreds of times smarter than workers. No system can survive if it needs above average people to work.

Then why did you use the LTV?

That's the LTV? I thought it was capitalism's dirty secret. Whether or not value exists, capitalists are getting paid for the work of others and that payment gives them power.

No, it's a construct of being HUMAN. Everyone has values and everyone values something. A value is that which you act to gain or keep, and I'm certain that you act to keep your life. Your life is a VALUE!


I value my own life, but others wouldn't necessarily agree. People agree that something is worth something because the government says it is.

I don't think anything of the sort about anarchocommunism. I'm of the correct factual stance that anarchocommunism is a contradiction in terms.

Hardly. "Anarcho"-capitalism is the real contradiction. If someone claimed to be an "anarcho"-feudalist, they would be laughed out of the study of politics. Why should an "anarcho"-capitalist be taken seriously?

Subjective value preference and supply/demand. How much corn is grown in the US? Now how many REALLY TALENTED basketball players are there? See the difference?

Just because there are less doesn't mean they are more important or work harder.

So can you.

Not as effectively, though. In addition, the amount of property you own comes down to how powerful you are, in other words, might makes right.

Then you have a very warped definition of "violence.

The police have guns. These guns serve a purpose.

That didn't answer my question. Why don't you take a stab at answering it, m'kay?

I'm not talking about them. Though someone owns the burger joint, it isn't the person flipping burgers.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

So?

Doesn't it matter if someone gets paid for work they didn't do?

Who says they are?

You keep wanting to narrowly define labor, it seems, as hard physical. The real world defines it otherwise.

I realize that mental labor exists, but I refuse to believe that CEOs are hundreds of times smarter than workers. No system can survive if it needs above average people to work.

So you strawman that it's about being smarter?

You really have no clue.

Then why did you use the LTV?

That's the LTV?

YES, you leftist simpleton. That's the crap that Marx was trying to use to justify his nonsense. And it's been REFUTED TO DEATH.

I thought it was capitalism's dirty secret. Whether or not value exists, capitalists are getting paid for the work of others and that payment gives them power.

Only in Marx' itty-bitty brain. The real world, however, is not like that.

No, it's a construct of being HUMAN. Everyone has values and everyone values something. A value is that which you act to gain or keep, and I'm certain that you act to keep your life. Your life is a VALUE!


I value my own life,

Then values and value exists. You contradicted yourself.

but others wouldn't necessarily agree.

So what? Value is inherently subjective.

People agree that something is worth something because the government says it is.

No, we agree that it is worth something because we have no real alternative because the government imposes it upon us.

I don't think anything of the sort about anarchocommunism. I'm of the correct factual stance that anarchocommunism is a contradiction in terms.

Hardly.

No, it's quite correct.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is the real contradiction.

Not in the least.

If someone claimed to be an "anarcho"-feudalist, they would be laughed out of the study of politics. Why should an "anarcho"-capitalist be taken seriously?

*looks for justification*
*finds none*

Why should I take your statement seriously when you proffer no justification. At least I made some effort by pointing out (rightly so) that communism requires a government (central planning is required to state what will be produced where, etc). You provided....NOTHING. Just an empty, baseless assertion. Why should I take that seriously?

Subjective value preference and supply/demand. How much corn is grown in the US? Now how many REALLY TALENTED basketball players are there? See the difference?

Just because there are less doesn't mean they are more important or work harder.

You really don't grasp the idea of supply/demand and subjective value preference, do you?

So can you.

Not as effectively,

You'd be surprised.

though. In addition, the amount of property you own comes down to how powerful you are, in other words, might makes right.

Non sequitur. There's nothing that links the two.

Tell me--do you have anything other than fallacies? It's getting tedious to wade through them.

Then you have a very warped definition of "violence.

The police have guns. These guns serve a purpose.

To harass and annoy the citizens.

That didn't answer my question. Why don't you take a stab at answering it, m'kay?

I'm not talking about them.

Then you're missing HALF THE EQUATION. Can't do that.

Who says they are?

If you go by the assumption in money-based economics that things have value, then it seems reasonable to expect someone who gets paid 500 times more to work 500 times harder.

So you strawman that it's about being smarter?

You really have no clue.

I get what you are saying. The CEO gets paid more without doing physical labor because he does mental labor. I was pointing out that no one could think 500 times faster or more effectively.

So what? Value is inherently subjective.

So it's useless for things between people. It has nothing to do with price.

No, we agree that it is worth something because we have no real alternative because the government imposes it upon us.

So you agree that the idea of value as far as products go is because of government force?

Why should I take your statement seriously when you proffer no justification. At least I made some effort by pointing out (rightly so) that communism requires a government (central planning is required to state what will be produced where, etc). You provided....NOTHING. Just an empty, baseless assertion. Why should I take that seriously?

Marxism requires central authority Anarcho-communism doesn't.

You really don't grasp the idea of supply/demand and subjective value preference, do you?

I guess not. If something's value is subjective and based on preference, then I don't see the point of price. It's imposing someone else's values on me.

Non sequitur. There's nothing that links the two.

If you "defend" property through force, then it would be based on "might makes right".

To harass and annoy the citizens.

And enforce laws, including property laws, through force.

Then you're missing HALF THE EQUATION. Can't do that.

