NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh, and BAAWAKnights, even ECONOMISTS don't claim economics is a science.
They do if they want to understand human action.


It is a model of society which vaguely approximates the current system, not a set of laws like a real science.
Oh, so neither math nor logic are sciences, then.

Hint: not all sciences are like physics and chemistry. Logic, math, and praxeology are the a priori sciences. You'd do well to stop embarrassing yourself and understand that.

One more thing: theft relies on the concept of rightfully owned property. Just thought you should know that.

Hint: if you want to play this game, we can. However, since it is true that all forms of collectivism require the state for distribution of items (can't say goods, because goods requires a market), I don't see how you're going to get anywhere.


Prove it.

You have stated ALL forms of collectivism require the state.

I question your assumption... after all, I have seen (witness testimony) collective communities that happily distributed materials on a fair and equitable 'as needed' basis. No 'state' involvement. Just people getting along.

The anecdotal evidence suggests your argument is not 100% accurate... so, the onus is on you to prove your sweeping statement to be accurate.

Let's try the dictionary, shall we? "Free from discrimination or dishonesty". How does that suit you?
.

Suits me fine. And under capitalism you're based on tallent and fraud is unacceptable.


No, not really. Capitalism CANNOT survive without the state. Take the police - necessary for enforcing property rights. Get rid of them, and your employees will take your land. Keep them, and you're merely making a smaller state. Because that's what you want - private companies performing the services of the state.
.

Just to defend the contrary. A state to collect taxes is not the only method to fund such services. Methods of insurence and private police can be argued for, I wouldn't agree but I'm not an anarchist.
And how are private companys performing a service acting like a state? If a taxi gives me a ride somewhere is that a job the "state" should have done, in which case was the taxi driver a mini government? :confused:


Hmm... What does that have to do with the labour theory of value, exactly? I never said anything about it. As for the slavery thing, when you are employed
the employer has TOTAL control over what you do. It's a case of like it or lump it. That's not freedom. Once you decide to take a job, you're hardly more free than a slave.
.

Nonsense. If I asked you to do a simple favour and you say sure are you my slave? Because your options would be either do what I ask or lump it. He only has total control of you if you consent to that, and even so you are free to ignore him and quit if you no longer value the opportunity he is giving you.


You have either got to be joking, or utterly utterly blind to the real world. What about the people in Thailand or wherever making 5c for every $200 Nike shoe they sew? You've GOT to admit there's exploitation in capitalism. As for communism, exploitation happens under all the communist regimes we've seen so far, true, but that's because those are nothing more than state-capitalist societies.
.

Thats not the fault of capitlaism, if anything capitalism is beggining to help them. The resources and opportunuities in places like Thailand are abismal, atleast Nike is offering them money to survive which without the presence of Nike they would simply have nothing but forign aid.
Hmm sounds like communism has an implimentation problem, and I'm not even talking about the violent revolution....


Name one (non-'anarcho'-capitalist) anarchist who wasn't anti-capitalist, and explicitly so. Name one (non-'anarcho'-capitalist) anarchist who didn't expressly oppose both state and business. Please. I'd love to read them.
.

Max Stirner could be labeled more of an Egoist anarchist. Henry David Thoreau is regarded more of a libertarian anarchist.

Interesting choice of metaphor.
I thought so.


Your research is nothing.
All your base are belong to us.


If you have managed to research so extensively the economic and production models of the world, and have never encountered the concepts of 'slave-trade', 'wage-slave', 'salary-man' or 'immigrant worker', then your 'research' wouldn't be worth pissing on, if it were on fire.
Lovely strawman.

You do realize that saying "there's no such thing as wage-slavery" is not the same as never having encountered the concept, right? Please tell me that you're not that fucking stupid to confuse the two. Seriously--you're not that damned dumb, are you? You honestly don't believe that "there is no such thing as wage slavery" means that the person has never encountered the concept, do you?

If I were much more witty than I truly am,
Which isn't all that witty in the first place.

Prove it.
I have previously.

Now stop stalking me.

Lovely strawman.

You do realize that saying "there's no such thing as wage-slavery" is not the same as never having encountered the concept, right? Please tell me that you're not that fucking stupid to confuse the two. Seriously--you're not that damned dumb, are you? You honestly don't believe that "there is no such thing as wage slavery" means that the person has never encountered the concept, do you?


Let me make something perfectly clear to you.

If you continue in this fashion, I shall report you to Moderation.

I am not "fucking stupid", or "damned dumb", and I certainly don't need to receive your vitriol in place of a good argument.


To the subject at hand - The 'research' in question would be relating to your categorical statement:

"Last I checked, exploitation only happens in communism.

...Which is clearly untrue, since there are many forms of 'exploitation'... not all of which are even economic or production related.

I even pointed out a number of forms of exploitation that are NOT dependent upon communism, or any other form of government/production model.

If there is a 'strawman' fallacy here, it is the simple process of ignoring ALL of the evidence to the contrary, and instead pretending that what you and I are debating is whether 'wage-slaves' are a legitimate concept.

You drop all the rest of the argument. You fail to support your initial assertion with ANY evidence.

Hell, you singularly fail to support even your posture on the 'wage-slave' issue.

I'm willing to debate the issue with you, IF you are willing to step your game up a little. I won't tolerate your ranting.

Which isn't all that witty in the first place.

I never said I was, my friend. Kind of the point, actually.

:)

I have previously.

I haven't seen you offer even the hint of support.

Let me reiterate: You have stated ALL forms of collectivism require the state.

At the moment that argument is baseless, unless you can prove it... you haven't even come close. I'm giving you the option to make it more than hollow rhetoric.

Now stop stalking me.

Stalking you? In what way... do you know OWN nationstates?

I point out errors in many people's posts, not just yours, my friend. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you feel special - but you are just another poster. Albeit, a vitriolic, and often rude, one.

If you really think I'm 'stalking you' (a bizarre concept, on a debate forum), perhaps you might like to take it to the Mods?

I have always been, am now, and always will be, a staunch anti-communist. However, while I hate the ideology itself with every fiber of my being, I do not bear the slightest ill will toward its followers. In fact, some of my best friends are communists.

I have always been, am now, and always will be, a staunch anti-communist. However, while I hate the ideology itself with every fiber of my being, I do not bear the slightest ill will toward its followers. In fact, some of my best friends are communists.

Good to know there are people who can rise above such things.

I have always been, am now, and always will be, a staunch anti-communist. However, while I hate the ideology itself with every fiber of my being, I do not bear the slightest ill will toward its followers. In fact, some of my best friends are communists.

Why are you 'anti-communist'?

I think it is a bad idea to have a perspective that you feel you can confidently state 'always wil be' some way.

Why are you 'anti-communist'?

I think it is a bad idea to have a perspective that you feel you can confidently state 'always wil be' some way.

I think the ideology is completely unworkable and, whether the intentions behind it are well or ill, it seems to always lead to nothing but bloodshed and misery.

Let me make something perfectly clear to you.
Oh goody.


If you continue in this fashion, I shall report you to Moderation.
And I'll report you to moderation, too.

Don't try to bully me.


I am not "fucking stupid", or "damned dumb", and I certainly don't need to receive your vitriol in place of a good argument.
And I don't need your stupidity in place of a good argument. You clearly, in a fit of utter stupidity, believe that "there is no such thing as wage-slavery" is the same as never having heard of the concept. Clearly, this is so wrong as to be utterly laughable. Therefore, I can only surmise that your intellectual acumen is sub-par. IOW: you're flat-out damned dumb. And yes, we are debating whether or not it is a legitimate concept because you equated the idea of there not being any such thing as wage slavery with not having heard of it. Thus, there is no strawman on my part (and you don't even know what a strawman is). You're a total git.

Now then, where did you point out any forms of exploitation not dependent on communism or any other government model? Answer: you didn't.

Please--stop making a fool of yourself.

Good to know there are people who can rise above such things.

Meh. you learn more from people who disagree with you than who agree with you anyway. Hardly rising above things, its more fun having something to debate about.

I haven't seen you offer even the hint of support.
NMFP.

I think I'll pull a you now and threaten to report you to the mods.

Meh. you learn more from people who disagree with you than who agree with you anyway. Hardly rising above things, its more fun having something to debate about.

Yeah you're right.

Why are you 'anti-communist'?

I think it is a bad idea to have a perspective that you feel you can confidently state 'always wil be' some way.

Are you anti fascist, anti peodophilia or anti fundamentalist Islam? Or do you think those ideas will one day be appealing to you.....

I think the ideology is completely unworkable and, whether the intentions behind it are well or ill, it seems to always lead to nothing but bloodshed and misery.

But, of course, you must see that the same can be said of ANY model?

Communism relies on people being interested in - if not HELPING - at least not HINDERING, each other. It relies on a shared interest in a shared success.

In many ways, that MIGHT be unworkable to a lot of people.

But - if you had a group of people that really did have the capacity to truly work collectively for the greater success of all... wouldn't communism be entirely workable?

Are you anti fascist, anti peodophilia or anti fundamentalist Islam? Or do you think those ideas will one day be appealing to you.....

I am anti-fascist (in the modern understanding of the word), anti-paedophilia, and anti-fundamentalist of any religious or ideological persuasion.

But, I'm not sure I can honestly claim that my perspective could NEVER change on any of them, if new evidence came to light that countered what I 'knew', or if the situation became 'right'.

The only one of those three you offered that I would say is unlikely to ever change, is the anti-paedophila one... because I can't imagine that children will (or should) be ever able to give consent.

But, as for political or production models.... things change, and people change. What works for us, today, might be second-choice tomorrow.

But - if you had a group of people that really did have the capacity to truly work collectively for the greater success of all... wouldn't communism be entirely workable?

The trouble is. Often many of the people in society are not consenting individuals (if free movement is allowed the skilled are likely to flee) the land and materials the society uses are taken via force from those who currently own them, and (atleast under Marxist doctrine) its ultimate goal is world wide revolution - at the very least it would offer support to similar leftist revolutionary terrorists.

But it doesn't.
Any ad hominem attack makes you look like a fool. Doubly so when you call me something I'm not - namely a Marxist.
Then stop advocating marxism.
I don't. Check up on the difference between Marxism and anarchist socialism. Then get back to me.
Why does work solely and only have to be manual labor? Why did you just prove me correct?
I didn't say manual labour - work also includes things like services. But not providing stolen goods - which is what capital is. That's not legitimate work. So how did I prove you correct?
Ok, now how does that mean that the wages paid aren't fair?
Say a worker produces $10,000 worth of shoes, and gets paid $5,000. He's getting $5,000 of shoes stolen from him. Stealing is dishonest.
Nope, I ignore none.
OK then, explain how the anarchists in Spain, who widely implemented communism without government, aren't important here.
No, communism/socialism/all collectivist nonsense cannot survive without the state.
Hint: if you want to play this game, we can. However, since it is true that all forms of collectivism require the state for distribution of items (can't say goods, because goods requires a market), I don't see how you're going to get anywhere.
Like Grave_n_idle said, prove it.
Please.
Oh c'mon--you don't get the Henny Youngman reference?
I'm Irish, not American... You'll have to explain what you're going on about.
So police can't be private? What sort of idiotic bullshit is that?
Course they can, and as soon as you have private police, you have a private state.
Happens with or without police sometimes. In fact, sometimes the police will take your land because the government flunkies believe you didn't pay enough rent to the government or the government needs the land for some bullshit.
So yeah--the police really enforce property rights, alright.
Did I say private property rights? Remember, that the government has its property rights too. And the police are there to enforce them.
So you would have no police at all. Everyone would be all nicey-nice. No rapes. Nothing.
Yes, cos the police have stopped so many rapes... Police can arrest someone afterwards, but they rarely if ever stop violent crimes while they occur. Community policing is what I'd go for.
No, the state has usurped those services. Don't confuse the two.
Police forces and the judiciary are arms of the state. Real anarchists want to replace them with a democratic process involving everyone relevant, not private companies.
The slavery thing stems from the LTV.
Not to my knowledge. Anyways, capitalism stems from feudalism, does that mean you're in favour of feudal law? Of course not.
And when you're in someone's house, you shouldn't go around cutting up the person's furniture, should you?
But wait--if you act how the person who owns the furniture wants you to, then you're a slave.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You just fucked yourself over.
No you're not. In that case, it's an agreement between two equals. In the wage slave's case, it's an agreement between a powerful person and one with no power. Plus, the need to work for someone means that you cannot choose anything other than to work for someone.
What about them? They aren't being exploited; they are making what each considers to be what the job is worth.
Nope, that's what a company thinks is a fair wage, or rather its subcontractors do. And, when you have no other choice than to work for that money, and people will attack you if you try to strike and possibly even murder you, then you take what you can get, even if it is exploitative.
Look, if I think my house should be painted for $100, and you offer to paint it for $75, am I exploiting you by paying you $75 when I think it should be done for $100?
No, you're not. Once again, free and between equals.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
How so? Communism is defined as "ownership of the means of production by the working class". This did not exist in any 'communist' country. Therefore, communism has not existed. No Scotsman fallacy, because I'm not adding anything to the definition.
You can't selectively pick your hits. Doesn't work that way in reality.
This is how you say "There's no-one but I don't want to admit it", isn't it?
Then someone who is against the state is not an anarchist.
You must have misunderstood me there. If someone who says they are an atheist actually believes in God, they are not an atheist, because the definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in God. The definition of an anarchist is one who is opposed to the state. So one who is against the state is automatically an anarchist. As capitalism cannot exist without the state, one who is a capitalist is automatically not an anarchist.
Except that everything I've said has been correct.
Now please educate yourself as to economics. Stop believing the marxist lies.
Once again, all your points have been wrong, either by deliberately or accidentally misinterpreting me. And perhaps you should educate yourself as to economics, and how it is NOT a science.
Oh, so neither math nor logic are sciences, then.
Hint: not all sciences are like physics and chemistry. Logic, math, and praxeology are the a priori sciences. You'd do well to stop embarrassing yourself and understand that.
One more thing: theft relies on the concept of rightfully owned property. Just thought you should know that.
So you tell me that you can work out how economics and praxeology would work without any outside input? Math and logic are called a priori because they do not depend on anything outside them. Economics and praxeology do. You cannot work out how economics works from first principles.
Do not presume to tell a philosophy student the difference between a priori and a posteriori, because you will be proven wrong.

Suits me fine. And under capitalism you're based on tallent and fraud is unacceptable.
No, it's based on money and fraud is encouraged. No-one got where they are in the world of big business by playing fair or by being the smartest.
Just to defend the contrary. A state to collect taxes is not the only method to fund such services. Methods of insurence and private police can be argued for, I wouldn't agree but I'm not an anarchist.
And how are private companys performing a service acting like a state? If a taxi gives me a ride somewhere is that a job the "state" should have done, in which case was the taxi driver a mini government? :confused:
Private companies only lead to mini-state-ism under anarchism, because there they abrogate the coercive functions of states to themselves in return for monetary gain, as opposed to giving them in common trust to the people.
Nonsense. If I asked you to do a simple favour and you say sure are you my slave? Because your options would be either do what I ask or lump it. He only has total control of you if you consent to that, and even so you are free to ignore him and quit if you no longer value the opportunity he is giving you.
But that's between two equals, like I said above.
Max Stirner could be labeled more of an Egoist anarchist. Henry David Thoreau is regarded more of a libertarian anarchist.
Thank you for that Blood. Unlike someone else, you actually made an effort - although I'm still going to disagree with you. Now, while I have not read any of their work, and I'm merely going from the internet, Stirner expressly denied being an anarchist, and his ideas do not seem to me to be particularly anarchist - of course there are anarchistic ideas there, but that doesn't make him anarchist. Also, Wikipedia has nothing on his capitalism. Wikipedia also has nothing on Thoreau and capitalism, and he's probably more accurately described as a minarchist - "That government is best which governs least".

five foot tall post!

Yeah, sorry - the guy I was replying to kept on splitting my post into ever smaller parts. I tried to recombine them where I could...

The trouble is. Often many of the people in society are not consenting individuals (if free movement is allowed the skilled are likely to flee) the land and materials the society uses are taken via force from those who currently own them, and (atleast under Marxist doctrine) its ultimate goal is world wide revolution - at the very least it would offer support to similar leftist revolutionary terrorists.

Ah - you see, you are clumping together ideologies and assumptions, to create one huge monstrosity.

Just because someone MIGHT want communism in America (say)... doesn't mean they have ANY interest in communism in Germany... certainly, no more than anyone else might have for their pet projects... like the current US policy of trying to make the Middle East 'democratic' (by force, if necessary), or trying to force capitalist revolution on the communist world.


Also - just because someone MIGHT want to see a communist arrangement... doesn't automatically mean they wish to see 'revolution' in any conventional sense... a 'communist' party COULD be the natural elected result of a democratic election.


On top of that - not all communism is equal. Why would the trained persons flee a communism? A repressive communism, yes. But, a communism that was beneficial to those involved... why would anyone 'flee'?


As for forceably 'taking' land and property... I find the concept of anyone 'owning' land to be somewhat bizarre, anyway. You can't stand there on the Florida coastline, yelling about how your 'rights' are being infringed, when part of the coastline washes away. You can't argue with a volcanic eruption about how inappropriate it is acting.

Land is just where we are. I don't quite see how we justify 'entitlement' to it.

Regarding property... how is giving to each person according to need, 'taking' anything from someone else? Those who lived in our 'idealised' communism would contribute most (if not all) of their possessions, for the greater good... but that is ultimately irrelevent... communism doesn't mean 'taking anything away' from anyone... it just means GIVING it out differently.