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the people flipping burgers.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Why is it that Communists are also Athiests (at least that is what the Communist Manifesto suggests) yet they would fit in well with uber-Christians who oppose evolution and Darwinism. It's called survival of the fittest. If you are not capable to get a job that allows you to survive in this society, and are too dumb to go find another society that you could survive in then you don't deserve to survive, nor does your family, as they are now polluted with your genes. This is were Social Darwinism steps in. You are not capable of surviving in this society. If someone, out of the kindness of their rich, capitalistic heart decides to help you out, then you got lucky. Otherwise, you don't deserve to go on polluting our gene pool. You inhibit progress and social evolution.

No, it's a simple fact that a CEO doesn't work 500 times harder than a worker. It simply isn't possible. Therefore, the wealth of the rich must be from some other source than actually working for it.

You're right, the source of wealth for the rich is not just how hard they work. The source of wealth for the rich is the people willing to pay them. You must be thick to not understand that capitalism involves a supply and a demand.

You're an anarchist, right? Leave people alone to trade their labour or property in any way they see fit.

And now for a word from our sponsors...

Pro-capitalist, pro-civil rights nations may seek safe-haven in the newly formed region of The International Union. Please send me a telegram for the password if you are interested. We aim to discuss all UN resolutions and vote all the same so that our region becomes a very powerful force to be reckoned with in the United Nations, but we are also interested in promoting capitalism and civil rights. Again, just telegram me if you are interested.

I love it. Take two things with a proven track record for failure, in this case anarchy and communism, combine them together and get the perfect system for the planet to live by.

That's sort of like taking two really offensive substances, say vomit and feces, mixing them together and coming up with a tasty treat for the in-laws. It's definitely something to try out on other people before having some yourself.

CAN YOU TELEGRAM ME EXPLAINING ME WHAT IS CAPITALISM.

CAN YOU TELEGRAM ME EXPLAINING ME WHAT IS CAPITALISM.

Can you Google capitalism?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=capitalism&btnG=Search

Or Dictionary.com it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism

Ever heard of America? Adam Smith? "Wealth of Nations"? Social Darwinism?

Ever bought a sandwich?

I don't know if my Yahoo analogy is in this thread...but that's the best explanation of Capitalism I've ever come up with. And even if that analogy is in here it probably isn't explained very well. But oh well, if you find my Yahoo analogy and are interested in a more in-depth explanation, just let me know.

Who says they are?

If you go by the assumption in money-based economics that things have value, then it seems reasonable to expect someone who gets paid 500 times more to work 500 times harder.

No it doesn't.

So you strawman that it's about being smarter?

You really have no clue.

I get what you are saying. The CEO gets paid more without doing physical labor because he does mental labor. I was pointing out that no one could think 500 times faster or more effectively.

So what?

So what? Value is inherently subjective.

So it's useless for things between people.

Bull. I value the loaf of lo-carb bread more than I do the money. The store owner values the money more than the loaf. An exchange is made. Each side gains.

It has nothing to do with price.

And notice how price didn't enter the above.

No, we agree that it is worth something because we have no real alternative because the government imposes it upon us.

So you agree that the idea of value as far as products go is because of government force?

Of one thing and one thing only: the fiat currency we use.

Why should I take your statement seriously when you proffer no justification. At least I made some effort by pointing out (rightly so) that communism requires a government (central planning is required to state what will be produced where, etc). You provided....NOTHING. Just an empty, baseless assertion. Why should I take that seriously?

Marxism requires central authority

As does communism.

Anarcho-communism doesn't.

You can repeat that until you're blue in the face; it won't be any more true. Anarchocommunism is a contradiction in terms. It's like having a married bachelor. It cannot be.

You really don't grasp the idea of supply/demand and subjective value preference, do you?

I guess not. If something's value is subjective and based on preference, then I don't see the point of price.

Then maybe you should do some research into actual economics, shouldn't you?

Here: http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec1.asp

It's imposing someone else's values on me.

Of course it isn't.

Non sequitur. There's nothing that links the two.

If you "defend" property through force, then it would be based on "might makes right".

That's just repeating your premise. You actually have to DEMONSTRATE it.

To harass and annoy the citizens.

And enforce laws, including property laws, through force.

No, mostly it's to harass and annoy and keep the government in power.

Then you're missing HALF THE EQUATION. Can't do that.

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the people flipping burgers.

Then you're missing HALF THE EQUATION. Can't do that

Child labour wasn't "allowed", it was necessary. And why shouldn't children be allowed to work?

Do you really believe children wanted to work? You sound like Mugatu from Zoolander. I don't know where you got the idea that children loved getting paid almost nothing for hard work, but I suggest you check your sources.

Also, it was not necessary. It was profitable. Look at today. Technology has advanced immensely since then, yet we still work 8 hours a day.
The enjoyed being paid for work more than they enjoyed starving on the streets as they did in previous centuries. The rest of what you said was irrelevant.


There were many un-Libertarian elements in the 19th century. Imperialism, restrictions on trade, state interference in industry (noteably banking).

Then what was the libertarian paradise you were refering to when you said it had been shown to work?

I never said it was a paradise, just that it was better than any other system. The more liberal an economy is the better it will do than otherwise.


It is. And even a wage labourer can be considered as self employed with a single customer. Working for a wage is often more rewarding than being self employed. Compare a good doctor in a large hospital with a hot dog stand owner.

I doubt flipping burgers is more rewarding than owning your own business. At least try to be reasonable. It might possibly pay more, but it is much more degrading.

Maybe they'd rather do a job you consider degrading than be poorer.


Losing a job won't kill you either. Stop parroting this nonsense. If the husband mows the grass to keep his wife does that make it involuntary? Is she "profiting from his involuntary labour"? If you perform an action in hope of a reward that obviously doesn't make that action involuntary.

Losing a job can kill you. If you don't have money, you can't pay rent, you can't buy food, you can't pay taxes, etc. You would be in a lot of trouble.

This is getting really old. Stop being so melodramatic.


How is "making you sell your labour under threat of losing your job" less 'exploitative' that making you work under threat of being expelled from the commune?

You choose to live at the commune. You can always leave and farm your own land because there is no private property, only possession.

Hilarious. In your system there is an infinite amount of land? Okay, in my system he can leave and farm his own land.


Stateless societies have in general enjoyed more secure property rights than states.

Stateless societies have actually generally had no property "rights".

Like.......?

CAN YOU TELEGRAM ME EXPLAINING ME WHAT IS CAPITALISM.

Can you Google capitalism?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=capitalism&btnG=Search

Or Dictionary.com it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism

Ever heard of America? Adam Smith? "Wealth of Nations"? Social Darwinism?
America? Social Darwinism? Crikey, maybe you should refrain from "defending" capitalism.

Why is it that Communists are also Athiests (at least that is what the Communist Manifesto suggests) yet they would fit in well with uber-Christians who oppose evolution and Darwinism. It's called survival of the fittest. If you are not capable to get a job that allows you to survive in this society, and are too dumb to go find another society that you could survive in then you don't deserve to survive, nor does your family, as they are now polluted with your genes. This is were Social Darwinism steps in. You are not capable of surviving in this society. If someone, out of the kindness of their rich, capitalistic heart decides to help you out, then you got lucky. Otherwise, you don't deserve to go on polluting our gene pool. You inhibit progress and social evolution.

Wow. Libertovania does so well, persuading even an entrenched lefty like me to seriously ponder the positives of anarcho-capitalism. Then you wander in and spout risible garbage like this and leave me wondering why the hell I bothered.

Surely we can evolve beyond concepts like Social Darwinism, hmm?

Why is it that Communists are also Athiests (at least that is what the Communist Manifesto suggests) yet they would fit in well with uber-Christians who oppose evolution and Darwinism. It's called survival of the fittest. If you are not capable to get a job that allows you to survive in this society, and are too dumb to go find another society that you could survive in then you don't deserve to survive, nor does your family, as they are now polluted with your genes. This is were Social Darwinism steps in. You are not capable of surviving in this society. If someone, out of the kindness of their rich, capitalistic heart decides to help you out, then you got lucky. Otherwise, you don't deserve to go on polluting our gene pool. You inhibit progress and social evolution.

Wow. Libertovania does so well, persuading even an entrenched lefty like me to seriously ponder the positives of anarcho-capitalism. Then you wander in and spout risible garbage like this and leave me wondering why the hell I bothered.

Surely we can evolve beyond concepts like Social Darwinism, hmm?
If that quote was accurate then I wouldn't want free markets either. When I get the boat home there's a guy who works there who's obviously mentally ill but he does a good job, makes the same money as "normal" people and seems to be well liked and respected. Social Darwinism is a misleading and dangerous analogy. The evolution analogy applies to the businesses, not the people.

Ecopoeia, 2 years ago I also thought socialists were people who cared and capitalists were people who didn't care but that's just not true. Libertarianism is a very humanitarian philosophy and charity is a part of the market as well as profit.

Thanks for the reassurance.

I think liberty and happiness are the most important things in life. It disturbs me when people lose sight of this and become slaves to their ideology. I'm thinking maybe we need a 'responsible hedonism' movement. The political philosophy isn't the important thing, it's the quality of life that matters. Go out, have fun, and where possible don't hurt others or impinge on their ability to enjoy their own lives.

Christ, I'd be a hippy if I wasn't such a cynic.

Go out, have fun, and where possible don't hurt others or impinge on their ability to enjoy their own lives.

Libertarianism in a nut shell.

Why is it that Communists are also Athiests (at least that is what the Communist Manifesto suggests) yet they would fit in well with uber-Christians who oppose evolution and Darwinism. It's called survival of the fittest. If you are not capable to get a job that allows you to survive in this society, and are too dumb to go find another society that you could survive in then you don't deserve to survive, nor does your family, as they are now polluted with your genes. This is were Social Darwinism steps in. You are not capable of surviving in this society. If someone, out of the kindness of their rich, capitalistic heart decides to help you out, then you got lucky. Otherwise, you don't deserve to go on polluting our gene pool. You inhibit progress and social evolution.

The problem here is that beating everyone else isn't necessarily a sign of fitness. Kropotkin wrote an entire book on how coöperation and sharing can increase one's chances of survival, making them more fit than those who compete over everything.

Ecopoeia, 2 years ago I also thought socialists were people who cared and capitalists were people who didn't care but that's just not true. Libertarianism is a very humanitarian philosophy and charity is a part of the market as well as profit.

But in anarcho-communism, sharing what you make is rewarded with the respect of others, but not punished in any way because you can get what you need to survive, anyway, eliminating the need to make a profit.