Any ad hominem attack makes you look like a fool. Doubly so when you call me something I'm not - namely a Marxist.
You post marxist doctrine. Walk like a duck. Quack like a duck. DNA like a duck.....


I don't. Check up on the difference between Marxism and anarchist socialism. Then get back to me.
Marx said the state would wither away and die.


I didn't say manual labour - work also includes things like services.
Manual labor.


But not providing stolen goods - which is what capital is.
You've yet to show that capital is stolen goods.


That's not legitimate work.
You've yet to show that it's not legitimate.


So how did I prove you correct?
See directly above.


Say a worker produces $10,000 worth of shoes, and gets paid $5,000. He's getting $5,000 of shoes stolen from him.
Wrong, and that IS the labor theory of value.

The final cost to the consumer isn't wholly dependent upon labor and other costs. You are so utterly ignorant of economics--but then, you're a marxist. All marxists are. A person gets paid what the job is worth to both the employer and employee. If the employee wants the whole $10,000, then the employee needs to wait until the shoes are sold, and not before. Wages come out of profits, and not the other way around.


OK then, explain how the anarchists in Spain, who widely implemented communism without government, aren't important here.
Because they didn't.


Like Grave_n_idle said, prove it.
Already have.


I'm Irish, not American...
Henny Youngman was known the world over. In fact, if you read from the link I shall shortly post, he was born in Liverpool and his family moved to Brooklyn a few years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Youngman




Course they can, and as soon as you have private police, you have a private state.
Non sequitur.


Did I say private property rights? Remember, that the government has its property rights too.
No it doesn't.


Yes, cos the police have stopped so many rapes...
But there are no police.


Police can arrest someone afterwards, but they rarely if ever stop violent crimes while they occur. Community policing is what I'd go for.
Then you have a state.


Police forces and the judiciary are arms of the state.
They don't have to be.


Real anarchists want to replace them with a democratic process involving everyone relevant, not private companies.
Ah, and you get to decide who a Real Anarchist(tm) is based on your personal biases which ignore the definitions of anarchist, anarchy, and anarchism.


Not to my knowledge. Anyways, capitalism stems from feudalism,
1. That's marx talking.
2. It doesn't.


No you're not.
But you are a slave to that person. You're not equals--you're in that person's house.


In that case, it's an agreement between two equals. In the wage slave's case,
Please demonstrate that such a thing exists.


it's an agreement between a powerful person and one with no power.
No it's not. It's an agreement between two equals.


Plus, the need to work for someone means that you cannot choose anything other than to work for someone.
And the need to breathe means you cannot choose anything other than to breathe. Looks like you're a slave to nature! Ban nature! Ban nature!


Nope, that's what a company thinks is a fair wage, or rather its subcontractors do.
Why isn't it fair? Please show how it isn't fair--and you can't rely in the labor theory of value. It's been debunked.


And, when you have no other choice than to work for that money, and people will attack you if you try to strike and possibly even murder you, then you take what you can get, even if it is exploitative.
How wonderfully lacking in reality.


No, you're not.
Then Nike isn't exploiting the workers.


How so? Communism is defined as "ownership of the means of production by the working class". This did not exist in any 'communist' country.
Yes it did.


This is how you say "There's no-one but I don't want to admit it", isn't it?
No, that's how I say that you're trying to define a word as you desire it to be defined, which is not what the definition actually is.


You must have misunderstood me there.
Oh no, I understood you perfectly. But you seem to believe that someone who is against the state is not an anarchist. After all, you say that anarchocapitalists aren't anarchists. But since they are against the state, they are anarchists.

What part of that don't you grasp?


Once again, all your points have been wrong,
Once again, you lie.


either by deliberately or accidentally misinterpreting me. And perhaps you should educate yourself as to economics, and how it is NOT a science.
Except that it is a science. Educate yourself.


So you tell me that you can work out how economics and praxeology would work without any outside input?
Just as math and logic do.


Math and logic are called a priori because they do not depend on anything outside them.
Yes they do. We abstract the idea of unit, identity, and all that from the real world.


Economics and praxeology do. You cannot work out how economics works from first principles.
Yes you can.


Do not presume to tell a philosophy student the difference between a priori and a posteriori, because you will be proven wrong.
Then why don't you know the difference?


No, it's based on money and fraud is encouraged.
O RLY?


No-one got where they are in the world of big business by playing fair or by being the smartest.
Ah, so you blame the market system for government faults. Good going!


Private companies only lead to mini-state-ism under anarchism, because there they abrogate the coercive functions of states to themselves in return for monetary gain, as opposed to giving them in common trust to the people.
So you don't know what you're talking about, since your system relies on people being nicey-nice all the time (which doesn't happen). Not to mention that it doesn't lead to mini-state-ism, since they are merly providing a service, just like carpet cleaners.


But that's between two equals, like I said above.
It can't be.


Thank you for that Blood. Unlike someone else, you actually made an effort
Ah, so I don't make an effort because I shoot all of your arguments down. Really. How wonderful for you to believe such a childish lie.

Oh goody.

And I'll report you to moderation, too.

Don't try to bully me.

And I don't need your stupidity in place of a good argument. You clearly, in a fit of utter stupidity, believe that "there is no such thing as wage-slavery" is the same as never having heard of the concept. Clearly, this is so wrong as to be utterly laughable. Therefore, I can only surmise that your intellectual acumen is sub-par. IOW: you're flat-out damned dumb. And yes, we are debating whether or not it is a legitimate concept because you equated the idea of there not being any such thing as wage slavery with not having heard of it. Thus, there is no strawman on my part (and you don't even know what a strawman is). You're a total git.

Now then, where did you point out any forms of exploitation not dependent on communism or any other government model? Answer: you didn't.

Please--stop making a fool of yourself.
You're off for a month. Calm down.

I didn't say manual labour - work also includes things like services. But not providing stolen goods - which is what capital is. That's not legitimate work. So how did I prove you correct?
".
Not neccessarily. If I provide a serive to someone recieve a payment and than loan this payment to someone in need of money quickly I've provided them with a service via my capital. Regardless of it you call it "legitimate" or not someone values my service therfore it is legitimate.


Say a worker produces $10,000 worth of shoes, and gets paid $5,000. He's getting $5,000 of shoes stolen from him. Stealing is dishonest.
".

Its not theft. The worker travels to a company, may sign a contract that provides him with some job security, health care and so on. Not only this by they provide him materials from which to work with (other wise he would have had to order them himself and make sure he gets good quality products etc...) and when he's finnished he doesn't even have to worry about the marketing of the product. With the Nike brand label and good marketing the shoes will sell for 10 times what they normally would, infact if one worker gets paid half of the finnished value he's being paid quite a hefty sum.
OK then, explain how the anarchists in Spain, who widely implemented communism without government, aren't important here.


Like Grave_n_idle said, prove it.
".

State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion

I'm sure that'd fall in line with his definition of a state.


Course they can, and as soon as you have private police, you have a private state.


The only problem I see is not enough people funding enough money to prevent all crime.



Yes, cos the police have stopped so many rapes... Police can arrest someone afterwards, but they rarely if ever stop violent crimes while they occur. Community policing is what I'd go for.


People generally only commit a crime if they think they can get away with it. If 100% of people who committed murder were to be arressted I'm sure you'd see lots less murders.
Police serve to punish those who DO commit a crime as a disincentive to those considering committing a crime.


Police forces and the judiciary are arms of the state. Real anarchists want to replace them with a democratic process involving everyone relevant, not private companies.


Anarchism isn't synonomous with leftism or collectivism. Just because your beliefs fall in that realm doesn't make rival anarchists "fake"


No you're not. In that case, it's an agreement between two equals. In the wage slave's case, it's an agreement between a powerful person and one with no power. Plus, the need to work for someone means that you cannot choose anything other than to work for someone.


If you want something from someone than yes the general theory goes you must do something they want. Unless you're being given charity or welfare.


Nope, that's what a company thinks is a fair wage, or rather its subcontractors do. And, when you have no other choice than to work for that money, and people will attack you if you try to strike and possibly even murder you, then you take what you can get, even if it is exploitative.


People will attack or murder you for striking? I thought the strikers will attack or murder the worker who wants to continue working anyway.


No, you're not. Once again, free and between equals.


But those people are not equals. If he wants to paint my house for the price I offered than he must obey my command because he's clearly my slave right?


No, it's based on money and fraud is encouraged. No-one got where they are in the world of big business by playing fair or by being the smartest.


How do you make money? By hiring the tallented
Fraud is specifially illigal.
Private companies only lead to mini-state-ism under anarchism, because there they abrogate the coercive functions of states to themselves in return for monetary gain, as opposed to giving them in common trust to the people.


Thank you for that Blood. Unlike someone else, you actually made an effort - although I'm still going to disagree with you. Now, while I have not read any of their work, and I'm merely going from the internet, Stirner expressly denied being an anarchist, and his ideas do not seem to me to be particularly anarchist - of course there are anarchistic ideas there, but that doesn't make him anarchist. Also, Wikipedia has nothing on his capitalism. Wikipedia also has nothing on Thoreau and capitalism, and he's probably more accurately described as a minarchist - "That government is best which governs least".

Well I don't particuarly follow either thinker but both came up on my politics course as individualist anarchists. In Stirners work he outlined all transactions business or otherwise should only be conducted for mutual benefit and rejected society and the state as holding us back. Thoreau thought we should all act in a rational manner with eachother and the state only served to come between individuals engaging in peaceful disputes.

Not being an anarchist myself I don't know why I dragged myself into an anarchisitic discussion. But I should raise the point, why do you want to know of an ANARCHIST and a CAPITALIST who isn't labeled as an anarcho capitalist?

OK, I'm not going to repeat the forty foot post. I'm just going to repeat a few key points.
1. Look up the difference between anarchism and Marxism.
2. Capital is stolen because it was taken away by force from the original common ownership, in which everyone owned everything communally. Anything that comes from stolen goods is illegitimate.
3. The Marxist labour theory of value ACTUALLY says that the entirety of the value of an item is the amount of time it takes to make it. I said nothing about that. Rather, the person makes $10,000 worth of shoes. I didn't mention anything about the time it took to make them.
4. Read up on the anarchists in Spain and how they implemented communism without a state.
5. Never heard of Henny Youngman. He's not famous over here. And he moved to America when he was young.
6. The government claims property rights. Doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it claims them.
7. A community does not equal a state. A state is a hierarchical organisation that uses its powers to coerce.
8. Any organisation that uses its powers to coerce - like a private police force - is tantamount to a state.
9. Saying capitalism comes from feudalism isn't Marx talking, but me - I study mediaeval history, and I happen to know that capitalism didn't exist until feudalism gave it the opportunity to.
10. Wage slavery exists. If I want to live, I have no choice but to take employment. Therefore I am a wage slave.
11. We will always need to breathe. We do not always need to work for someone - we will have other options if the system changes. (should have put that differently originally.
12. Do not presume to tell me that people have not been murdered for union activity - they have. Perhaps, instead of deriding me for "lacking in reality", you should read up on labour struggles in developing countries.
13. Under communism, the means of production were owned by the state, not the people.
14. Market and government faults are indistinguishable, because one is part of the other.
15. A priori systems require one to only allow things which are patently obvious and self-evident.

OK. Here's a challenge for you, BAAWAKnights. Come up with an economic system entirely a priori - that is to say, from only entirely self-evident truths.

Also - just because someone MIGHT want to see a communist arrangement... doesn't automatically mean they wish to see 'revolution' in any conventional sense... a 'communist' party COULD be the natural elected result of a democratic election.


It would still require an army or police to take peoples property with either the threat of deportation, jail or even death. Regardless if 51% of people thought it was fine. (Keep in mind Labour controlls the majority in parliament with just 35% of the vote)


On top of that - not all communism is equal. Why would the trained persons flee a communism? A repressive communism, yes. But, a communism that was beneficial to those involved... why would anyone 'flee'?


Isn't the founding principle of communsim egalitarianism. None the less one who could flourish under a meritocracy would be held back under a system of large redistribution of common ownership. Meritocracys are more beneficial to those with more skill, thus why would the more skilled not flee to a place more beneficial for them?


As for forceably 'taking' land and property... I find the concept of anyone 'owning' land to be somewhat bizarre, anyway. You can't stand there on the Florida coastline, yelling about how your 'rights' are being infringed, when part of the coastline washes away. You can't argue with a volcanic eruption about how inappropriate it is acting.


If an individual came up to my house and destroyed it with lava I can quite easily have him sued or aressted. Unfortunatly we can't take nature to court thus my property rights can't be defended from nature, only others.


Regarding property... how is giving to each person according to need, 'taking' anything from someone else? Those who lived in our 'idealised' communism would contribute most (if not all) of their possessions, for the greater good... but that is ultimately irrelevent... communism doesn't mean 'taking anything away' from anyone... it just means GIVING it out differently.

Where would your "idealised" communism emerge and where would its resources come from. All communists I've spoken to have either answerd
a) Violent revolution... (thus taking away things from others by force)
b) Democratic movement... (taking away things from others with "legitimate" force)
c) Individuals will form a collective and buy their own land and set up their own communities which will be self sufficient from all other capitalistic societys and they will voluntarily have their own goods redistributed by the rest of their selected society with no force.

A and B obviously run contrary to what you said so I'd assume you fit in C. In which case you are entirely free to do so and as far as I know there are prob some communities that act in such a manner and free market capitalism offers people the freedom to do so if they wish.

State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion
I'm sure that'd fall in line with his definition of a state.
It's more or less mine. But the thing is, in 'anarcho'-capitalism, all the private security companies will become that, only replace "that taxes" with "that charges"

Anarchism isn't synonomous with leftism or collectivism. Just because your beliefs fall in that realm doesn't make rival anarchists "fake"
Anarchism is synonymous with anti-capitalism though - capitalism cannot exist without the state.

People will attack or murder you for striking? I thought the strikers will attack or murder the worker who wants to continue working anyway.
Oh no. There may indeed be occasional cases of the latter (and usually they merely prevent them from going in to work), but in most cases it's the former. Read up on Coca-Cola union activists in Colombia, for example. Or the miners' strike in Britain. Or indeed, any strike ever.

But those people are not equals. If he wants to paint my house for the price I offered than he must obey my command because he's clearly my slave right?
But he doesn't have to paint your house to survive - he could go off and paint someone else's, or the like.

Well I don't particuarly follow either thinker but both came up on my politics course as individualist anarchists. In Stirners work he outlined all transactions business or otherwise should only be conducted for mutual benefit and rejected society and the state as holding us back. Thoreau thought we should all act in a rational manner with eachother and the state only served to come between individuals engaging in peaceful disputes.
Human beings will not exist without society - look at the children raised by animals, for example. So now I think Stirner's crazy. And Thoreau sounds like a minarchist to me still.

Not being an anarchist myself I don't know why I dragged myself into an anarchisitic discussion. But I should raise the point, why do you want to know of an ANARCHIST and a CAPITALIST who isn't labeled as an anarcho capitalist?
No, I want an anarchist (who isn't 'anarcho'-capitalist) that isn't anti-capitalist. 'Anarcho'-capitalists have only been around for a very short while - they are basically an internet thing, albeit with a scholarly base from before. What I'm trying to say is that the only people who will agree that 'anarcho'-capitalism is anarchism are the 'anarcho'-capitalists themselves, because everyone else knows that anarchism is opposed to the state, and opposed to capitalism.

Where would your "idealised" communism emerge and where would its resources come from. All communists I've spoken to have either answerd
a) Violent revolution... (thus taking away things from others by force)
b) Democratic movement... (taking away things from others with "legitimate" force)
c) Individuals will form a collective and buy their own land and set up their own communities which will be self sufficient from all other capitalistic societys and they will voluntarily have their own goods redistributed by the rest of their selected society with no force.

A and B obviously run contrary to what you said so I'd assume you fit in C. In which case you are entirely free to do so and as far as I know there are prob some communities that act in such a manner and free market capitalism offers people the freedom to do so if they wish.

Thing is, though, the 'things' you talk about were originally obtained by force, and are only kept by force. So the principle of self-defence applies - we're not taking what is not ours, we are merely taking back what is ours. Taking more than your fair share is taking from someone else.

So the employees are forced to work there. Right. Sure. Tell me another lie.

Do you give terms and conditions of sorts if someone wants to borrow your car, like perhaps fill the tank? Isn't that EXACTLY the sort of thing you're railing against? Why yes--yes it is.


Sure employees can start their own business - that is a degree of freedom. But if they're poor, their new business will be lacking capital, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage compared to the businesses owned by the wealthy. To get more capital, they have to give up control of their business to financiers, which means they are giving up their freedom. Anarchists would instead take productive capital out of the hands of the few and leave it in the control of the community or democratically run company. The community or democratically run company would then be the ones setting their own terms and conditions. It would be self-rule. A lot more freedom than rule by the wealthy few.

There's no such thing. You need to learn how (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec3.asp) wages (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec8.asp) are (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec6.asp) formed.

It seems every two-bit anarcho-capitalist reads wacko economists like Mises and wacko philosophers like Rand. Care to sum up what you've learned from them?

It's more or less mine. But the thing is, in 'anarcho'-capitalism, all the private security companies will become that, only replace "that taxes" with "that charges"
.

Charges are neither agressive nor compulsory. In fact companys will often be friendly and helpful in an effort to ensure a voluntary deal will take place.


Anarchism is synonymous with anti-capitalism though - capitalism cannot exist without the state.
.

In main stream media only. Most political teaching accepts an anarchist movement does exist who fully support capitalism and as far as their theory goes it is not a contradiction.