Capitalism, by contrast, punishes sharing. If you share in capitalism, you have less money and that offsets any respect you may get, which isn't really meaningful in a system that holds little respect for the concept of community.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Go out, have fun, and where possible don't hurt others or impinge on their ability to enjoy their own lives.

Libertarianism in a nut shell.

Pay no attention to Opal Isle. I think he's been reading stuff by that slut Ayn Rand.

Go out, have fun, and where possible don't hurt others or impinge on their ability to enjoy their own lives.

Libertarianism in a nut shell.

Pay no attention to Opal Isle. I think he's been reading stuff by that slut Ayn Rand.

Lawks! I'm intrigued - I've heard so much about Rand. Mostly it's been rabid denunciations from lefties and dribbling eulogies from the libertarian right. It's interesting to see an anarcho-capitalist savage her. I don't know exactly what she advocates - what got your goat?

Pay no attention to Opal Isle. I think he's been reading stuff by that slut Ayn Rand.

That's the first correct thing you've said in this thread! You are begining to think outside the limited model of stateless capitalism vs. state "socialism".

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Pay no attention to Opal Isle. I think he's been reading stuff by that slut Ayn Rand.

That's the first correct thing you've said in this thread! You are begining to think outside the limited model of stateless capitalism vs. state "socialism".

Now we are falling to indivualized attacks. The quote about Social Darwinism was more in joking, as I don't really believe in that. But I am entirely against the rest of the world getting the exact benefits (whether or not it is money) without doing the exact amount and type of work I do. The problem with communism is that it ignores humanity. Sure, it would be great for humanity, but the paradox is that it does ignore it. Human nature is the first thing that should be considered. Things like self-worth and self-pride should not be ignored when developing in economic system. In idealistic communism, everyone, everyone is satisfied with what they have and the fact that everyone else gets the same despite their output, (Actually, ideally, they problem don't even think about other people, which sounds a little inhumane to me...) but I would argue that in idealistic capitalism, the people at the top, with excess money (which is far fewer than the entire world like what is required in idealistic communism) have compassion and share their money with the people who have less, makinig sure no one is left behind. And sure, no one person is going to be more successful than the rest of the world by competing with the world, it does require cooperation. That's why we have companies and cooperations. But those companies and cooperations have to have incentive to better themselves. I firmly believe that in a world full of communism, no progress is made. In fact, in "communist" Russia, the USSR, during the cold war, the only reason that they kept up with the United States in that arms race is because the people at the top truly did have a capitalist mindset. They were using capitalism to show that communism could keep up with capitalism. They were trying to offer a better way of living, with the same, or better defenses as America, in an effort to make the communist way of life more appealing. :?
Now, as far as that quote about me reading stuff by sluts...did it ever, for one moment, strike you that I may just have opinions of my own? Did you ever think that my IQ, unlike yours, may be high enough for me to develop my own way of thinking about economic systems? Instead of reading books about capitalism and communism or ideal capitalism or ideal communism, I've looked at history, known enough about the two systems, and then not listened to much to arguments for either side. I've made my own opinion. Why don't more NationStatesers do this? (Aside from the fact that most NationStatesers, let alone most people in the world, are incapable of that apparantly...)

But the fittest may be those that coöperate and thus have people helping them out rather than those who compete with everyone and have few allies.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

For those looking for information about capitalism, this is the best site I have found: http://www.capitalism.org/

For those advocating Libertarianism, read Peter Schwartz's essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty."

The true nature of (anarcho)-communism can't be found in one site. www.communism.org isn't representative of it.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Go out, have fun, and where possible don't hurt others or impinge on their ability to enjoy their own lives.

Libertarianism in a nut shell.

Pay no attention to Opal Isle. I think he's been reading stuff by that slut Ayn Rand.

Lawks! I'm intrigued - I've heard so much about Rand. Mostly it's been rabid denunciations from lefties and dribbling eulogies from the libertarian right. It's interesting to see an anarcho-capitalist savage her. I don't know exactly what she advocates - what got your goat?

Rand didn't understand the logical implications of her own ideas. She advocated minarchism and denounced anarchism. However, her own magnum opus has a Rothbardian anarchocapitalist enclave--Galt's Gulch.

She never grasped that.

But the fittest may be those that coöperate and thus have people helping them out rather than those who compete with everyone and have few allies.

It may be, or it may not be, but with no compitition, the fittest would not be as fit as they could be with compitition. This is why capitalism must fear monopolies. The point of capitalism is not to have monopolies. In fact, monopolies are bad to capitalism. And judging from your post, I'd guess you didn't read my post all the way through. And I would like to see you prove that a company in which everyone in that feild cooperates and there is no competition is more fit or more helpful to the general public as a whole than a company that has competition. (The misfortune for you is that, to my knowledge, there is no real world example of this...but I'd still like you to at least make an honest attempt at persuading me.)

Nice one Li'l L. You've contradicted yourself in the same post.

Kropotkin wrote an entire book on how coöperation and sharing can increase one's chances of survival, making them more fit than those who compete over everything......

....If you share in capitalism, you have less money and that offsets any respect you may get, which isn't really meaningful in a system that holds little respect for the concept of community.

You first realise that sharing is in your self interest (sometimes, at least) and then say that free markets focus on self interest and therefore negate sharing.

Bill Gates gave hundreds of millions to charity recently. I respect him more now than I did when he was the stereotypical cut throat capitalist. What makes you think Libertarianism has little respect for community? If you read Libertarian literature you often find large sections devoted to the virtues of civil society and philanthropy.