Oh no. There may indeed be occasional cases of the latter (and usually they merely prevent them from going in to work), but in most cases it's the former. Read up on Coca-Cola union activists in Colombia, for example. Or the miners' strike in Britain. Or indeed, any strike ever.
.

How about the militant miners using violence to prevent other miners from working. And simply coca-cola has come to an area and offered jobs to people its up to the workers if they wish to apply for those jobs or not.


But he doesn't have to paint your house to survive - he could go off and paint someone else's, or the like.
.

And someone working for McDonalds can go work for Burger King or perhaps set up his own burger stall selling his own burgers. This is true for someone working for Nike, Wallmart or most jobs, yet you seem to think they're all "exploitation"


Human beings will not exist without society - look at the children raised by animals, for example. So now I think Stirner's crazy. And Thoreau sounds like a minarchist to me still.


Okay well I won't try and defend ideas I don't actually believe myself. I was just trying to illustrate not every anarchist is in the left movement.


No, I want an anarchist (who isn't 'anarcho'-capitalist) that isn't anti-capitalist. 'Anarcho'-capitalists have only been around for a very short while - they are basically an internet thing, albeit with a scholarly base from before. What I'm trying to say is that the only people who will agree that 'anarcho'-capitalism is anarchism are the 'anarcho'-capitalists themselves, because everyone else knows that anarchism is opposed to the state, and opposed to capitalism.

The definition of being an anarchist and pro capitalist is Anarcho capitalist and while Anarcho-Capitalism was popularised by the Austrian School of economics and Murray Rothbard kinda recently (1940's - hardly just an internet thing) its ideas have existed in less clear theory for hundreds of years.
Also please look up the definition of anarchism. No where in its definition is a mention of what economic system it can function with.


Thing is, though, the 'things' you talk about were originally obtained by force, and are only kept by force. So the principle of self-defence applies - we're not taking what is not ours, we are merely taking back what is ours. Taking more than your fair share is taking from someone else.

They are kept by property rights and have changed hands countlessly. How about things I've made myself a building I've constructed or a chair I've made, you somehow claim this is not mine but taking a chair I've built with my hands is taking back whats "yours"? Its theft.
I agree taking more than your fair share is wrong. Thus is you haven't earnt something through voluntary trade you have no claim to "take it" regardless if you have supposed superior moral reasons. Robin Hood would be breaking the law if he were alive today and so would your movement.

In main stream media only. Most political teaching accepts an anarchist movement does exist who fully support capitalism and as far as their theory goes it is not a contradiction.
Sorry, no. Mainstream media is worthless as far as anarchism goes - they still think of us as terrorists because of the whole propaganda of the deed thing that was popular a century ago. I've never heard of any reputable political source teaching that 'anarcho'-capitalism is anarchism, although that may be different in America. And in mainstream anarchism, 'anarcho'-capitalism is not seen as approaching anarchism.

How about the militant miners using violence to prevent other miners from working. And simply coca-cola has come to an area and offered jobs to people its up to the workers if they wish to apply for those jobs or not.
There wasn't very much of that, to be honest. Also, I have no sympathy for strikebreakers. The term scab is very apt. Coca-Cola may have come and offered jobs, but it has also murdered or arranged for the murders of numerous union activists who have tried to organise workers. Allegedly. (I'm covering my bases here)

The definition of being an anarchist and pro capitalist is Anarcho capitalist and while Anarcho-Capitalism was popularised by the Austrian School of economics and Murray Rothbard kinda recently (1940's - hardly just an internet thing) its ideas have existed in less clear theory for hundreds of years.
Also please look up the definition of anarchism. No where in its definition is a mention of what economic system it can function with.
However, it has only become anywhere approaching popular since the internet began. There are no 'anarcho'-capitalists in real life. And, the two hundred years of anarchistic ideas before it had all been anti-capitalist, that's my point. There are no anarchists from before then that are pro-capitalist. So they have no background for their theories. Furthermore, as capitalism needs the state like a foetus needs the womb, any support for capitalism is automatically support for the state.

They are kept by property rights and have changed hands countlessly. How about things I've made myself a building I've constructed or a chair I've made, you somehow claim this is not mine but taking a chair I've built with my hands is taking back whats "yours"? Its theft.
I agree taking more than your fair share is wrong. Thus is you haven't earnt something through voluntary trade you have no claim to "take it" regardless if you have supposed superior moral reasons. Robin Hood would be breaking the law if he were alive today and so would your movement.
A chair isn't property in this sense, it's a possession. Here property is the means of production - land, factories, and the like. Anarchists don't want to take away things you make yourself or obtain yourself.
Oh, and I know that it would be breaking the law. Seeing as it's a capitalist law, we have to. (Well, when the revolution comes...)

It would still require an army or police to take peoples property with either the threat of deportation, jail or even death. Regardless if 51% of people thought it was fine. (Keep in mind Labour controlls the majority in parliament with just 35% of the vote)


Why?

Let us imagine, for just a moment, if there is ANY possible way the situation might NOT have to be like that?

After all - If I can envision even ONE workable system that avoids the 'militant' approach you seem to dislike, it will no longer be acceptable as a 'downside of communism', right? Just ONE type of communism.

So - how about...

I'm going to use the US for my example... their 'state' approach makes it more easily applicable...

How about - one state (e.g. Wyoming, population is only a couple of hundred thousand people) elects communist representation, and has sufficient power to change state laws a little... so that they favour communal practise? Anti-communist stalwarts, finding they lack numbers to overthrow the communist government (who are made MORE secure by an influx of people who WANT to live in a communist state) leave the state.

Thus - over a relatively short period of time, we are left with a communist, volunteer state.

How about - one state (e.g. Wyoming, population is only a couple of hundred thousand people) elects communist representation, and has sufficient power to change state laws a little... so that they favour communal practise? Anti-communist stalwarts, finding they lack numbers to overthrow the communist government (who are made MORE secure by an influx of people who WANT to live in a communist state) leave the state.

Thus - over a relatively short period of time, we are left with a communist, volunteer state.
Libertarians have been trying to do the same thing in New Hampshire or Vermont (I can never remember which) for years. There's a concerted effort to move libertarians to the state, and they support libertarian candidates for office. The goal is eventually to control the political agenda of the state.

Living in Communist Czechoslovakia in the early 80s, there really wasn't much choice.

Which was the problem. :p

People will attack or murder you for striking? Yes. For starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

Sorry, no. Mainstream media is worthless as far as anarchism goes - they still think of us as terrorists because of the whole propaganda of the deed thing that was popular a century ago. I've never heard of any reputable political source teaching that 'anarcho'-capitalism is anarchism, although that may be different in America. And in mainstream anarchism, 'anarcho'-capitalism is not seen as approaching anarchism.


As far as education goes if you were to study general anarchism the majority of courses will split it into individualist and collectivist anarchism including Anarcho Capitalism. Thats the case in Politics A level right now (in Britain)


There wasn't very much of that, to be honest. Also, I have no sympathy for strikebreakers. The term scab is very apt. Coca-Cola may have come and offered jobs, but it has also murdered or arranged for the murders of numerous union activists who have tried to organise workers. Allegedly. (I'm covering my bases here)


How is that fair. The worker is effectively a slave to the union, being forced to join and do as they command or suffer their wrath. Being called scabs and suffering abuse from fellow workers.
Secoundly clearly murder is wrong and if so called coca-cola people organise this and they're caught they do get peanalised big time. Not to mention the hit to their reputation which is important for companys as well, even such alleged accusations have effects,



However, it has only become anywhere approaching popular since the internet began. There are no 'anarcho'-capitalists in real life. And, the two hundred years of anarchistic ideas before it had all been anti-capitalist, that's my point. There are no anarchists from before then that are pro-capitalist. So they have no background for their theories. Furthermore, as capitalism needs the state like a foetus needs the womb, any support for capitalism is automatically support for the state.


Ayn Rands objectivism was huge in the 60's and 70's. The libertarian party was formed in America in the 70's pushing as far to anarcho capitalism as is realistic in a democracy and writers like Hayek wrote the road to serfdom in the 40's as well. Not to mention all this stems from a long running classic liberal theme of anti statism and free economys that has existed since capitalism emerged.
While the left have been explicitly anarchistic much more vocally particuarly in times of less flexible capitalism with greater poverty, the anti state capitalists have always existed, increasing growth and economic thinking particuarly in the emergence of growing globalisation has simply led more people to go out and listen.


A chair isn't property in this sense, it's a possession. Here property is the means of production - land, factories, and the like. Anarchists don't want to take away things you make yourself or obtain yourself.
Oh, and I know that it would be breaking the law. Seeing as it's a capitalist law, we have to. (Well, when the revolution comes...)

Okay in which case if I make chairs a tree is my means to production. Would I then not be able to plant a tree or do a service for someone who has already planted a tree and use this wood. Or would I be forced for the greater good to let everyone else have as much claim on using my wood. Thus I won't own the means of production any more than someone with one share of coca cola owns the coca cola company.

--------


Why?
I'm going to use the US for my example... their 'state' approach makes it more easily applicable...

How about - one state (e.g. Wyoming, population is only a couple of hundred thousand people) elects communist representation, and has sufficient power to change state laws a little... so that they favour communal practise? Anti-communist stalwarts, finding they lack numbers to overthrow the communist government (who are made MORE secure by an influx of people who WANT to live in a communist state) leave the state.

Thus - over a relatively short period of time, we are left with a communist, volunteer state.

As far as a practical plan thats pretty much the best legitimate way to do it and as far as everyone has the freedom to leave and take the stuff they already own with them I have no problem with this being tried out. I've even heard of some radical libertarians wanting to take control of a state and abolish taxation etc..

Such an experiment would face drastic problems though. Radical change often gets hit by the law of unintended consequences and as history has shown few "theoretical/blueprinted" ideas actually turn out as they are supposed to.

Even assuming it does work out fine, socialism/communism then faces the problem of living next to capitalism something sweeden and east Germany particuarly have difficulty with. The principles behind socialism/communism is of looking after the weaker and helping people to achieve greater equality. Free education especially at higher levels is funded for by mainly older people and the younger citizens benefit from this. The trouble is after recieving good degrees and skills they are often lured by the high paying capitalist jobs that are now avalible to them, while those who either recieve poor education or squander their chances will be tempted to move to a more socialist system as financially they may be better off (assuming the socialist system remains somewhat stable). Even ignoring the economic inefficiency and the problems of distributing need (which changes in a way only the market can measure on a large scale) the problem of the current skilled and future skilled leaving is a problem that will inevitably destroy the experiment (assuming the experiment isn't hyjacked or goes of course and is attacked as "not being true communism")

------------

Yes. For starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

Okay point taken and atleast in America and Britain people have a legal right to peacefully strike/protest. And they have a right to not be attacked.
Obviously I wouldn't support those incidents, but neither would I support the behaviour of many strikers.

To answer the poll, I'm an anti-communist (it doesn't work, but is a good idea) socialist.

Communism doesn't work because of human ambition and desire to become better. Nobody wants to be told what their job will be when they turn 18. Capitalism is the only thing that works because of choices. You can choose what you want to do with your life. Communism didn't work with Lenin and Stalin, and it won't work now.

Probably the only time communism has worked is the Christian belief of heaven. So depending who you talk to, Communism could be consider nothing more than a fairy tale to make the sheep feel good about themselves.

As far as education goes if you were to study general anarchism the majority of courses will split it into individualist and collectivist anarchism including Anarcho Capitalism. Thats the case in Politics A level right now (in Britain)
It is? All the information I can find seems to indicate that anarchism isn't even touched, but I may well be wrong. A link or two would be nice, if you have them. There's no mention of anarchism here at Royal Grammar School (http://schoolweb.rgsw.org.uk/politics/frameset.htm)I know that the Political Science course in Trinity College Dublin stays away from it for the most part.

How is that fair. The worker is effectively a slave to the union, being forced to join and do as they command or suffer their wrath. Being called scabs and suffering abuse from fellow workers.
Secoundly clearly murder is wrong and if so called coca-cola people organise this and they're caught they do get peanalised big time. Not to mention the hit to their reputation which is important for companys as well, even such alleged accusations have effects,
Scabs deserve abuse - they are betraying their fellow workers. Never cross a picket line, or is that rule not applicable any more? And check out this website (http://www.killercoke.org/) for information on Coke's (alleged) murders.

Ayn Rands objectivism was huge in the 60's and 70's. The libertarian party was formed in America in the 70's pushing as far to anarcho capitalism as is realistic in a democracy and writers like Hayek wrote the road to serfdom in the 40's as well. Not to mention all this stems from a long running classic liberal theme of anti statism and free economys that has existed since capitalism emerged.
While the left have been explicitly anarchistic much more vocally particuarly in times of less flexible capitalism with greater poverty, the anti state capitalists have always existed, increasing growth and economic thinking particuarly in the emergence of growing globalisation has simply led more people to go out and listen.
Look, you cannot be anti-state and anti-capitalist at the same time, because capitalism requires the state to survive. 'Anarcho'-capitalists don't believe this, or see that their private companies will essentially become states. The anti-state capitalists have traditionally been minarchists in the tradition of Robert Nozick - and he didn't publish his seminal work until 1974. Minarchist and 'anarcho'-capitalist ideas didn't become popular until after that. Of course there were a few, but not many. And, like I said, the internet was a boon for ancaps.

Okay in which case if I make chairs a tree is my means to production. Would I then not be able to plant a tree or do a service for someone who has already planted a tree and use this wood. Or would I be forced for the greater good to let everyone else have as much claim on using my wood. Thus I won't own the means of production any more than someone with one share of coca cola owns the coca cola company.
If you took wood from the forest to make chairs, then no-one would stop you. The problem only exists if you try and stop others from taking the wood as well. (Not quite sure if that's what you were asking, but I think I've answered it...)

Communism doesn't work because of human ambition and desire to become better. Nobody wants to be told what their job will be when they turn 18. Capitalism is the only thing that works because of choices. You can choose what you want to do with your life. Communism didn't work with Lenin and Stalin, and it won't work now.
That's because Lenin and Stalin were nothing more than state capitalists - instead of many companies doing everything in the state, the state was one big company... The Soviet Union actually shows the perils of unrestrained capitalism.

It is? All the information I can find seems to indicate that anarchism isn’t even touched, but I may well be wrong. A link or two would be nice, if you have them. There’s no mention of anarchism here at Royal Grammar School (“http://schoolweb.rgsw.org.uk/politics/frameset.htm”)I know that the Political Science course in Trinity College Dublin stays away from it for the most part.
Most UK political courses at Uni level at least touch on anarchism, and my political philosophy course dealt heavily with philosophical anarchism and the justification of the state (check it out here (http://www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/Philosophy/Undergraduate%20Resources/Levels%201-2/Levels%201-2%20Course%20Materials/1A%20Mod%20Pol%20Phil.htm), about half-way down the page). In fact, I wrote an extensive essay on it, focusing heavily on William Godwin’s philosophical anarchism and Max Stirner’s egotistical anarchism. Anarchism certainly isn’t hidden away by academia; if you do any political philosophy you’re bound to run into it.

It is? All the information I can find seems to indicate that anarchism isn't even touched, but I may well be wrong. A link or two would be nice, if you have them. There's no mention of anarchism here at Royal Grammar School (http://schoolweb.rgsw.org.uk/politics/frameset.htm)I know that the Political Science course in Trinity College Dublin stays away from it for the most part.
.

From looking at that link it would appear the politics course seems to be much more practical than theoretical. It seems to boarder on the history of politics and how politics is today.
That course stays away from Fascism and Femminism as well, this does not mean they don't exist or are recognised to exist.
Most courses that look at ideologies or philosophy of politics will cover not only anarchism but pro capitalist and pro collectivist strands of anarchism.


Scabs deserve abuse - they are betraying their fellow workers. Never cross a picket line, or is that rule not applicable any more? And check out this website (http://www.killercoke.org/) for information on Coke's (alleged) murders.
.

The RULE of a picket line is to use non violent method to persuade people to join your cause. People are individuals and can think for themselves if they want to work it is their right as a human to do so and anyone trying to stop them in my opinion is disgusting.
As for big business I don't particuarly defend them they often do nasty stuff, but with a free market of competiton and a state to uphold law the minimal damage they may do can be minimised.


Look, you cannot be anti-state and anti-capitalist at the same time, because capitalism requires the state to survive. 'Anarcho'-capitalists don't believe this, or see that their private companies will essentially become states. The anti-state capitalists have traditionally been minarchists in the tradition of Robert Nozick - and he didn't publish his seminal work until 1974. Minarchist and 'anarcho'-capitalist ideas didn't become popular until after that. Of course there were a few, but not many. And, like I said, the internet was a boon for ancaps.
.

Wikki "
A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. Following Max Weber's influential definition, a state has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence'

In capitalism companys have no authority to tell people what to do and all transactions a by CHOICE. Providing a service be it a security team, transport etc.. does not = being a politicised state with authority or soverignity or any kind. If a consumer does not like a company they are free to turn to another company, if I dislike the action of a state I have no choice but to comply.



If you took wood from the forest to make chairs, then no-one would stop you. The problem only exists if you try and stop others from taking the wood as well. (Not quite sure if that's what you were asking, but I think I've answered it...)
.

If I grew the trees and spent my time/money making sure they were the best quality and lasted long it would be wrong from someone else to come in and benefit from my hardwork.
Besides people look after things they own much more carefully than that of what they don't own, if people were free to come up to any garden and take what they like self interest would prevail and resources would be stripped with little investment.


That's because Lenin and Stalin were nothing more than state capitalists - instead of many companies doing everything in the state, the state was one big company... The Soviet Union actually shows the perils of unrestrained capitalism.

urm..my gosh......did you actually cite Stalin and the soviet union as an example of "unrestrained capitalism".....
...
...
...
.
.

I think the greater question is have you considered coffee.

Give me caffeine or give me death!

Probably the only time communism has worked is the Christian belief of heaven. So depending who you talk to, Communism could be consider nothing more than a fairy tale to make the sheep feel good about themselves.


In the event of ever single on of our desires being granted and over abundance of everything than sure make everyone equally abundant. Capitalism is the best system thats emerged to handle scarcity and increase production thus providing more for more people than any other system does.

From each according to his caffeine, to each according to his caffeine.

As far as a practical plan thats pretty much the best legitimate way to do it and as far as everyone has the freedom to leave and take the stuff they already own with them I have no problem with this being tried out. I've even heard of some radical libertarians wanting to take control of a state and abolish taxation etc..

Such an experiment would face drastic problems though. Radical change often gets hit by the law of unintended consequences and as history has shown few "theoretical/blueprinted" ideas actually turn out as they are supposed to.

Even assuming it does work out fine, socialism/communism then faces the problem of living next to capitalism something sweeden and east Germany particuarly have difficulty with. The principles behind socialism/communism is of looking after the weaker and helping people to achieve greater equality. Free education especially at higher levels is funded for by mainly older people and the younger citizens benefit from this. The trouble is after recieving good degrees and skills they are often lured by the high paying capitalist jobs that are now avalible to them, while those who either recieve poor education or squander their chances will be tempted to move to a more socialist system as financially they may be better off (assuming the socialist system remains somewhat stable). Even ignoring the economic inefficiency and the problems of distributing need (which changes in a way only the market can measure on a large scale) the problem of the current skilled and future skilled leaving is a problem that will inevitably destroy the experiment (assuming the experiment isn't hyjacked or goes of course and is attacked as "not being true communism")



But, what you describe really isn't 'true' communism... look at your wording... "is funded for by mainly older people", "high paying capitalist jobs", "financially they may be better off", "ignoring the economic inefficiency".

You are talking about communism, and yet you keep refering to capitalist concepts. If our communism is 'pure'... the old do not 'fund' anything for the young... because 'funding' is an irrelevence. No one is 'financially better off', because there is no 'financial' state. There is no 'economic inefficiency', because the whole principle of market economics is irrelevent. And, no one is going to leave a volunteer state for 'higher pay', if their needs are met without pay, and... let me reiterate... the state is VOLUNTARY.

Example - I am a scientist. A skilled profession, that requires certain education and certification. Theoretically, I could opt out of our volunteer state, to work for 'wages' ('higher wages' is a nonsense... apples and oranges)... but all my needs are already being met.

Why would I leave my society?

Communism doesn't work because of human ambition and desire to become better. Nobody wants to be told what their job will be when they turn 18. Capitalism is the only thing that works because of choices. You can choose what you want to do with your life. Communism didn't work with Lenin and Stalin, and it won't work now.

Probably the only time communism has worked is the Christian belief of heaven. So depending who you talk to, Communism could be consider nothing more than a fairy tale to make the sheep feel good about themselves.

The Christian view of heaven is actually a benign dictatorship... communism and capitalism would be irrelevent.

You make a whole load of assumptions.

Human ambition and desire to become better... these can exist ina communism just as in a capitalism.

Being told what your job will be when you turn 18... has nothing to do with communism. Ideally, you will do what you are good at - "each according to his/her ability".

"Capitalism is the only thing that works because of choices".... just doesn't hold true. The higher incomes may have choices, but the 'choices' become progressively fewer as the income drops.

Look at a state like New York... I seem to recall reading 25% of the population lives in poverty. What are their 'choices'? The choice to eat lunch OR dinner, because they can't afford both?

But, what you describe really isn't 'true' communism... look at your wording... "is funded for by mainly older people", "high paying capitalist jobs", "financially they may be better off", "ignoring the economic inefficiency".
You are talking about communism, and yet you keep refering to capitalist concepts. If our communism is 'pure'... the old do not 'fund' anything for the young...
?

The young have high needs (the need for education perhaps) the old have higher ability. Thus the older pretty much single handidly contribute for the younger to get a free university education. My definition of "fund" is simply to provide for them and even ignoring capitlaistic lingo this is true.


because 'funding' is an irrelevence. No one is 'financially better off', because there is no 'financial' state. There is no 'economic inefficiency', because the whole principle of market economics is irrelevent. And, no one is going to leave a volunteer state for 'higher pay', if their needs are met without pay, and... let me reiterate... the state is VOLUNTARY.


If Communism wishes to rival capitalism. It may not care about the market efficiency but those looking at picking between the two choices will see the obvious distinction.
People also want more than what their simple needs ask for. If this was true why do people on high salerys continue to work when they could retire and without needing to work and still have their basic needs met. Its quite simple to say people are free to leave...but they never would do because we're so great. But thats clearly not true.

Even if "pure" communism existed I would hope to live in a capitalist nation which would attract those with the skills to earn a high income or those desiring independence. If the choice is having your needs met vs. having an abundance of choice (in a free market) for not only your needs but desires I wonder what most people would pick.


Example - I am a scientist. A skilled profession, that requires certain education and certification. Theoretically, I could opt out of our volunteer state, to work for 'wages' ('higher wages' is a nonsense... apples and oranges)... but all my needs are already being met.

Why would I leave my society?

Independence and individual liberty. The choice to work for myself and buy what I like when I like it.


Human ambition and desire to become better... these can exist ina communism just as in a capitalism.


Yes but greed is one of the best motivators to fuel ambition. Look at how people behave in school, they know that their actions will directly lead to the career options they have when they leave yet many lack motivation of any kind. How do you think people would react if you took even this most basic incentive away.


"Capitalism is the only thing that works because of choices".... just doesn't hold true. The higher incomes may have choices, but the 'choices' become progressively fewer as the income drops.


You have the choice to deal with anyone for anything for whatever value you empose on anything.
This choice holds true for all individuals under capitalism and thats the essential element of freedom it guarentees freedom and choice for everyone.


Look at a state like New York... I seem to recall reading 25% of the population lives in poverty. What are their 'choices'? The choice to eat lunch OR dinner, because they can't afford both?

Increasing prosperity for everyone is a bad thing? (http://freedomkeys.com/gap.htm)

The young have high needs (the need for education perhaps) the old have higher ability. Thus the older pretty much single handidly contribute for the younger to get a free university education. My definition of "fund" is simply to provide for them and even ignoring capitlaistic lingo this is true.


Actually - it is somewhere just after the 'young', and somewhere just before the 'old'... most people will fall into the 'middle' category. They will be productive, and they will be being educated. It is a peculiarity of our culture that we feel education should stop at a certain point.

There is no dichotomy... the teenager is getting educated, but that doesn't mean he/she is NOT being productive. The old person is productive... but that doesn't mean he/she is not being educated.


If Communism wishes to rival capitalism. It may not care about the market efficiency but those looking at picking between the two choices will see the obvious distinction.
People also want more than what their simple needs ask for. If this was true why do people on high salerys continue to work when they could retire and without needing to work and still have their basic needs met. Its quite simple to say people are free to leave...but they never would do because we're so great. But thats clearly not true.

Even if "pure" communism existed I would hope to live in a capitalist nation which would attract those with the skills to earn a high income or those desiring independence. If the choice is having your needs met vs. having an abundance of choice (in a free market) for not only your needs but desires I wonder what most people would pick.


Why do people with high salaries continue to work?

Habit. Social pressure. Expectation. The belief that if x is good, lots of x must be better.

I still don't see why you see a dichotomy in the models about want and need. A working communism ensures that all 'needs' are met - but it doesn't say that 'wants' MUST NOT be.

However, it does make a lot of 'wants' irrelevent.... if for example, one wants to listen to music in the bath... if our little commune has a central music library, and speakers (and some kind of selection device) in each room, there is no advantage to the capitalist model... and much advantage to the communist one.

I think you are falling into the 'communism = regression' trap. It can happen, but it doesn't have to... especially with the technology we have.


Independence and individual liberty. The choice to work for myself and buy what I like when I like it.


But, again... 'buy'. Why? Why insist on individual ownership?

ANd, why is there less independence or liberty ina communist model? I think you confuse 'authoritarian' with 'communist'.


Yes but greed is one of the best motivators to fuel ambition. Look at how people behave in school, they know that their actions will directly lead to the career options they have when they leave yet many lack motivation of any kind. How do you think people would react if you took even this most basic incentive away.


I wouldn't know.

My school successes were fueled by a desire to be better, to know more.

I wasn't at all motivated by career. I never even thought about my career until after I left university.


You have the choice to deal with anyone for anything for whatever value you empose on anything.
This choice holds true for all individuals under capitalism and thats the essential element of freedom it guarentees freedom and choice for everyone.


The same is ultimately true for communism too, though... but with the added bonus that, if it works amicably, most such situations bcome irrelevent.

I want your duvet. I could borrow it. I could give you my apples. Or... I could teach you to play piano. Or I could buy it. Different ways of achieving the same goal.


Increasing prosperity for everyone is a bad thing? (http://freedomkeys.com/gap.htm)

Pro-capitalist propoganda. Yes - 200 years ago the poor were more poor than today... even in real terms. But 200 years ago, the tax burden was nothing like it is today, there were less costs of living, and one could more easily just up-and-leave if the going got tough.

Now - one can't just pick up some land and farm for ones family... especially if you live in a city.

We've made our poor prisoners, and we increasingly ghetto-ise them. Meanwhile, the grip of the rich encompasses more and more of everything, and controls every resource more tightly.

Most UK political courses at Uni level at least touch on anarchism, and my political philosophy course dealt heavily with philosophical anarchism and the justification of the state (check it out here (http://www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/Philosophy/Undergraduate%20Resources/Levels%201-2/Levels%201-2%20Course%20Materials/1A%20Mod%20Pol%20Phil.htm), about half-way down the page). In fact, I wrote an extensive essay on it, focusing heavily on William Godwin’s philosophical anarchism and Max Stirner’s egotistical anarchism. Anarchism certainly isn’t hidden away by academia; if you do any political philosophy you’re bound to run into it.
Did it talk about 'anarcho'-capitalism? And if it did, did it claim it was part of anarchism?
Yeah, I know most politics courses would cover at least some anarchism - so does Trinity, but not to the same degree as Marxism, fascism, or liberalism.

The RULE of a picket line is to use non violent method to persuade people to join your cause. People are individuals and can think for themselves if they want to work it is their right as a human to do so and anyone trying to stop them in my opinion is disgusting.
As for big business I don't particuarly defend them they often do nasty stuff, but with a free market of competiton and a state to uphold law the minimal damage they may do can be minimised.
Yes - they NON-VIOLENTLY prevent people from working in the factories they are striking outside. To do otherwise is to make a strike useless. Oh, and if you think that stopping the scabs working is disgusting, how about the company taking away jobs from its loyal workers, surely that is a million times worse?

Wikki "
A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. Following Max Weber's influential definition, a state has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence'

In capitalism companys have no authority to tell people what to do and all transactions a by CHOICE. Providing a service be it a security team, transport etc.. does not = being a politicised state with authority or soverignity or any kind. If a consumer does not like a company they are free to turn to another company, if I dislike the action of a state I have no choice but to comply.
So how is 'anarcho'-capitalism going to impose its decisions, as the police and courts will be privatised?

If I grew the trees and spent my time/money making sure they were the best quality and lasted long it would be wrong from someone else to come in and benefit from my hardwork.
Besides people look after things they own much more carefully than that of what they don't own, if people were free to come up to any garden and take what they like self interest would prevail and resources would be stripped with little investment.
Oh, that's what you mean! In that case, no, no-one would take your trees, because you're working the land yourself. Of course, how you'd get food to feed yourself might be a problem, seeing as you're doing all that work yourself. You'll probably need to arrange to get food from somewhere else - either by trading, like the individualists would, or agreeing to join a commune/collective, where you'd give chairs to the commune and get food and other essentials back.
(This may not totally accurately reflect anarchist economic thinking, but I think it's fairly close.)


urm..my gosh......did you actually cite Stalin and the soviet union as an example of "unrestrained capitalism".....
Yes. Yes I did. And it was slight hyperbole, it is true. There was a restraint on capitalism - it had to be owned by the government. Other than that, the Soviet Union was nothing more than a giant company - a company that had the force of law behind its will.

Yes. Yes I did. And it was slight hyperbole, it is true. There was a restraint on capitalism - it had to be owned by the government. Other than that, the Soviet Union was nothing more than a giant company - a company that had the force of law behind its will.
You are a fool.

You are a fool.
Thanks for the personal attack. Any chance you might want to explain why I am wrong, instead of just calling me a fool?
Here, I'll make it easy for you, because I'd say your debating skills probably aren't the hottest if all you can come up with are ad hominem attacks. I'm saying that the Soviet Union was state capitalist. Now, if you want to participate properly, you can go off and find out why the Soviet Union was not state capitalist, and then I'll come back with answers to your points, and we'll have a great big rowdy discussion which may well educate us both.
Or, alternatively, you can continue with the childish name-calling. Your call.

Here, I'll even provide you with a few links:
The Wikipedia article on State Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism)
Tony Cliff: State Capitalism in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm)
Anti-Capitalism or State Capitalism? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anticapPAM/antiorstate.html)

Thanks for the personal attack. Any chance you might want to explain why I am wrong, instead of just calling me a fool?
Here, I'll make it easy for you, because I'd say your debating skills probably aren't the hottest if all you can come up with are ad hominem attacks. I'm saying that the Soviet Union was state capitalist. Now, if you want to participate properly, you can go off and find out why the Soviet Union was not state capitalist, and then I'll come back with answers to your points, and we'll have a great big rowdy discussion which may well educate us both.
Or, alternatively, you can continue with the childish name-calling. Your call.

I'm calling you a fool because you're falling for the most blatant and obvious form of Orwellian double-think. You are taking an opposing ideology (in this case capitalism) and linking it with a very dreadful instance in which an ideology related to yours went wrong.

State capitalism is an inherent oxymoron, because, as anybody who has a clue about economics will tell you capitalism is defined by a lack of non-intervention by the state, and the presence of competition. The Soviet Union met neither of those criteria. Therefore, the word capitalism cannot be applied to the Soviet Union.

If one is to apply any term to the Soviet Union, the terms such as Authoritarian Socialism, Total Authortarianism or Totalitarianism are appropriate. To use the word capitalism in reference to the USSR is fundamentally flawed.

Never tried Communism. I have too much knowledge in how world economies work to even think that usch a foolish system could ever truly function.

The only way Communism would work is if we had futuristic tech like replicators that supplied everyone's needs.

The only acceptable usage of the term State Capitalism is in reference to the Keynesian economic policies practiced in the western countries after the Second World War. And even at that, the appelature is flawed. Mixed-market describes this situation in a much better fashion.

The only way Communism would work is if we had futuristic tech like replicators that supplied everyone's needs.

That's what I've said; socialism can work once the problem of economic scarcity is solved. Of course, you then realize that it will take a very long time for that to happen if it does happen; even if we expand in to space (which has infinite resources in a practical sense) we're still going to have localized scarcity even though the larger system is infinite.

I mean, space colonies are still going to need supplies and resources from other places; even though the universe's resource base is almost infinite we are still going to have scarcity on every scale but the highest intergalactic scale, and that's so large that it doesn't really matter or affect the smaller ones.

That's what I've said; socialism can work once the problem of economic scarcity is solved.

As my Macro Prof said, "Marx was a great great social scientist and a poor economist."

I'm calling you a fool because you're falling for the most blatant and obvious form of Orwellian double-think. You are taking an opposing ideology (in this case capitalism) and linking it with a very dreadful instance in which an ideology related to yours went wrong.

State capitalism is an inherent oxymoron, because, as anybody who has a clue about economics will tell you capitalism is defined by a lack of non-intervention by the state, and the presence of competition. The Soviet Union met neither of those criteria. Therefore, the word capitalism cannot be applied to the Soviet Union.

If one is to apply any term to the Soviet Union, the terms such as Authoritarian Socialism, Total Authortarianism or Totalitarianism are appropriate. To use the word capitalism in reference to the USSR is fundamentally flawed.
That's strange - my dictionary says capitalism is "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production". No mention of competition or non-intervention. And, as the government of the Soviet Union was a single entity, it was the private owner of all Soviet industry. Which makes it state capitalism.

EDIT: Scratch the last line - not applicable due to your second post.

That's strange - my dictionary says capitalism is "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production". No mention of competition or non-intervention. And, as the government of the Soviet Union was a single entity, it was the private owner of all Soviet industry. Which makes it state capitalism.

EDIT: Scratch the last line - not applicable due to your second post.

Dictionary's are woeful sources of information, espescially when dealing with complex subjects like capitalism. And even at that your interpretation is a very, very big stretch.

In fact, I could turn your dictionary use on it's head by referencing the dictionary definition of socialism, "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." This definition clearly fits the Soviet government, far more thoroughly than your rough interpretation of the word capitalism.

In fact, I could turn your dictionary use on it's head by referencing the dictionary definition of socialism, "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." This definition clearly fits the Soviet government, far more thoroughly than your rough interpretation of the word capitalism.

Whatever you want to call the Soviet system, I think we'll both agree it was authoritarian. Corporations under capitalist systems are also authoritarian. Anarchists are opposed to both kinds of authoritarianism. Anarcho-syndicalists would support the independence from government that capitalist corporations have, but instead of an authoritarian ruling structure in the corporation, it would be democratic.