Go out, have fun, and where possible don't hurt others or impinge on their ability to enjoy their own lives.

Libertarianism in a nut shell.

Pay no attention to Opal Isle. I think he's been reading stuff by that slut Ayn Rand.

Lawks! I'm intrigued - I've heard so much about Rand. Mostly it's been rabid denunciations from lefties and dribbling eulogies from the libertarian right. It's interesting to see an anarcho-capitalist savage her. I don't know exactly what she advocates - what got your goat?
I don't know many anarcho-capitalists who buy into Rand's philosophy. Her "death to the weak" attitude is way off the mark and puts most people off liberty. She is a terrible philosopher who claims to stand for reason but just writes spiteful propaganda.

Now, as far as that quote about me reading stuff by sluts...did it ever, for one moment, strike you that I may just have opinions of my own? Did you ever think that my IQ, unlike yours, may be high enough for me to develop my own way of thinking about economic systems?
No. :lol:

Just kidding, sorry if I riled you. It just upsets me when people mis-characterise the nature of the free market, especially when they are supposedly "defending" it. Heretics are worse than pagans, you know.

I don't know many anarcho-capitalists who buy into Rand's philosophy. Her "death to the weak" attitude is way off the mark and puts most people off liberty. She is a terrible philosopher who claims to stand for reason but just writes spiteful propaganda.
I disagree. It's not like she says "kill the weak". She just says that we have the right but not the obligation to help others, and that she personally doesn't rate charity very highly. She puts forth one of the strongest attacks against "mandatory altruism", and for that she should be well-regarded.

Labor Theory of Value. Refuted to death.

Hmm... perhaps I should tell you that it was actually Adam Smith, not Marx, who came up with the Labour Theory of Value. Marx just took it further. And anyway, what is the refutation, then? Where does profit come from?

Labor Theory of Value. Refuted to death.

Hmm... perhaps I should tell you that it was actually Adam Smith, not Marx, who came up with the Labour Theory of Value. Marx just took it further. And anyway, what is the refutation, then? Where does profit come from?
And Einstein said quantum theory was wrong. Reputation doesn't guarantee acuracy.

No product has an innate value. It's value is all in your mind. I could work on a sculpture for 50 years and it'd still be worth less than something Michaelangelo could rattle off in 10 minutes. In fact all trade depends on people valueing things differently. I value the fruit more than £1 and the grocer values £1 more than the fruit, thus we trade.

What do you mean where does profit come from? You buy something, maybe change it a bit, and then sell it for more.

Capitalism, by contrast, punishes sharing. If you share in capitalism, you have less money and that offsets any respect you may get, which isn't really meaningful in a system that holds little respect for the concept of community.


Whoa, slow down there. This assumes that no one that embraces capitalism is charitable and that all principles and goodwill are sold down the river - in the name of greed - in all cases, no matter what.

this may strike you as bizarre and you might not believe it, but there are actually capitalist embracing people that give something of value to others because the act of giving brings them satisfaction.

Then there are those that pay the giving process lip service and do not give.

Still, there are those who not only pay this the lip service, they also make government policies that mandate charitable giving - which removes the word charitable from the equation. Many times they do this not because the process brings them satisfaction but because those that receive the benefit continue to support them.

Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.~Adam Smith An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

The last sentence is a doosey!

If sharing is cooperation, capitalism does not punish it. If sharing is sacrificing yourself for others (or others sacrificing you to them), then capitalism does punish it. Well, not capitalism, but the universe as a whole.

Labor Theory of Value. Refuted to death.

Hmm... perhaps I should tell you that it was actually Adam Smith, not Marx, who came up with the Labour Theory of Value. Marx just took it further.

I know that. I never stated that Marx originated it.

And anyway, what is the refutation, then? Where does profit come from?

Article excerpts:

"Second, any argument must be rejected if it involves "real worth (or value)" determined independently of markets. This error, again found in Marx's "labor theory of value," was cleared up in the 1870s with Carl Menger's insight that value is always an individual's subjective judgment shaped by context. Here's the principle: If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever."

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1150&id=69

(just for information on why LTV is wrong)

"The error contained in the idea of "trading value for value" is closely related to the notion that goods should sell for close to what they cost to produce. If I sell a computer program for far more than it cost me to make it, many people would call my price a "rip-off." After all, if exchanges properly take place when the "exchanged values" are "equal," then any profits earned by one party to the trade must be illicit.

We see this idea in "cost-plus" pricing to set utility rates. Of course, this tempts utility executives to drive up costs in order to charge higher rates, since some of those costs can be perks for themselves. This is known as "padding the rate base." Regulators have tried to allow only "reasonable" costs, but that raises the issue of how regulators are to gauge better than company executives what is a reasonable expense.

The subjective nature of the value of consumer goods extends to all of the layers of producer goods. Producer goods are priced according to the estimated value of the consumer goods they might produce. It is true that products requiring high-priced inputs will generally command a high price themselves. But that is because, unless a product can fetch a high price, producers will not use expensive inputs to make it. If people value diamonds highly for jewelry, no one will consider using them for ordinary windows, even if they might work well for that purpose. It is not the fact that diamonds are expensive that makes diamond rings expensive; it is the fact that people value diamond rings highly that makes diamonds expensive."