Whatever you want to call the Soviet system, I think we'll both agree it was authoritarian. Corporations under capitalist systems are also authoritarian. Anarchists are opposed to both kinds of authoritarianism. Anarcho-syndicalists would support the independence from government that capitalist corporations have, but instead of an authoritarian ruling structure in the corporation, it would be democratic.

Which I believe to be a flawed viewpoint. An individual has absolute control over his life, liberty and property (in my ideal paradigm), and that corporations are just an individuals property, there is nothing wrong with his control of it.

Dictionary's are woeful sources of information, espescially when dealing with complex subjects like capitalism. And even at that your interpretation is a very, very big stretch.

In fact, I could turn your dictionary use on it's head by referencing the dictionary definition of socialism, "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." This definition clearly fits the Soviet government, far more thoroughly than your rough interpretation of the word capitalism.
I have a slightly different definition - "an economic theory in which the means of production are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state" - which, it could be argued, doesn't include the Soviet Union, as the community didn't own the means of production, although the state said they did. And, going by your original definition of capitalism, the Soviet Union competed with other countries and companies, and there was no government to regulate its activities, other than the corporate leadership.
But Seeya said it far better than I did - the problem with the Soviet Union was not that it was communist or capitalist, but that it was authoritarian.

Which I believe to be a flawed viewpoint. An individual has absolute control over his life, liberty and property (in my ideal paradigm), and that corporations are just an individuals property, there is nothing wrong with his control of it.

But then the boss has control over the liberty of others, which is what anarchists have a problem with.

Whatever you want to call the Soviet system, I think we'll both agree it was authoritarian. Corporations under capitalist systems are also authoritarian. Anarchists are opposed to both kinds of authoritarianism. Anarcho-syndicalists would support the independence from government that capitalist corporations have, but instead of an authoritarian ruling structure in the corporation, it would be democratic.
Democracy is the antithesis of personal freedom. How many times do I have to say it?

As long as the minority can be deprived choice, democracy IS authoritarian.

State capitalism is an inherent oxymoron, because, as anybody who has a clue about economics will tell you capitalism is defined by a lack of non-intervention by the state, and the presence of competition. The Soviet Union met neither of those criteria. Therefore, the word capitalism cannot be applied to the Soviet Union.

State capitalism is a perfectly legitimate term when it is used in the realm in which it belongs - leftist, particularly Marxist, political theory. In that context the point the term is making refers not to the distinction between "the state" and "private property" that right-wing libertarians obsess over, but rather to the concept of class-based exploitation that leftist thinkers have applied to capitalism, and that advocates of the "state capitalist" theory hold applied also to the Soviet Union.

An individual has absolute control over his life, liberty and property (in my ideal paradigm), and that corporations are just an individuals property, there is nothing wrong with his control of it.

What do you mean by "absolute control"?

I have a slightly different definition - "an economic theory in which the means of production are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state" - which, it could be argued, doesn't include the Soviet Union, as the community didn't own the means of production, although the state said they did. And, going by your original definition of capitalism, the Soviet Union competed with other countries and companies, and there was no government to regulate its activities, other than the corporate leadership.

International strategic competition is not a representative factor of capitalism.

And beyond that, one can make a very compelling argument regarding the tacit consent of the people of the USSR to exist under the system, and that therefore the Soviet government was the representative of the will of the collective action of the people.



But Seeya said it far better than I did - the problem with the Soviet Union was not that it was communist or capitalist, but that it was authoritarian.

That's what I'm saying as well. It is poorly described when you make use of either of those labels, and the only legitimate term is authoritarian, or some variation on that theme.

State capitalism is a perfectly legitimate term when it is used in the realm in which it belongs - leftist, particularly Marxist, political theory. In that context the point the term is making refers not to the distinction between "the state" and "private property" that right-wing libertarians obsess over, but rather to the concept of class-based exploitation that leftist thinkers have applied to capitalism, and that advocates of the "state capitalist" theory hold applied also to the Soviet Union.
So it's a term that only makes sense if you follow marxist dogma. Wonderful. I don't exactly subscribe to that theory, so let's see how much sense it makes to me.



What do you mean by "absolute control"?
If it belongs to me I may do with it as I please. If I wish to make a bonfire and dance around it in the nude playing a lute, then so be it.

International strategic competition is not a representative factor of capitalism.

And beyond that, one can make a very compelling argument regarding the tacit consent of the people of the USSR to exist under the system, and that therefore the Soviet government was the representative of the will of the collective action of the people.
I meant competition in terms of international trade rather than strategic competition (I hadn't even thought of that...) As for tacit consent, that argument has one minor flaw - namely the repression required to bring about tacit consent, and the immediate outpourings of anti-Soviet ideas once the repression vanished... (Take, for example, Hungary 1956 and Prague 1968...)

I meant competition in terms of international trade rather than strategic competition (I hadn't even thought of that...) As for tacit consent, that argument has one minor flaw - namely the repression required to bring about tacit consent, and the immediate outpourings of anti-Soviet ideas once the repression vanished... (Take, for example, Hungary 1956 and Prague 1968...)

Neither of those occured in the Soviet Union proper though, just in their satellite states. Even at that, tacit consent is derived from the majority, not from total unity.

I'm calling you a fool because you're falling for the most blatant and obvious form of Orwellian double-think. You are taking an opposing ideology (in this case capitalism) and linking it with a very dreadful instance in which an ideology related to yours went wrong.


Even if everything you said was fact, rather than opinion, that still doesn't provide sufficient grounds for calling anyone a fool.

Attack the arguments (or don't), but leave the ad hominems behind.


State capitalism is an inherent oxymoron, because, as anybody who has a clue about economics will tell you capitalism is defined by a lack of non-intervention by the state, and the presence of competition.


Utter rubbish. Capitalism is 'defined' by capital. A Corpocracy would be a state controlled by one (or more) corporation(s)... absolute 'intervention' by 'the state'... but it would still be 'capitalistic'.


The Soviet Union met neither of those criteria. Therefore, the word capitalism cannot be applied to the Soviet Union.

If one is to apply any term to the Soviet Union, the terms such as Authoritarian Socialism, Total Authortarianism or Totalitarianism are appropriate. To use the word capitalism in reference to the USSR is fundamentally flawed.

The Soviet Union peddled 'soft' capitalism, largely in it's foreign trading. It also abused the communist production model (remember, communism IS a proction model... not a government model) to such an extent that the terms 'communist' or 'capitalist' would be about equally relevent.

That's what I've said; socialism can work once the problem of economic scarcity is solved.

The same can be said of capitalism. Right now, it is failing a large number of people.

Neither of those occured in the Soviet Union proper though, just in their satellite states. Even at that, tacit consent is derived from the majority, not from total unity.
They were majority-based movements. And I picked them as examples that I can think of from the top of my head. Most of the dissent in Russia was brutally crushed in the Civil War years. Like I said, tacit consent doesn't really apply when it is only achieved via repressive force.

Even if everything you said was fact, rather than opinion, that still doesn't provide sufficient grounds for calling anyone a fool.

Attack the arguments (or don't), but leave the ad hominems behind.
I fundamentally believe that anyone who is willing to make use of foolish act of double-think is worthy of the title of fool. It is a title that one can renounce if they cease to participate in this foolish act.



Utter rubbish. Capitalism is 'defined' by capital. A Corpocracy would be a state controlled by one (or more) corporation(s)... absolute 'intervention' by 'the state'... but it would still be 'capitalistic'.
No it wouldn't.

If corporations have ceased to operate without the use of active violence, then they have forsworn capitalism in favor of another system.


The Soviet Union peddled 'soft' capitalism, largely in it's foreign trading. It also abused the communist production model (remember, communism IS a proction model... not a government model) to such an extent that the terms 'communist' or 'capitalist' would be about equally relevent.
Which is what I've said repeatedly. The USSR is neither capitalist or communist. I've never made the argument that it was either, just that it was not capitalist.

They were majority-based movements. And I picked them as examples that I can think of from the top of my head. Most of the dissent in Russia was brutally crushed in the Civil War years. Like I said, tacit consent doesn't really apply when it is only achieved via repressive force.

The oppresive force could not have occured without the tacit consent of the majority in the USSR.

Once again, I am only dealing with the internal policies of the Soviet government, not with their foreign policies.

So it's a term that only makes sense if you follow marxist dogma. Wonderful.

Not exactly. It makes sense only if you understand the context; you don't have to agree with its proponents. I don't subscribe to Marxist dogma, but I do more or less accept the notion of state capitalism.

It's true that its use to attack capitalism amounts to begging the question, by assuming that capitalism is, as advocates of state capitalism maintain that the Soviet Union's economic system was, characterized by class-based exploitation. Its proper use is to attack Stalinism, and perhaps authoritarian Leninism.

If it belongs to me I may do with it as I please. If I wish to make a bonfire and dance around it in the nude playing a lute, then so be it.

You are merely repeating yourself. What do you mean by "I may do with it as I please"? You clearly do not mean that I can do absolutely anything with it, because if I could, I could violate the rights of other individuals to life, liberty, and property. So what kinds of actions constitute such a violation? How much control, exactly, am I entitled to have?

But Seeya said it far better than I did - the problem with the Soviet Union was not that it was communist or capitalist, but that it was authoritarian.


No, that is wildly inaccurate, also.

'Authoritarian' does not equate to 'bad'. Indeed, it has often been argued that the 'perfect' form of government would be absolutely authoritarian... a 'benign dictatorship'.

The problem with the Soviet Union wasn't it's economic model. Nor was it the authoritarian versus non-authoritarian spread. Nor was it the centralisation versus federalisation issue.

The problem with the Soviet Union was corruption, at every level. Too much croneyism, special privilige for the 'friends of the party', a 'negotiable' legal system for the rich and powerful, and the paranoid persecution of the citizens by their government.

Much like the current US situation.

I fundamentally believe that anyone who is willing to make use of foolish act of double-think is worthy of the title of fool. It is a title that one can renounce if they cease to participate in this foolish act.


You think it 'double-think'. You must be aware that your own beliefs are also opinion. If you are willing to call yourself a fool for believing what YOU believe, you are justified in levelling the same accusation at others.

So - which are you? Fool or hypocrite?


No it wouldn't.

If corporations have ceased to operate without the use of active violence, then they have forsworn capitalism in favor of another system.


I don't accept your definition... the mafia operates on capital and active violence. The mafia are violent capitalists.

I think you are confusing 'capitalism' with 'fair trade'.


Which is what I've said repeatedly. The USSR is neither capitalist or communist. I've never made the argument that it was either, just that it was not capitalist.

But it was capitalistic. And it was communistic. And it was pure to neither ideal.

You think it 'double-think'. You must be aware that your own beliefs are also opinion. If you are willing to call yourself a fool for believing what YOU believe, you are justified in levelling the same accusation at others.

So - which are you? Fool or hypocrite?
I'll never deny that I'm a fool, so don't even bother.

The reason for that is different from the reason that I'm call what's-his-face a fool though. I'm calling him a fool because he's twisting the generally accepted definition of capitalism (the opposite ideology to his) to cover for the flaws of his own ideology.


I don't accept your definition... the mafia operates on capital and active violence. The mafia are violent capitalists.
No, the mafia are a variation on totalitarians. Capitalism eschews violence as per the fact that it is irrational, and does not work to allow for the most efficient or best result. Any capitalist will echo this sentiment.

I am still a communist, socialist, I switch between the two especially if i have a huge dose of right-wing news (i would use other words but).

The Soviet Union actually shows the perils of unrestrained capitalism.

No private property, a centrally planned economy, no private enterprise whatsoever, every iota of the economy regulated to death, government ownership of everything...yeah, sounds like capitalism, all right. :rolleyes:

Actually - it is somewhere just after the 'young', and somewhere just before the 'old'... most people will fall into the 'middle' category. They will be productive, and they will be being educated. It is a peculiarity of our culture that we feel education should stop at a certain point.

There is no dichotomy... the teenager is getting educated, but that doesn't mean he/she is NOT being productive. The old person is productive... but that doesn't mean he/she is not being educated.

.

Mabey I should ammend my statement. Education does stop at some point yes, in capitalism with long term incentives to stay many still drop out at 16. Others contine into their late 20's doing Master Degree's and PHD's. It it the ones that stay on the longest and cost the most that have the largest to gain from living in a meritocratic system and have the largest burdon on "society" in terms of effort to train.
I admit it may be a feature of capitalism to push for speicalisation. But I fail to see how a system could function without highly trained scientists, economists, doctors etc..



Why do people with high salaries continue to work?

Habit. Social pressure. Expectation. The belief that if x is good, lots of x must be better.
.

Don't insult people. Particuarly those who are smart enough to be offered high salarys for their work. They know what they value and they value material incentive and a high quaility lifestyle over just having the basic needs regardless if you think this is immoral for an individual to do so.




I still don't see why you see a dichotomy in the models about want and need. A working communism ensures that all 'needs' are met - but it doesn't say that 'wants' MUST NOT be.
.

I'm sure some wants may be catered for. Capitlaism clearly caters for wants much more particuarly by a market and mass production. If lots of people want something it will be quickly avalible and cheap because the market will be competative. If you want some unique product, perhaps a custom made guitar to your unusual prefferences you have have one made, it may cost more but why would a product with little use to society that only 1 individual benefits from be made in communism anyway.
Thus while communism may not prevent a want being met it is vastly inefficient to capitalism in this respect.


I think you are falling into the 'communism = regression' trap. It can happen, but it doesn't have to... especially with the technology we have.
.

Look at the technology we had 20 years ago compared to today. This type of progress is synonomous with capitalism while look at the relative growth socialist and the soviet nations made.


But, again... 'buy'. Why? Why insist on individual ownership?

ANd, why is there less independence or liberty ina communist model? I think you confuse 'authoritarian' with 'communist'.
.

You lack the freedom to choose. Rather than people competing to offer you what you want,. in communism you are one among many who has a minimal say in how everything is run and getting exacly what you want.
You lack economic independence and self sufficientcy. You are dependent on society or the state to provide for you and similarly it is repressive as you cannot keep the fruits of your labour, society gets the fruits of your labour and decides how to allocate it.


I wouldn't know.

My school successes were fueled by a desire to be better, to know more.

I wasn't at all motivated by career. I never even thought about my career until after I left university.
.

To an extent this is true on my part as well. I do what I enjoy (moslty because this is what I'm best at) and not to mention at 18-21 its extremely difficult to have already formed a life plan. There is still the notion that going to university will help you in the future. And going to a better uni helps you even more.
Are the people studying many hours every day competing to get into the top unis and dedicate many years of their life to improve their skills really doing so to "be better" or perhaps both reasons take some role in motivating them.



The same is ultimately true for communism too, though... but with the added bonus that, if it works amicably, most such situations bcome irrelevent.

I want your duvet. I could borrow it. I could give you my apples. Or... I could teach you to play piano. Or I could buy it. Different ways of achieving the same goal.
.

So a revertion back to a barter economy. That is highly inefficient at catering to peoples needs/wants.


Pro-capitalist propoganda. Yes - 200 years ago the poor were more poor than today... even in real terms. But 200 years ago, the tax burden was nothing like it is today, there were less costs of living, and one could more easily just up-and-leave if the going got tough.

Now - one can't just pick up some land and farm for ones family... especially if you live in a city.

We've made our poor prisoners, and we increasingly ghetto-ise them. Meanwhile, the grip of the rich encompasses more and more of everything, and controls every resource more tightly.[/QUOTE]

The tax burdon is simply higher because we have such higher standards of living. For example it would be superior to be poor in America than in the middle ranges in bangladesh.
These extra resources are being created by influence of the "rich" and they then contribute the most in form of taxes for the welfare of the general populance.

I'll never deny that I'm a fool, so don't even bother.

I'm not calling you a fool. I'm not asking you to deny it.

I'm saying that the 'justification' you gave requires you to either label yourself the same thing, or be proved a hypocrite. It wouldn't matter what I called you, or what you don't deny.

Are you a fool?


The reason for that is different from the reason that I'm call what's-his-face a fool though. I'm calling him a fool because he's twisting the generally accepted definition of capitalism (the opposite ideology to his) to cover for the flaws of his own ideology.


I don't see that. I see you quibbling definitions... both making arguments that can be supported to some extent.

Thus - this is semantic, and opinion.


No, the mafia are a variation on totalitarians. Capitalism eschews violence as per the fact that it is irrational, and does not work to allow for the most efficient or best result. Any capitalist will echo this sentiment.

Let us see what Economist.com (http://www.economist.com/index.html) says about capitalism?

"Capitalism is a free-market system built on private ownership, in particular, the idea that owners of CAPITAL have PROPERTY RIGHTS that entitle them to earn a PROFIT as a reward for putting their capital at RISK in some form of economic activity. Opinion (and practice) differs considerably among capitalist countries about what role the state should play in the economy. But everyone agrees that, at the very least, for capitalism to work the state must be strong enough to guarantee property rights."

I notice they don't define free-market...

But they do define 'free-trade':

"Free trade: The ability of people to undertake economic transactions with people in other countries free from any restraints imposed by governments or other regulators. Measured by the volume of imports and exports, world trade has become increasingly free in the years since the second world war."

So - 'free market' can be assumed to be an unreached 'ideal' situation... to which markets are progressing.

It seems Economist thinks that the defining character of 'capitalism' is 'capital'... and that the amount of interference the state should be allowed to tender is debatable.

Almost the exact opposite of what you have been arguing.

Indeed - accepting the Economist definitions, it would appear you have been "twisting the generally accepted definition of capitalism to cover for the flaws of (your) own ideology." No?