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1349&id=69

But the fittest may be those that coöperate and thus have people helping them out rather than those who compete with everyone and have few allies.

It may be, or it may not be, but with no compitition, the fittest would not be as fit as they could be with compitition. This is why capitalism must fear monopolies. The point of capitalism is not to have monopolies. In fact, monopolies are bad to capitalism. And judging from your post, I'd guess you didn't read my post all the way through. And I would like to see you prove that a company in which everyone in that feild cooperates and there is no competition is more fit or more helpful to the general public as a whole than a company that has competition. (The misfortune for you is that, to my knowledge, there is no real world example of this...but I'd still like you to at least make an honest attempt at persuading me.)

Letila is right, those people, animals, or companies that band together for survival are much much much much more likely than those that constantly fight each other for genetic/economic/market supremacy. For example, OPEC is a massive cartel, its in their best interest to collude, rather than compete, they make more money off of their oil and with that control of the oil market comes MASSIVE political power. The writings of Veblen also show that those animals that live in harmony with one another, and share their entitlements to food and natural resources live much longer than the forests which are full of the strongest and most fierce predators which consume away all that nature has to offer and then die off.

When most people say cooperation, they dont mean monoculture... as monopoly/darwinism seems to produce...

"...The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says that he does not steal anything from you.

But did you really consent?
When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.

Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children. You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled..."-Alexander Berkman

What do you think?

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Capitalism explained by a socialist. Little bit a bias dont you think.

[i[Carl Menger's insight that value is always an individual's subjective judgment shaped by context. Here's the principle: If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever.

If many more buyers and sellers jumped in, their competition would establish a price (say $6 per hour) for this type of labor at which the buyers to whom it is worth more, and the sellers to whom it is worth less, are equal in number (say 1,000 person-hours per day). That thousandth hour is worth barely more than $6 to its buyer and barely less than $6 to its seller. Prudent economists are a little uncomfortable concluding that this market price "measures value," but it's the best anyone can do. So whether your interest is "the living wage," economic systems without markets, or "comparable worth" legislation, keep in mind that "worth" or "value" cannot be determined except by voluntary market exchange.[/i]

I have a problem with this. Why? Because this guy and Menger are so gone from the fact that there is such thing as an economy without a market that they can't see past their own noses. He's picking a fight with people that are (hopefully) trying to take a move towards a more equal society. Admittedly those people choose to use capitalism as that society, but there is such a thing as providing people with the ability to live... (not to mention I still have yet to see the LTV defeated, taking into account all the assumptions that capitalism takes into account)

Anyways, the fact is this, the market for living goods would have to go under extreme change, just like the market for housing went under extreme change when the government put price caps on rent. It's not that these people need a higher wage, but the price for goods necessary to survival need to be capped according to the current minimum wage. If those markets are not lucrative enough for any companies to do business in them anymore then the government will have to give subsidies to those companies that produce goods necessary to survival.

However, this guy chooses to attack Marxism, in his attack on these "living wage" crackpots. The crackpots say we need higher wages, this guy says no, lets bust out the moral relativity. So to him "worth" and "value" are the only thing that and economy consists of.

However we all know that this is untrue, because "worth" and 'value' are capitalist market forces that are placed upon goods and services.

What a real economy is made of is land, labor, and capital. No less, no more... Please, if you do have a good refutation of the LTV. Then either post here, or send me a telegram.

Capitalism explained by a socialist. Little bit a bias dont you think.

Capitalism explained by an Anarchist. I definitely agree that Alexander Berkman was biased.

Litila: I live in a capitalistic system, and i hate it. I guess it's because i never had a break, never a true opportunity. But i'm trying to be successful.

Why don't you "I've been so hard done by" layabouts stop typing into your keyboards & do something to help the people you apparantly care so much about - ME? I'm quite happy working hard enough to pay my bills & giving what I want to what charity when I want to. Oh by the way I might be a capitalist from ENGLAND but at least I'm proud of it and what I earn................SELF EMPLOYED ABUSING THE UNEDUCATED :twisted:

Why don't you "I've been so hard done by" layabouts stop typing into your keyboards & do something to help the people you apparantly care so much about - ME? I'm quite happy working hard enough to pay my bills & giving what I want to what charity when I want to. Oh by the way I might be a capitalist from ENGLAND but at least I'm proud of it and what I earn................SELF EMPLOYED ABUSING THE UNEDUCATED :twisted:

[Carl Menger's insight that value is always an individual's subjective judgment shaped by context. Here's the principle: If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever.

If many more buyers and sellers jumped in, their competition would establish a price (say $6 per hour) for this type of labor at which the buyers to whom it is worth more, and the sellers to whom it is worth less, are equal in number (say 1,000 person-hours per day). That thousandth hour is worth barely more than $6 to its buyer and barely less than $6 to its seller. Prudent economists are a little uncomfortable concluding that this market price "measures value," but it's the best anyone can do. So whether your interest is "the living wage," economic systems without markets, or "comparable worth" legislation, keep in mind that "worth" or "value" cannot be determined except by voluntary market exchange.

I have a problem with this. Why? Because this guy and Menger are so gone from the fact that there is such thing as an economy without a market that they can't see past their own noses.

Mises and others have shown that economic calculation without a market in toto is essentially impossible. So there would be no economy.

He's picking a fight with people that are (hopefully) trying to take a move towards a more equal society.

No. They're trying to wreck it.

Admittedly those people choose to use capitalism as that society, but there is such a thing as providing people with the ability to live... (not to mention I still have yet to see the LTV defeated, taking into account all the assumptions that capitalism takes into account)

You just saw it.

Anyways, the fact is this, the market for living goods would have to go under extreme change, just like the market for housing went under extreme change when the government put price caps on rent. It's not that these people need a higher wage, but the price for goods necessary to survival need to be capped according to the current minimum wage.

No--the minimum wage laws need to be abolished.

If those markets are not lucrative enough for any companies to do business in them anymore then the government will have to give subsidies to those companies that produce goods necessary to survival.

At whose expense? Remember: the money must come from the taxpayers.

However, this guy chooses to attack Marxism, in his attack on these "living wage" crackpots.

The city in question is, after all, Berkley, which is the headquarters of the Politburo in California.

The crackpots say we need higher wages, this guy says no, lets bust out the moral relativity. So to him "worth" and "value" are the only thing that and economy consists of.

It's not moral relativity. Subjective value preference is all a part of being human. We each value things differently. Learn about praxaeology.

However we all know that this is untrue, because "worth" and 'value' are capitalist market forces that are placed upon goods and services.

Nope. They are terms that humans place upon things. You value your life, don't you?

What a real economy is made of is land, labor, and capital.

But where does that capital come from? Someone must create it. So you've gone and denied that capital comes from somewhere, which is the SAME FATAL MISTAKE of Marx.

As for the refutation of the LTV, you just read it. Now either accept it or remain ignorant. I have no time for the mentally lazy.

1) Mises and others have shown that economic calculation without a market in toto is essentially impossible. So there would be no economy.

2) No. They're trying to wreck it.

3) You just saw it.

4) No--the minimum wage laws need to be abolished.

5) At whose expense? Remember: the money must come from the taxpayers.

6) The city in question is, after all, Berkley, which is the headquarters of the Politburo in California.

7) It's not moral relativity. Subjective value preference is all a part of being human. We each value things differently. Learn about praxaeology.

8) Nope. They are terms that humans place upon things. You value your life, don't you?

9) But where does that capital come from? Someone must create it. So you've gone and denied that capital comes from somewhere, which is the SAME FATAL MISTAKE of Marx.

As for the refutation of the LTV, you just read it. Now either accept it or remain ignorant. I have no time for the mentally lazy.

1) Ever heard of: Swedens democratic socialism, early feudalism, Pitcairn Island?

2) Yeah, excuse me, I guess I'm wrong because I don't know what the original arguer's exact state of mind. I made an assumption based on what I read. And since you know exactly what he meant, I guess I'll accept that as truth now.

3) What? Where? I need an anlyzation of the LTV and the holes in said theory.

4) And rent control? and food standards? and workers compensation? and OSHA? Give me one good reason as to why minimum wage should be abolished on this thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=155734&highlight=

5) The expense of those living in superfluous excess and gluttony. That's who.

6) I have no clue why you said that because it has nothing to do with what I presented.

7) Moral relativity is simply this the theory of relativity applied to morals. As in there is a truth out there, but since without a point of reference (you, me, hitler, marx, anyone) we can't see that truth. So, what this guy is saying, is this: My truth is that I decide "worth" or "value" of everything I produce or consume and that there is no real "worth" or "value" in someones survival for me, or even you.

I disagree with him on this point, because the truth is that we were all created equal in the eyes of God, most governments, and hopefully each other. If we both give to society one hour of our time and productive capacity then societ should compensate each and everyone of us equally. Not based on what society (the market) thinks is worth more.

8) I have no clue what you're saying no to. But yes I value my ability to live, just as I value anyone else's ability to live.

9) Capital comes from other land, labor and capital... Marx said this, so did Adam Smith. Where's the "FATAL MISTAKE" ???

1) Mises and others have shown that economic calculation without a market in toto is essentially impossible. So there would be no economy.

2) No. They're trying to wreck it.

3) You just saw it.

4) No--the minimum wage laws need to be abolished.

5) At whose expense? Remember: the money must come from the taxpayers.

6) The city in question is, after all, Berkley, which is the headquarters of the Politburo in California.

7) It's not moral relativity. Subjective value preference is all a part of being human. We each value things differently. Learn about praxaeology.

8 Nope. They are terms that humans place upon things. You value your life, don't you?

9) But where does that capital come from? Someone must create it. So you've gone and denied that capital comes from somewhere, which is the SAME FATAL MISTAKE of Marx.

As for the refutation of the LTV, you just read it. Now either accept it or remain ignorant. I have no time for the mentally lazy.

1) Ever heard of: Swedens democratic socialism, early feudalism, Pitcairn Island?

Yep. Now tell me how they relate.

2) Yeah, excuse me, I guess I'm wrong because I don't know what the original arguer's exact state of mind. I made an assumption based on what I read. And since you know exactly what he meant, I guess I'll accept that as truth now.

Or maybe you should have read the article.

3) What? Where? I need an anlyzation of the LTV and the holes in said theory.

It was posted.

4) And rent control?

Bad.

and food standards?

Accomplished via the market.

and workers compensation?

Accomplished via contract.

and OSHA?

Needs to be abolished.

Give me one good reason as to why minimum wage should be abolished on this thread:

How about right here:


In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment.

If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35 to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.