Did it talk about 'anarcho'-capitalism? And if it did, did it claim it was part of anarchism?
Yeah, I know most politics courses would cover at least some anarchism - so does Trinity, but not to the same degree as Marxism, fascism, or liberalism.
.

It presented Anarchism as being unified by a) Opposition to the state b) a desire for absolute freedom c) soverignity of the individual ie- no right to impose authority upon someone else.
Then split it into individualist and collectivist giving Anarcho capitalism and individualist anarchism equal time to collectivist anarchism and say Anarcho syndicalism.
And of course most courses would not teach this to the same degree as liberalism, it has far less political significance. It does remain that it exists and is regognised by most ellites and education officials.


Yes - they NON-VIOLENTLY prevent people from working in the factories they are striking outside. To do otherwise is to make a strike useless. Oh, and if you think that stopping the scabs working is disgusting, how about the company taking away jobs from its loyal workers, surely that is a million times worse?
.

If its no longer cost effective to keep "loyal" workers why should they be forced to give away their money in a non voluntary deal that isn't for mutual benefit.
Also please cross one of those picket lines especially if you're a scab and tell me its not violent.


So how is 'anarcho'-capitalism going to impose its decisions, as the police and courts will be privatised?
.

heh don't make me sit here and try and defend something I don't believe!
As far as I know they would have a similar law structure that left anarchism would use I think most anarcho capitalists like thecontractarian (http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html) philosophy of ethics.
You would phone police based on their repuation and or cost and similarly go to courts that defended the law most efficiently.
Again I'm not anarcho capitalist thus I haven't argued it as well as someone who beleives the pro's outweigh the cons.


Oh, that's what you mean! In that case, no, no-one would take your trees, because you're working the land yourself. Of course, how you'd get food to feed yourself might be a problem, seeing as you're doing all that work yourself. You'll probably need to arrange to get food from somewhere else - either by trading, like the individualists would, or agreeing to join a commune/collective, where you'd give chairs to the commune and get food and other essentials back.
(This may not totally accurately reflect anarchist economic thinking, but I think it's fairly close.)
.

Okay and this is how capitalism developed and grew. What if I was working on the land that somone had origonally started to farm and this individual lets me work the land feeds me while I work. After I finnish all he asks in return is the cost of one apple more than what he fed me.

This doesn't sound too bad right. Now what if he has two workers or twenty and he offers them a slightly worse deal but the workers are still happy to comply.

Now this individual with all his profits buys a secound farm, or he pays for construction of a building in which his workers can work. He'll just employ more people to ship the trees to the factory in which the workers can more efficiently make chairs.


Yes. Yes I did. And it was slight hyperbole, it is true. There was a restraint on capitalism - it had to be owned by the government. Other than that, the Soviet Union was nothing more than a giant company - a company that had the force of law behind its will.

If a company can direcly make legisliture it is not a company by definition. Neither is it a company if it has political soverignity and reprents a nation in something like forign policy. Assuming their are no elections its fascism, and a political system leading towards fascism is a much worse criticism towards socialism.

Mabey I should ammend my statement. Education does stop at some point yes, in capitalism with long term incentives to stay many still drop out at 16. Others contine into their late 20's doing Master Degree's and PHD's. It it the ones that stay on the longest and cost the most that have the largest to gain from living in a meritocratic system and have the largest burdon on "society" in terms of effort to train.
I admit it may be a feature of capitalism to push for speicalisation. But I fail to see how a system could function without highly trained scientists, economists, doctors etc..


First - capitalism is not intrinsically 'meritocratic'. Many of the people I know that get paid better than I do, have less education than me... and are often not as GOOD at their jobs as I might be.

But, they have got the job through family... or because of the school they went to...

Second - a 'good' communist model would be entirely meritocratic... those who are best suited would ideally be placed where needed.

Third - I am, personally, a 'highly trained scientist'... I don't see the appeal for a greed economy over one where everyone has their needs supplied.



Don't insult people. Particuarly those who are smart enough to be offered high salarys for their work. They know what they value and they value material incentive and a high quaility lifestyle over just having the basic needs regardless if you think this is immoral for an individual to do so.


I'm not insulting anyone. You suggested one reason, I suggested a collection of others. Personally, I think mine are more rooted in reality than yours.

People ARE creatures of comfort.


I'm sure some wants may be catered for. Capitlaism clearly caters for wants much more particuarly by a market and mass production. If lots of people want something it will be quickly avalible and cheap because the market will be competative. If you want some unique product, perhaps a custom made guitar to your unusual prefferences you have have one made, it may cost more but why would a product with little use to society that only 1 individual benefits from be made in communism anyway.
Thus while communism may not prevent a want being met it is vastly inefficient to capitalism in this respect.


Capitalism clearly caters to wants.

I agree.

Unfortunately, it fails to deliver on 'needs'. I happen to think 'needs' are more important.


Look at the technology we had 20 years ago compared to today. This type of progress is synonomous with capitalism while look at the relative growth socialist and the soviet nations made.


Look at the relative growth of China in just the last couple of years.... in proportional terms, based on start-to-end-points, China (as a communist country) is currently probably the statistical ideal.

That's the problem with 'trend' data. It is only true, until it isn't.


You lack the freedom to choose. Rather than people competing to offer you what you want,. in communism you are one among many who has a minimal say in how everything is run and getting exacly what you want.
You lack economic independence and self sufficientcy. You are dependent on society or the state to provide for you and similarly it is repressive as you cannot keep the fruits of your labour, society gets the fruits of your labour and decides how to allocate it.


You confuse communism with authoritarianism... and capitalism with dmocracy. Neither is intrinsically true.


To an extent this is true on my part as well. I do what I enjoy (moslty because this is what I'm best at) and not to mention at 18-21 its extremely difficult to have already formed a life plan. There is still the notion that going to university will help you in the future. And going to a better uni helps you even more.
Are the people studying many hours every day competing to get into the top unis and dedicate many years of their life to improve their skills really doing so to "be better" or perhaps both reasons take some role in motivating them.


I can't speak to what 'most' people do. I just know that I do not match the model you suggest... thus, I must assume it is NOT universal.


So a revertion back to a barter economy. That is highly inefficient at catering to peoples needs/wants.


I didn't say that. Barter was one of a number of options.

Indeed - accepting the Economist definitions, it would appear you have been "twisting the generally accepted definition of capitalism to cover for the flaws of (your) own ideology." No?

Actually in essence Capitalism is anarcho capitalism. Any state involvement makes the economic situation akin to a mixed economy. General use permits liberal leaning economys to still be labbed capitalist even if its not correct usage to the proper definition.

I'm not calling you a fool. I'm not asking you to deny it.

I'm saying that the 'justification' you gave requires you to either label yourself the same thing, or be proved a hypocrite. It wouldn't matter what I called you, or what you don't deny.

Are you a fool?

Yes, and probably a drunk as well.

I'm done with the semantics debate.

Actually in essence Capitalism is anarcho capitalism. Any state involvement makes the economic situation akin to a mixed economy. General use permits liberal leaning economys to still be labbed capitalist even if its not correct usage to the proper definition.

I think you are talking crap.

(concept x) = (concept x) modified by (condition y)?

It makes no logical sense.

Anarcho-capitalism is a phrase that has a specific meaning... it is a modified version of 'capitalism'. Thus - the definition of 'capitalism' cannot be equal to the definition of anarcho-capitalism.

Add to which, of course, if we used this definition, the Soviet Union was equally as 'capitalistic' as the US.

Yes, and probably a drunk as well.

"But, in the morning I shall be sober..."

First - capitalism is not intrinsically 'meritocratic'. Many of the people I know that get paid better than I do, have less education than me... and are often not as GOOD at their jobs as I might be.
.

I agree it is not perfect. No system is. Nonetheless there is still value in convincing somone to pay you more than your worth even if you lack fundamental skills or are good at your job.


But, they have got the job through family... or because of the school they went to...

Second - a 'good' communist model would be entirely meritocratic... those who are best suited would ideally be placed where needed.


Third - I am, personally, a 'highly trained scientist'... I don't see the appeal for a greed economy over one where everyone has their needs supplied.
.

Nepotism is certainly a problem. However training one individual since birth to take over a specific job in a company isn't the worst thing in the world. There are similar favours that happen under trade union clicks and its possibly part of life, if you know successful people they can give you specific help that others may not have.

So in a good communist model would I be refused a job I love eg. teaching. Because my ability is low?

I didn't try to claim every person in the world is greedy or would choose the material incentives of capitalism over the benefits of socialism. But enough people do think like that to pose a major problem, Sweeden suffers from it greatly and it was one of the reasons for the Berlin Wall. But to be fair lots of people fled from socialist/communist countrys regardless of the education that was gifted to them :rolleyes:




I'm not insulting anyone. You suggested one reason, I suggested a collection of others. Personally, I think mine are more rooted in reality than yours.
.

sorry went abit over the top, but to claim people only act because of habit or they feel obligated to get something they don't want is somewhat insulting. Even if this is true from my own perspective including my own motivations people do contine to work after their basic needs have been met because they want MORE than what their basic needs dictate.



Capitalism clearly caters to wants.

I agree.

Unfortunately, it fails to deliver on 'needs'. I happen to think 'needs' are more important.
.

I agree thats a problem. Personally I accept taxes to fund some form of a public school that provides people with the opportunity to cater for their own needs, should they then fail why should they hinder those who have succeeded.
That said almost no capitalist system has gone as far as to abloish all welfare and to let people starve anyway so I don't consider the criticism to leveling anyway.


Look at the relative growth of China in just the last couple of years.... in proportional terms, based on start-to-end-points, China (as a communist country) is currently probably the statistical ideal.

That's the problem with 'trend' data. It is only true, until it isn't.
.

Do you not know the economics of china. Since 1978 they scrapped the centralised planned economy and opended up the market with the boom on the 90's coming from the growth driven by new private enterprise.


You confuse communism with authoritarianism... and capitalism with dmocracy. Neither is intrinsically true.
.

Communism is authortatian in the sense that society dictates what you can and cannot do and what your need is and what you should get.
Capitalism is intrinsically democratic as you vote with your money, and compamnys need your vote or they will disapear.


I can't speak to what 'most' people do. I just know that I do not match the model you suggest... thus, I must assume it is NOT universal.
.

Its still a significant motivator that would be lost, clearly statistics to value its importance is impossible to find out, it can only be seen after practical examples.


I didn't say that. Barter was one of a number of options.

I don't fully know your beleifs but Marxists wish to eliminate currency and revert back to a barter economy if I'm not mistaken. I think Lenin tried this with nasty consequences.

I think you are talking crap.

(concept x) = (concept x) modified by (condition y)?

It makes no logical sense.

Anarcho-capitalism is a phrase that has a specific meaning... it is a modified version of 'capitalism'. Thus - the definition of 'capitalism' cannot be equal to the definition of anarcho-capitalism.

Add to which, of course, if we used this definition, the Soviet Union was equally as 'capitalistic' as the US.

Laissez faire capitalism then. Once there is state involvement either via taxes, redistribution or whatever it likes to do to the economy it is no longer a capitalist economy but a mixed economy.

WIKI "During the last century capitalism has been contrasted with centrally planned economies where the state directs production and distribution. Most developed countries are usually regarded as capitalist, but they are also often called mixed economies[3] due to government ownership and regulation of production, trade, commerce, taxation, money-supply, and physical infrastructure."

I agree it is not perfect. No system is. Nonetheless there is still value in convincing somone to pay you more than your worth even if you lack fundamental skills or are good at your job.


Not to anyone but one individual.

If my company pays person x more, even though they lack fundamental skills... then they are NOT paying person y for that position.. despite the fact that person y is better at the job, and would provide better services to the community.

Multiply that by reality.


Nepotism is certainly a problem. However training one individual since birth to take over a specific job in a company isn't the worst thing in the world. There are similar favours that happen under trade union clicks and its possibly part of life, if you know successful people they can give you specific help that others may not have.


Training people to take over is not nepotism. Training people to take over is... apprenticeship, perhaps.... and that is a good thing. But - those positions should be made available on something other than who shagged who's mum.


So in a good communist model would I be refused a job I love eg. teaching. Because my ability is low?


I should hope so!

Wouldn't you in a capitalist society?

Unless - of course - there weren't enough good teachers...


I didn't try to claim every person in the world is greedy or would choose the material incentives of capitalism over the benefits of socialism. But enough people do think like that to pose a major problem, Sweeden suffers from it greatly and it was one of the reasons for the Berlin Wall. But to be fair lots of people fled from socialist/communist countrys regardless of the education that was gifted to them :rolleyes:


Because of the production model? I doubt it. More likely they fled from corrupt regimes or dangerous leaders.



sorry went abit over the top, but to claim people only act because of habit or they feel obligated to get something they don't want is somewhat insulting. Even if this is true from my own perspective including my own motivations people do contine to work after their basic needs have been met because they want MORE than what their basic needs dictate.


It shouldn't be considered insulting... it's just how it is.

I wanted to visit the US. For years. But, I never got around to it. Then, I met a Georgia girl, and it gave me a kick in the gestalt... sufficient to finally cross the Big Water. Creatures of comfort... we stay in our little grooves until some revelation - internal or external - let's us jump tracks.


I agree thats a problem. Personally I accept taxes to fund some form of a public school that provides people with the opportunity to cater for their own needs, should they then fail why should they hinder those who have succeeded.
That said almost no capitalist system has gone as far as to abloish all welfare and to let people starve anyway so I don't consider the criticism to leveling anyway.


People are starving. In every nation in the world.

You don't need to completely 'abolish all welfare' for people to start suffering.


Do you not know the economics of china. Since 1978 they scrapped the centralised planned economy and opended up the market with the boom on the 90's coming from the growth driven by new private enterprise.


So, China is a capitalist state?


Communism is authortatian in the sense that society dictates what you can and cannot do and what your need is and what you should get.
Capitalism is intrinsically democratic as you vote with your money, and compamnys need your vote or they will disapear.


You just made up those definitions. I don't need to defend strawmen.

Laissez faire capitalism then. Once there is state involvement either via taxes, redistribution or whatever it likes to do to the economy it is no longer a capitalist economy but a mixed economy.

WIKI "During the last century capitalism has been contrasted with centrally planned economies where the state directs production and distribution. Most developed countries are usually regarded as capitalist, but they are also often called mixed economies[3] due to government ownership and regulation of production, trade, commerce, taxation, money-supply, and physical infrastructure."

No - capitalism is capitalism. IT is the system of production based on the concept of capital - hence the name.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a FORM of capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is a FORM of capitalism.

Neither 'laissez-faire' policy nor anarchy are 'needed' for capitalism.

Now and forever, a commie.

The reason for that is different from the reason that I'm call what's-his-face a fool though. I'm calling him a fool because he's twisting the generally accepted definition of capitalism (the opposite ideology to his) to cover for the flaws of his own ideology.
I'm an anarchist. So capitalism is the opposite ideology to mine? Wouldn't that mean that 'anarcho'-capitalism is opposite to anarchism? I'll take that... :p

No private property, a centrally planned economy, no private enterprise whatsoever, every iota of the economy regulated to death, government ownership of everything...yeah, sounds like capitalism, all right. :rolleyes:
Say the USSR is one company, and they have a monopoly on everything...

It presented Anarchism as being unified by a) Opposition to the state b) a desire for absolute freedom c) soverignity of the individual ie- no right to impose authority upon someone else.
Then split it into individualist and collectivist giving Anarcho capitalism and individualist anarchism equal time to collectivist anarchism and say Anarcho syndicalism.
And of course most courses would not teach this to the same degree as liberalism, it has far less political significance. It does remain that it exists and is regognised by most ellites and education officials.
They give equal time to individualist and social anarchists? This must be an American course, right? Because if it's European, then social anarchism is basically the only kind of anarchism going - there are very few European individualists. If they give more time to more popular philosophies, then individualist anarchism should get about a quarter of the time of social anarchism, and 'anarcho'-capitalism should get about thirteen seconds.

If its no longer cost effective to keep "loyal" workers why should they be forced to give away their money in a non voluntary deal that isn't for mutual benefit.
Also please cross one of those picket lines especially if you're a scab and tell me its not violent.
Hey, you were the one who said that preventing someone from working was disgusting. Plus, bringing in scabs usually costs way more - pay, plus danger pay, plus accommodation allowances, plus protection, and so on... And I really could care what happens to scabs...

heh don't make me sit here and try and defend something I don't believe!
As far as I know they would have a similar law structure that left anarchism would use I think most anarcho capitalists like thecontractarian (http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html) philosophy of ethics.
You would phone police based on their repuation and or cost and similarly go to courts that defended the law most efficiently.
Again I'm not anarcho capitalist thus I haven't argued it as well as someone who beleives the pro's outweigh the cons.
Yeah, but someone else would go for the court/police who favoured them, and then how do you decide? I'll leave that one for any 'anarcho'-capitalists who come along.

Okay and this is how capitalism developed and grew. What if I was working on the land that somone had origonally started to farm and this individual lets me work the land feeds me while I work. After I finnish all he asks in return is the cost of one apple more than what he fed me.

This doesn't sound too bad right. Now what if he has two workers or twenty and he offers them a slightly worse deal but the workers are still happy to comply.

Now this individual with all his profits buys a secound farm, or he pays for construction of a building in which his workers can work. He'll just employ more people to ship the trees to the factory in which the workers can more efficiently make chairs.
Thing is, though, seeing as the workers will be able to get a better deal in a commune, where are you going to get employees?