The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum wage rates do not and never have caused any unemployment. The proper riposte is to raise them one better; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemployment-raising effects, why are you such pikers? Why you are helping the working poor by such piddling amounts? Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $1007 $1,0007

It is obvious that the minimum wage advocates do not pursue their own logic, because if they push it to such heights, virtually the entire labor force will be disemployed. In short, you can have [p. 134] as much unemployment as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum wage high enough.

It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one's mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure." For if proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority. When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effect of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.

http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch36.asp

5) The expense of those living in superfluous excess and gluttony.

By what and whose standard? Give me the objective standard for that outrageous claim.

6) I have no clue why you said that because it has nothing to do with what I presented.

That's what the article was about, if you'd bothered to have read it.

7) Moral relativity is simply this the theory of relativity applied to morals.

The theory of relativity is about physics, and cannot apply to morals.

As in there is a truth out there, but since without a point of reference (you, me, hitler, marx, anyone) we can't see that truth. So, what this guy is saying, is this: My truth is that I decide "worth" or "value" of everything I produce or consume and that there is no real "worth" or "value" in someones survival for me, or even you.

Non sequitur strawman.

I disagree with him on this point, because the truth is that we were all created equal in the eyes of God, most governments, and hopefully each other. If we both give to society one hour of our time and productive capacity then societ should compensate each and everyone of us equally. Not based on what society (the market) thinks is worth more.

Labor has different values. People have different values. You want to force everyone to be metaphysically equal. In effect, you want to re-write reality, because not everyone is metaphysically equal. You can't make reality to your liking!

8 I have no clue what you're saying no to. But yes I value my ability to live, just as I value anyone else's ability to live.

Then there are such things as values.

9) Capital comes from other land, labor and capital...

Capital comes from capital. How tautological.

Where does the capital come from? How is it developed? Doesn't there have to be some initiator?

YEP.

Marx denies this, however. He treats capital as a given--as if it just magically appears. This is horribly wrong.

Uhm. No one is going to be swayed. This has gone on in tons of different threads. This particular one has 9 pages so far, and no one has changed sides yet. Can't we all just agree that the other side is wrong, and go one with what is clearly right as nature has put it in place...?

I think the core problem with capitalism is that it inherently values other humans only as ends rather than means (that is to say, only our own utility is valued rather than any other individuals or collection of individuals); however, some might argue this is it's strength.

edit

I think in order to assess the 'success' or viability of any moral system, we should submit it to at least two kinds of tests:

1) Utility- a system should, in general, maximize overall (average) utility, as much as is reasonable. I think this is fairly intuitive; virtually all moral systems are underpinned by some utilitarian measure- if anarcho-capitalism (I use anarcho-capitalism because I think it gives us a very clear model of how free market capitalism fundementally works) was indeed a perfect moral system, it would have to provide a good standard of living to be of any value. If everyone was miserable, the fact that the system was ethical would not be much comfort, I'd wager.

2) Ethical coherence. A system which is ethically incoherent, or absurd is some fashion, cannot be a very good system; how can we measure 'goods' if our measure itself is flawed?

So does anarcho capitalism pass these tests? I don't really think so, though there are very strong cases for both. I think it's very obvious with a bit of thought that anarcho-capitalism would not necessarily maximize utility, especially when we consider the accumulation of poverty and wealth. I think it's very obvious that many people could end up very miserable in this kind of model. It is, however, fairly coherent, though there are a number of problems I can think of (derivation of property, derivation of rights, the possible fallacy of 'negative rights').

First, I read the article and it was 90% bull, and 10% economy.

Second, read Marx before you go spouting off what you think he's all about. He addresses capital, as in the product of land, labor, and capital. All capital is created through the exploitation of labor please, read Marx...

Those countries and systems all had fully functional economies without markets, unfortunately, capitalists like you cant see past the most simplistic ideas and can't seem to notice such simple relations as these.

No, there was no refutation of the LTV, I saw "Refuted to death." of which I see no proof.

Once every human can be represented as a number and can be represented as GDP, hours of labor, or a monetary value, then capitalism will make sense... All classical and neo classical liberalism is based in a world of statistics and number, both of which mean nothing to real production. You can draw all the supply and demand graphs you want, and sure, they make sense in an Ideal world, but the assumptions that capitalism are far too many to make any logical sense in the real world...

A dictator, or the populous will decide the standard of superfluous excess and gluttony. Marx went over this... Ever read Marx?

Read the article, it was an attack on Marxism. That was what I understood the article to be.

Yes, the theory of relativity can apply to ANYTHING it's sad if you can't see this...

Good, you can identify logical fallacies... Now go through your own argument and find the logical fallacy. I was attacking a point that the author made. If you disagree with that point, then tell me what he was _really_ trying to say.

BOOM, moral relativism, throughout you're entire argument. I do believe that everyone is equal, in every way. That's reality, that's the truth. I'm observing reality...

I have values, do you?

Capital comes from land, labor and capital, at the root of all production, there is simply labor. That was one of Marx's main points, if you actually care to read Marx sometimes.

And your assumption as to what Marx denies. Please try reading Marx before posting completely unfounded lies.

Yes, the theory of relativity can apply to ANYTHING it's sad if you can't see this...
For those interested, Karl Popper explains and challenges this fallacy of hard science applied to social issues in The Poverty of Historicism, Chapter 27. His specific example involves the laws of motion (ie: momentum, acceleration, etc.) applied to history.