If a company can direcly make legisliture it is not a company by definition. Neither is it a company if it has political soverignity and reprents a nation in something like forign policy. Assuming their are no elections its fascism, and a political system leading towards fascism is a much worse criticism towards socialism.
Yup. Totalitarianism, stae capitalism, fascism - almost the same thing in all cases, just different words and slightly different things.

Blood, you have this thing about Sweden being a socialist country. It's not. It's a social democracy, and a capitalist country. Plus, it doesn't have any of the problems of people 'jumping ship', or anything like that, that you attribute to it.

The same can be said of capitalism. Right now, it is failing a large number of people.

Where? And what system would work better? So far, none ever has!

Consider: in Alan Thein Durning's "How Much Is Enough? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth" (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. , 1992), on page 23 he points out that:
People today are on average four-and-a-half times richer than their great-grandparents at the turn of the century.

Consideration #2: The UN (which, let's face it, isn't going to hedge in the US's favor) figures there are 3,500,000 homeless in the US, the world's 3rd most populous country. There are 299,102,661 Americans (2006).
That makes homeless people a mere 1.17% of the US population.

Consideration #3: A quick listing of GDP - per capita (PPP) tells a heck of a story: EVERY country in the top 90 are Capitalist. Which is interesting, since #90 is the World Average: $ 9,500/person. Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and EVERY other non-capitalism country falls below that benchmark!
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

...if these are not Capitalistic successes (especially considering that the world's population has more than quadrupled since 1900, I don't know what are.

Democracy is the antithesis of personal freedom. How many times do I have to say it?

As long as the minority can be deprived choice, democracy IS authoritarian.

So you would prefer the authoritarianism of dictatorship over the authoritarianism of democracy? Your average capitalist corporation is a dictatorship. Anarcho-syndicalists understand the problem of majority democracy, which is why they believe in decentralized democracy, which means if the minority doesn't like the deal they are getting in the company, they are free to start their own democratic company with their share of the capital. Anarcho-syndicalists would protect the right of employees to control their companies. In a capitalist system, it doesn't matter if all the employees want something else, it's the employer that gets the final word. The result is that the economic lives of the vast majority of the population is governed by a tiny minority. That hardly sounds like freedom.

What if I was working on the land that somone had origonally started to farm and this individual lets me work the land feeds me while I work. After I finnish all he asks in return is the cost of one apple more than what he fed me.

This doesn't sound too bad right. Now what if he has two workers or twenty and he offers them a slightly worse deal but the workers are still happy to comply.

If they are happy to comply, then anarchists would be happy for them. The key is if ever they are not happy to comply anymore. On that day, if the employees decide they don't want to give anything at all to their employer anymore, anarchists would support them. It is the employees doing the work, so anarchists believe it is the employees that should reap all the benefits. If the employer wants more from what the employees are making, he will have to become an employee himself.

"But, in the morning I shall be sober..."

Absolutely not! I shall start off my day with slivovitz!

Where? And what system would work better? So far, none ever has!

Consider: in Alan Thein Durning's "How Much Is Enough? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth" (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. , 1992), on page 23 he points out that:
People today are on average four-and-a-half times richer than their great-grandparents at the turn of the century.

Consideration #2: The UN (which, let's face it, isn't going to hedge in the US's favor) figures there are 3,500,000 homeless in the US, the world's 3rd most populous country. There are 299,102,661 Americans (2006).
That makes homeless people a mere 1.17% of the US population.

Consideration #3: A quick listing of GDP - per capita (PPP) tells a heck of a story: EVERY country in the top 90 are Capitalist. Which is interesting, since #90 is the World Average: $ 9,500/person. Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and EVERY other non-capitalism country falls below that benchmark!
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

...if these are not Capitalistic successes (especially considering that the world's population has more than quadrupled since 1900, I don't know what are.
Selective statistics can prove everything.
Consideration #1: What country has the best healthcare system in the Western Hemisphere? CUBA! Despite forty years of sanctions and, horror of horrors, not being capitalist.
Consideration #2: The gap between rich and poor has increased significantly as capitalism has progressed. Workers in America are poorer in real terms than they were in the 50's, and CEOs' salaries have increased from ten times the average wage to thirty times in the past twenty years.
Consideration #3: The countries which have the most economically liberal governments, like the US and Ireland, have the greatest inequality.
There's some capitalist failures. Plus, having 3.5 million homeless people is not something to boast about. That is the same as the population of Ireland being homeless. As for the ranking thing, more than half of the capitalist countries are below the world average of 90 too, and there are nearly forty capitalist countries below the lowest non-capitalist one. GDP is not an indication of the level of individual wealth in a country, either.

Selective statistics can prove everything.
Consideration #1: What country has the best healthcare system in the Western Hemisphere? CUBA! Despite forty years of sanctions and, horror of horrors, not being capitalist.

Not really. I believe that when referencing any signifigant development statistics, Cuba lags massively. And even at that, the Soviets were trying to use Cuba as a springboard for spreading their economic philosophies to Latin America. They invested heavily in the Cuban healthcare system for various propaganda reasons.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=CUB
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=USA
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=CAN
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=CRI

It's also important to remember that prior to Castro's revolution the Cuban healthcare system was ranked higher than many of those that were found in western Europe at the time.

Consideration #2: The gap between rich and poor has increased significantly as capitalism has progressed. Workers in America are poorer in real terms than they were in the 50's, and CEOs' salaries have increased from ten times the average wage to thirty times in the past twenty years.
And is considerably not enough to have that much of an impact on total income. Are you seriously going to say that you're worse off than your grandfather?

Consideration #3: The countries which have the most economically liberal governments, like the US and Ireland, have the greatest inequality.
There's some capitalist failures. Plus, having 3.5 million homeless people is not something to boast about. That is the same as the population of Ireland being homeless. As for the ranking thing, more than half of the capitalist countries are below the world average of 90 too, and there are nearly forty capitalist countries below the lowest non-capitalist one.
I see the lowest three are the Gaza Strip, East Timor and Malawi, two of which are war zones, and no one in their right minds would call Malawi capitalist.

GDP is not an indication of the level of individual wealth in a country, either.

Not a precise indicator, but it's one of the best available.

Not really. I believe that when referencing any signifigant development statistics, Cuba lags massively. And even at that, the Soviets were trying to use Cuba as a springboard for spreading their economic philosophies to Latin America. They invested heavily in the Cuban healthcare system for various propaganda reasons.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=CUB
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=USA
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=CAN
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=CRI

It's also important to remember that prior to Castro's revolution the Cuban healthcare system was ranked higher than many of those that were found in western Europe at the time.
Those statistics show that Cuba has the highest number of doctors per patient, the most births attended by trained medical people, similar infant mortality and immunisation rates, similar life expectancies. Even the US Refugee Program calls the Cuban Health Care system "a formidable achievement" ([URL="http://www.culturalorientation.net/cubans/health.htm"]here/URL]). And it's still going strong, even though the Soviets are no longer a factor. Which is impressive for a country still under sanctions from the US. I can't comment on the Cuban healthcare system under Batista, because I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that it was so good (although links will quickly change my mind). As for development, I'm not claiming Cuba is particularly developed, merely that it has the best healthcare system in the Americas.

And is considerably not enough to have that much of an impact on total income. Are you seriously going to say that you're worse off than your grandfather?
My grandfathers had five and eight kids respectively, and only one of their wives worked. My parents have two, and both are employed, so it's not really a fair comparison. Plus, I'm Irish, not American. Our economy basically didn't exist in the 1950s.

I see the lowest three are the Gaza Strip, East Timor and Malawi, two of which are war zones, and no one in their right minds would call Malawi capitalist.
The CIA World Factbook seems to think so - there's no mention of state controls or anything like that. It might not be a SUCCESSFUL capitalist country, but it definitely isn't a communist one.

Not a precise indicator, but it's one of the best available.
The average industrial wage? Median wages, or the mode of all wages? Surely they're better indicators?

Not to anyone but one individual.

If my company pays person x more, even though they lack fundamental skills... then they are NOT paying person y for that position.. despite the fact that person y is better at the job, and would provide better services to the community.

Multiply that by reality.
.

You do realise how markets work. They punnish companys that do that or other practices that are similarly inefficient. While compmays that hire the best workers for the best wages will get out better and cheaper good generally having consumers buy from them (thus the market discourages what you said).
Part of economic freedom is letting people over pay whoever they want as well, it may be silly to pay a maid £1000 an hour but that doesn't mean the state or society should step in and regulate what I can do with my money.


Training people to take over is not nepotism. Training people to take over is... apprenticeship, perhaps.... and that is a good thing. But - those positions should be made available on something other than who shagged who's mum.
.

I agree. But again its an essential part of economic freedom to let do what they want with the stuff they own, this has to include passing on a company or whatever to who they wish. Clearly companys that have better management will do better thus there is good insentive particuarly from the shareholders to make sure the more tallented individuals make the decisions.


I should hope so!

Wouldn't you in a capitalist society?

Unless - of course - there weren't enough good teachers...
.

In capitalism should someone want to employ you, you can be whatever you want, if your ability is low you're very likely to be paid less but thats up to you to strike a balance between what you like and what you have skill in.
But in communism is seems to be the same, rather its society telling you that you can't do a job rather than the market (with little or no financial incentives to do something you're good at over something you enjoy).
Logically would it not be in my best interest to pretend I'm rubbish at stuff I dislike doing so that what appears to be the best of my ability is also what I'm most tallented at doing?



I wanted to visit the US. For years. But, I never got around to it. Then, I met a Georgia girl, and it gave me a kick in the gestalt... sufficient to finally cross the Big Water. Creatures of comfort... we stay in our little grooves until some revelation - internal or external - let's us jump tracks.
.

Are you saying that tradition and the familiar give us comfort. Sounds very conservative. I'll admit many don't like change or doing something new. Myself I'm quite the opposite.


People are starving. In every nation in the world.
.

Quite odd than that contries with the freest economys have helped overcome this problem very dramatically over the last 100 years, while those with controlled economies don't seem to have improved too much.



So, China is a capitalist state?
.

As far as the economy goes its mixed between the market economy and a planned economy, but most of the growth has come since its accepted the need for market reforms.
Relaxation of price controls in particular has increased forign investment. The result has been a 6-fold increase of GDP since 1978 when the reforms began.
Its far from perfect but the move towards market economics has allowed for growth despite the hand of the government rather than because of it.


You just made up those definitions. I don't need to defend strawmen.

You've never heard of market democracy?


Neither 'laissez-faire' policy nor anarchy are 'needed' for capitalism.

Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of capital yes. Its an economic system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
This means all industry must be privitised and the hand of the state cannot be present. If it is than the economy becomes a mix between socialism and capitalism, what with have in basically every country.
While the west have large capitalistic leaning the elements of socialism make them all mixed economies.

Those statistics show that Cuba has the highest number of doctors per patient, the most births attended by trained medical people, similar infant mortality and immunisation rates, similar life expectancies. Even the US Refugee Program calls the Cuban Health Care system "a formidable achievement" ([URL="http://www.culturalorientation.net/cubans/health.htm"]here/URL]). And it's still going strong, even though the Soviets are no longer a factor.
Now it's being heavily funded by oil money from Hugo Chavez, and that's only been enough to stabilize it in from the decline that occured after the collapse of the USSR.

Not only that, but you left out the caveat:
There are negative aspects to the Cuban health care system, one of which—the severe restriction of personal freedom—is described below in our discussion of the Cuban approach to HIV-positive individuals. And like the health system in the Soviet Union, the best medical care has been available only to those in high government positions, or to those who can pay for it with hard currency.


Which is impressive for a country still under sanctions from the US. I can't comment on the Cuban healthcare system under Batista, because I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that it was so good (although links will quickly change my mind). As for development, I'm not claiming Cuba is particularly developed, merely that it has the best healthcare system in the Americas.


http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/14776.htm
The US State Department Report detailing the situation in Cuba, and how it has evolved since the collapse of the Batista regime. This article is rather thorough. It makes clear the reason that makes Cuba have such a high live birth rate (which has a lot to do with the selective termination of pregnancies by the Cuban government, when a high-risk pregnancy is the case.)

My grandfathers had five and eight kids respectively, and only one of their wives worked. My parents have two, and both are employed, so it's not really a fair comparison. Plus, I'm Irish, not American. Our economy basically didn't exist in the 1950s.

The CIA World Factbook seems to think so - there's no mention of state controls or anything like that. It might not be a SUCCESSFUL capitalist country, but it definitely isn't a communist one.
That's because there is virtually no state in either of those three areas, much as it was in Ireland in the 1950's, only far more worse off, because the wars are not amongst powers who will fight civilized like the Brits.


The average industrial wage? Median wages, or the mode of all wages? Surely they're better indicators?

Actually, those numbers are very unacceptable. If I could link to my stats prof tirade against 'averages' I would, but the real world doesn't link very well.

Furthermore, regarding the Cuban health system, it is a system that operates primarily by the force of the state. In most countries, if a doctor proscribes a preventative course of treatment, and you don't follow it, you'll still get the curative treatment after the problem has developed. Quite often that is not the Case in o' so wonderful Cuba, where if you do not follow your preventative treatment course, you are denied a curative treatment.

I'm an anarchist. So capitalism is the opposite ideology to mine? Wouldn't that mean that 'anarcho'-capitalism is opposite to anarchism? I'll take that... :p
.

You labeled a communist experiment a nation with a nationalised and controlled economy as capitalist in order to try and critique capitalist (the opposite economy system from socialism).


Say the USSR is one company, and they have a monopoly on everything...
.

The USSR was a dictatorship (on behalf of the proletariat) that used force and coercion in order to fuel socialist prodjects such as nationalisation, collectivisation and some form of redistribution. Only states have such a monopoly on legal violence.


They give equal time to individualist and social anarchists? This must be an American course, right? Because if it's European, then social anarchism is basically the only kind of anarchism going - there are very few European individualists. If they give more time to more popular philosophies, then individualist anarchism should get about a quarter of the time of social anarchism, and 'anarcho'-capitalism should get about thirteen seconds.
.

British course. That said it was a study of all ideologies on a global scale. Commuism or fascism have little to no influence in Britain yet globally its quite significant. And individualist Anarchism isn't big in europe? You've heard of the Austrian school of economics right!


Hey, you were the one who said that preventing someone from working was disgusting. Plus, bringing in scabs usually costs way more - pay, plus danger pay, plus accommodation allowances, plus protection, and so on... And I really could care what happens to scabs...
.

Preventing two consenting individuals from forming a deal of mutual benefit it wrong. These workers however could not get the 2nd party to consent to a deal thus the company has no obligation to continue giving them money and they are not preventing anyone from working. They are simply not using their money to hire as many people.
In the same way I have money in my bank that could be used to give someone a job but I've decided not to (I'm not preventing anyone working).

And if a company is in desperate need of work than of course they will raise pay congrats on the scabs for making the best of a situation, although perhaps they are exploiting the company by taking advantage of a situation to get an anti competative wage they would not normally merit. Oh well..


Thing is, though, seeing as the workers will be able to get a better deal in a commune, where are you going to get employees?
.

Those who value their self interest over that of the commune.


Yup. Totalitarianism, stae capitalism, fascism - almost the same thing in all cases, just different words and slightly different things.
.

You being an anarchist I'm sure you dislike totalitatian socialism/communis. In the same sense my beleif in minimal government is also agains't state capitalism.


Blood, you have this thing about Sweden being a socialist country. It's not. It's a social democracy, and a capitalist country. Plus, it doesn't have any of the problems of people 'jumping ship', or anything like that, that you attribute to it.

Social democracy is a branch of socialism is it not. And yes its a mixed economy but its quite mixed in favour of socialism over capitalism. Its a fairly developed country with relaxed boarders. It does have the problem of many eastern europian immigrants coming for the advantages of living in a prosperous welfare state, and similarly it has a problem of many in their 20's having recieved good quality degrees leaving for better job prospects.
http://www.mises.org/story/2259
That article highlights some more of the problems the left leaning economy has led to.

Now it's being heavily funded by oil money from Hugo Chavez, and that's only been enough to stabilize it in from the decline that occured after the collapse of the USSR.
Not only that, but you left out the caveat.
The first part of the caveat I'll give you, but the second part goes for any capitalist society too - only those with the cash get the best healthcare.

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/14776.htm
The US State Department Report detailing the situation in Cuba, and how it has evolved since the collapse of the Batista regime. This article is rather thorough. It makes clear the reason that makes Cuba have such a high live birth rate (which has a lot to do with the selective termination of pregnancies by the Cuban government, when a high-risk pregnancy is the case.)
60% of those terminations are actually menstrual regulation, which is a type of contraception.

That's because there is virtually no state in either of those three areas, much as it was in Ireland in the 1950's, only far more worse off, because the wars are not amongst powers who will fight civilized like the Brits.
What the hell? Ireland in the 50s was a state, there was no war, and even Northern Ireland was not particularly violent.
Also, if you think the Brits fight civilised, maybe you should check out what happened during the Troubles, or with the Mau Mau in the 50s...

Actually, those numbers are very unacceptable. If I could link to my stats prof tirade against 'averages' I would, but the real world doesn't link very well.
My original point was that selective statistics can prove anything - I'm not trying to hold up Cuba as a model to be emulated, merely saying that it has a brilliant health care system and yet it's not capitalist.
If those numbers are unacceptable, then GDP should be doubly so - it's an average too, the average of domestic production per person, and it has no relation to how much money goes into people's pockets. Something with deviations involved then - the range of salaries that 80% of people have, maybe?

Furthermore, regarding the Cuban health system, it is a system that operates primarily by the force of the state. In most countries, if a doctor proscribes a preventative course of treatment, and you don't follow it, you'll still get the curative treatment after the problem has developed. Quite often that is not the Case in o' so wonderful Cuba, where if you do not follow your preventative treatment course, you are denied a curative treatment.
Someone who doesn't take a preventative course of treatment when it's prescribed is quite a fool. And Cuba, due to the sanctions, has no other choice but to deal only in preventatives, cos they're cheaper.

You labeled a communist experiment a nation with a nationalised and controlled economy as capitalist in order to try and critique capitalist (the opposite economy system from socialism).
The little :p means I meant it as a joke. And my critique was badly done. The Soviet Union didn't have the hallmarks of a capitalist system, it's true. What I was trying to say, and failed miserably, is that the Soviet Union is an example of what would happen if a company was given complete powers.

British course. That said it was a study of all ideologies on a global scale. Commuism or fascism have little to no influence in Britain yet globally its quite significant. And individualist Anarchism isn't big in europe? You've heard of the Austrian school of economics right!
Austrian school had little practical effect in Europe - as far as I know, almost all anarchists in Europe are social anarchists. And communism and fascism had little to no effect in Britain? The Labour party (before the 80s)? The British National Party? Trade unions? Oswald Moseley and Lord Haw-Haw? Combat 18?

Those who value their self interest over that of the commune.
But, if they work in the commune, they'll get what they were getting from the boss, plus his share divided between everyone. So anyone who values their self-interest will actually stay with the commune!

You being an anarchist I'm sure you dislike totalitatian socialism/communis. In the same sense my beleif in minimal government is also agains't state capitalism.
Oh, totally opposed to it - I'd rather live in a social democracy than a Marxist nation. I don't view Marxism as socialism or communism, though, as you might have guessed.

Social democracy is a branch of socialism is it not. And yes its a mixed economy but its quite mixed in favour of socialism over capitalism. Its a fairly developed country with relaxed boarders. It does have the problem of many eastern europian immigrants coming for the advantages of living in a prosperous welfare state, and similarly it has a problem of many in their 20's having recieved good quality degrees leaving for better job prospects.
http://www.mises.org/story/2259
That article highlights some more of the problems the left leaning economy has led to.
No, social democracy is a branch of capitalism. Unless you view all mixed economies as socialist, in which case the US is a commie country too. Eastern European immigrants are not necessarily eligible for those welfare benefits - I believe they have to have worked their for a good while before they are. And I've heard nothing about a Swedish exodus of educated people. That article sounds almost entirely made up - I would love to know where he got the figure that 50% of immigrants are unemployed. Out of his ass, most likely.

The first part of the caveat I'll give you, but the second part goes for any capitalist society too - only those with the cash get the best healthcare.
Only problem being that in Cuba it's at the expense of the state, instead of at the expense of the individual.


60% of those terminations are actually menstrual regulation, which is a type of contraception.

Sourcing?

What the hell? Ireland in the 50s was a state, there was no war, and even Northern Ireland was not particularly violent.
Also, if you think the Brits fight civilised, maybe you should check out what happened during the Troubles, or with the Mau Mau in the 50s...
I'm saying the Brits fought civilized in comparison to the conflicts that are occuring in Gaza and East Timor right now.


My original point was that selective statistics can prove anything - I'm not trying to hold up Cuba as a model to be emulated, merely saying that it has a brilliant health care system and yet it's not capitalist.

Cubas healthcare system is far from brilliant. It's made effective by the force of state, but not brilliant. A brilliant healthcare system would do as good a job with preventative medicine as Cubas, and be equally effective at curative practices.

If those numbers are unacceptable, then GDP should be doubly so - it's an average too, the average of domestic production per person, and it has no relation to how much money goes into people's pockets. Something with deviations involved then - the range of salaries that 80% of people have, maybe?
That would be more desirable, but there's major logistical problems to determining that sort of data, espescially in countries with flexible, unregulated job markets.


Someone who doesn't take a preventative course of treatment when it's prescribed is quite a fool. And Cuba, due to the sanctions, has no other choice but to deal only in preventatives, cos they're cheaper.


Of course anyone who doesn't follow a preventative course of treatment is a fool, what I'm saying is that Cuba offers no recourse for morons, which any decent society would do.

Absolutely never. Communism is based on the theory that millions of people can't be wrong. History says otherwise. :p

LOON..!!!!! :D Dude..! Good to see 'ya..!

Personally, I can't believe this of you. You're MUCH to smart and funny, accent on the FUNNY, to never have been associated with that utterly hilarious and demonically amusing pack of total misanthropes known as COMMUNISTS..!!

Come on,.. be honest,.. You were a mole for the Junior Temujin Brigade, planted in some vermon-nest of commies somewhere,.. were'nt-cha..!?

Of course you were..! :)


-Iakeo

You do realise how markets work. They punnish companys that do that or other practices that are similarly inefficient. While compmays that hire the best workers for the best wages will get out better and cheaper good generally having consumers buy from them (thus the market discourages what you said).

If it is in the interests of companies to offer better wages, why do they fight every union that attempts to raise the wages in the company? It's because in order to return more money to the shareholders, they may have to shaft the employees - the ultimate goal of capitalist companies isn't to please employees or consumers, the goal is to please shareholders - as long as they feel they can get away with low wages or high prices, they will do it because the shareholders demand it.

Personally, I have nothing against markets. I would be perfectly happy with a market economy as long as all the companies operating in it are run democratically. If the employees within a company decide they prefer a dictator, then they are free to choose one, but the initial choice should always be in the hands of the employees. If they ever decide they don't want a dictator running the company anymore, then they should have the right to get rid of the dictatorship.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/fazolis9uz.jpg

If it is in the interests of companies to offer better wages, why do they fight every union that attempts to raise the wages in the company? It's because in order to return more money to the shareholders, they may have to shaft the employees - the ultimate goal of capitalist companies isn't to please employees or consumers, the goal is to please shareholders - as long as they feel they can get away with low wages or high prices, they will do it because the shareholders demand it.

Personally, I have nothing against markets. I would be perfectly happy with a market economy as long as all the companies operating in it are run democratically. If the employees within a company decide they prefer a dictator, then they are free to choose one, but the initial choice should always be in the hands of the employees. If they ever decide they don't want a dictator running the company anymore, then they should have the right to get rid of the dictatorship.

What shareholders want and what they get are different. I'm sure they'd love to pay everyworker less than minimum wage (even the CEO's) and have the final product come out on the market at millions per product but they couldn't make any money doing that.
A company DOES have to please the employer! If the employer no longer felt the deal he had made for his labour was in his interest (either because of low pay or poor working conditions) he will move elsewhere, so the company has to offer good incentive to work for them over anyone else. Now heres the big thing companys live and die by if they please the consumer (the consumer is king). If the consumer is not pleased they don't spend their money and the company goes bankrupt.
Thus in order for a company and particuarly the shareholders to make money they have to please both their employers and the consumers. Sure they want to pay workers as little as possible and sell the product as high as they can, but supply and demand and competion will keep this in good order.

If it is in the interests of companies to offer better wages, why do they fight every union that attempts to raise the wages in the company? It's because in order to return more money to the shareholders, they may have to shaft the employees - the ultimate goal of capitalist companies isn't to please employees or consumers, the goal is to please shareholders - as long as they feel they can get away with low wages or high prices, they will do it because the shareholders demand it.
Of course, fundamental in pleasing shareholders is getting a product of sufficient quality and desirability that consumers will purchase, and if the employees are not paid up to their satisfaction, then the quality will fall, and demand will decrease.

It's a balance.

What shareholders want and what they get are different. I'm sure they'd love to pay everyworker less than minimum wage (even the CEO's) and have the final product come out on the market at millions per product but they couldn't make any money doing that.

Sure, but why have the conflict of interests in running the company in the first place? Anarchists believe the employees should just assume democratic control over the company, then they no longer have to worry about trying to please shareholders at all. There's no real economic need to please them anyway, since they aren't doing any work. There's more freedom in being self-employed than being employed by someone else, and there's more freedom when the capital needed to operate a business is in the hands of the many, rather than in the hands of the few.

The little :p means I meant it as a joke. And my critique was badly done. The Soviet Union didn't have the hallmarks of a capitalist system, it's true. What I was trying to say, and failed miserably, is that the Soviet Union is an example of what would happen if a company was given complete powers.
.

But if people don't like a company a demand emerges for alternatives for the same service. If people don't like a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat they can either fight the counter revolution or flee the country.


Austrian school had little practical effect in Europe - as far as I know, almost all anarchists in Europe are social anarchists. And communism and fascism had little to no effect in Britain? The Labour party (before the 80s)? The British National Party? Trade unions? Oswald Moseley and Lord Haw-Haw? Combat 18?
.

heh but to bring this back to my origonal point. Anarcho capitalism is an ideology it is taught in many schools and colleges and they think capitalism can exist without a state. You may disagree like others may disagree with Marx's view of human nature or parts of every ideology. It does not negate the fact it actually exists.
Also the Labour party before the 80's was a stand of social democracy which according to you is still capitalism :p


But, if they work in the commune, they'll get what they were getting from the boss, plus his share divided between everyone. So anyone who values their self-interest will actually stay with the commune!
.

Or the owner of the company can decide he'll pay people more who arn't in the commune as in the long run this will leave him with the most money. Something Richard Branson edges towards, he discourages his workers joining unions, virgin has no specific union and you can't pay directly from your paycheack to your union.


Oh, totally opposed to it - I'd rather live in a social democracy than a Marxist nation. I don't view Marxism as socialism or communism, though, as you might have guessed.
.

Well Marxism is a form of communsim. It might be a stand you dislike but no need to give it a completely different label like you did with the soviet union.


No, social democracy is a branch of capitalism. Unless you view all mixed economies as socialist, in which case the US is a commie country too. Eastern European immigrants are not necessarily eligible for those welfare benefits - I believe they have to have worked their for a good while before they are. And I've heard nothing about a Swedish exodus of educated people. That article sounds almost entirely made up - I would love to know where he got the figure that 50% of immigrants are unemployed. Out of his ass, most likely.

The definition of a mixed economy is a mix between capitalism and socialsm. Even the US has many socialist policies like progressive taxation and welfare programs. But yes all mixed economys by definition have an element of socialism (and no the US is not commie :p )

Sure, but why have the conflict of interests in running the company in the first place? Anarchists believe the employees should just assume democratic control over the company, then they no longer have to worry about trying to please shareholders at all. There's no real economic need to please them anyway, since they aren't doing any work. There's more freedom in being self-employed than being employed by someone else, and there's more freedom when the capital needed to operate a business is in the hands of the many, rather than in the hands of the few.

No work. They're taking a risk and investing their own capital. You might regard me giving someone a loan and asking for interest as no work, but I provide a service people desire thus it merits whatever the market offers me in return.

If employees have the capital to start their own business than they are free to run it democratically in the free market. I shudder to think that you would suggest these employees should gain control of another persons capital by force (if they lack it). That is....wrong.
And people can be self employed if they wish. The wages paid to workers out of the surplus over other costs are more surplus than the workers could produce on their own without capital equipment. Thus no exploitation takes place and the workers retain their freedom they just choose to listen to a boss who is giving them money.

Sourcing?
Footnote eight of that State department link you provided, at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html. It's the third paragraph after the second table.

I'm saying the Brits fought civilized in comparison to the conflicts that are occuring in Gaza and East Timor right now.
Not really... Maybe in the North in the seventies, but not against the Mau Mau - that was pretty bad. Vulcan bombers versus guerrillas is nothing more than slaughter, and concentration camps are even worse than the Israelis have resorted to.

Cubas healthcare system is far from brilliant. It's made effective by the force of state, but not brilliant. A brilliant healthcare system would do as good a job with preventative medicine as Cubas, and be equally effective at curative practices.
Of course anyone who doesn't follow a preventative course of treatment is a fool, what I'm saying is that Cuba offers no recourse for morons, which any decent society would do.
The problem is, Cuba's economy is in the can, in part due to the forty years of sanctions (also in part due to central planning). Which means it can't afford to offer both. Brilliant might be an overstatement, but it is damn good. It's brilliant if you take into account the limitations on the country.

But if people don't like a company a demand emerges for alternatives for the same service. If people don't like a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat they can either fight the counter revolution or flee the country.
Not if the company passes laws to prevent such an occurrence...

heh but to bring this back to my origonal point. Anarcho capitalism is an ideology it is taught in many schools and colleges and they think capitalism can exist without a state. You may disagree like others may disagree with Marx's view of human nature or parts of every ideology. It does not negate the fact it actually exists.
Also the Labour party before the 80's was a stand of social democracy which according to you is still capitalism :p
There were more militant parts of it that were closer to socialist. And I accept the fact that 'anarcho'-capitalism exists. I just believe that giving it equal time with anarcho-syndicalism or any of the other more important types of anarchism in a survey course is a little foolish - compared to other forms of anarchism it's small and unimportant. When was the last time anarcho-capitalists had a protest, or brought a country to its knees?

Or the owner of the company can decide he'll pay people more who arn't in the commune as in the long run this will leave him with the most money. Something Richard Branson edges towards, he discourages his workers joining unions, virgin has no specific union and you can't pay directly from your paycheack to your union.
But, if he pays people more than they would receive in the commune, then he'll have to pay them out of his own pockets. He'll be making a loss!
If I'm not clear, take it like this. There's a commune, and then there's a business. Both have workers who can pick ten apples a day, and both have ten workers. In the commune, these hundred apples are divided between ten people, so each gets ten. In the business, the hundred apples are divided between eleven. The workers get nine each and the owner gets ten, say. If he wants to out pay the commune, he'll have to either pick apples himself to match it, or go into his own pockets to pay them more.
Now I know this is very simple, but simple is best for examples.

Well Marxism is a form of communsim. It might be a stand you dislike but no need to give it a completely different label like you did with the soviet union.
I don't see it as communism - marxism says that the state (and really the party) should own the means of production. In my books, communism should be the PEOPLE owning it, not the state. But marxists will disagree...

The definition of a mixed economy is a mix between capitalism and socialsm. Even the US has many socialist policies like progressive taxation and welfare programs. But yes all mixed economys by definition have an element of socialism (and no the US is not commie :p )
Tongue-in-cheek, of course... But, you'll admit, that a mixed economy is not socialist, but rather a mix - basically capitalist with socialist elements, yeah?

I shudder to think that you would suggest these employees should gain control of another persons capital by force (if they lack it). That is....wrong.

Of course you think it's wrong - that's why you're pro-capitalist. Anarchists think it's right - that's why they are anti-capitalist. If a person lays claim to capital that he himself isn't using, then anarchists don't believe he has a right to that claim. If he did have that claim, anarchists believe it is an unnecessary restriction of the freedoms of those who are currently using the capital to produce things.

I have never been and never will be a Communist. I disagree with nearly every single left-wing ideology. I am a libertarian with a bias toward monarchy, and have been so since a young age. I also have strong anarcho-capitalist sympathies and a secessionist. If some want a Communist state, fine, I believe let them form their own nation (or community or whatever) and engage in their beliefs. Just don't force it on the rest of us who do not wish to be involved.

Say the USSR is one company, and they have a monopoly on everything...

But the U.S.S.R. was not a "company," and capitalism is based on private ownership, not government ownership. Try again.

Selective statistics can prove everything.
Consideration #1: What country has the best healthcare system in the Western Hemisphere? CUBA! Despite forty years of sanctions and, horror of horrors, not being capitalist.

Ever seen the inside of a Cuban hospital?

But the U.S.S.R. was not a "company," and capitalism is based on private ownership, not government ownership. Try again.
The USSR was what is often referred to as State-capitalism or corporatism, whereby the state amalgamates free-market principles with state ownership of means of production. The USSR could be characterised as one big collection of national corporations really, following a corporatist system. Using properly defined meanings of Capitalism though, the USSR is anything but capitalist in the true sense of the word.

The CIA World Factbook seems to think so - there's no mention of state controls or anything like that. It might not be a SUCCESSFUL capitalist country, but it definitely isn't a communist one.

Most Third World countries have what is called crony capitalism.

Most Third World countries have what is called crony capitalism.
Corporatism. ;) It's also dominating the US nowadays, although I would label it more accurately as consumerist corporatism. It is important to disambiguate capitalism proper from perversions thereof.

Selective statistics can prove everything.
Consideration #1: What country has the best healthcare system in the Western Hemisphere? CUBA! Despite forty years of sanctions and, horror of horrors, not being capitalist.

Um, no. That would be the United States. Cuba has the most doctors per capita. Cuba has the cheapest cost for healthcare. That does not equal the best care, nor the best healthcare system.

Consideration #2: The gap between rich and poor has increased significantly as capitalism has progressed. Workers in America are poorer in real terms than they were in the 50's, and CEOs' salaries have increased from ten times the average wage to thirty times in the past twenty years.

Feel free to cite a source if you like, but if you look at housing values, number of cars owned, etc, the average person is MUCH richer than their great-grandparents.
As for the gap, what was the gap between the slaves and the masters in the old south? How about the 90 hour a week factory workers in the company-towns before the Unions? You choose the decade after the country is on the winning side of the biggest war in history (and is holding billions in IOUs and was relatively unscathed) as your counter-example?
How about 1933? 1984? 1869? Selective statistics indeed!

As for CEO pay, yes, that's up. Yes, they're taking advantage of the system. No, I don't approve. But that is a seperate issue than saying "the gap between the rich and poor is increased".

Consideration #3: The countries which have the most economically liberal governments, like the US and Ireland, have the greatest inequality.

What is wrong with inequality? That's the whole POINT of capitalism! You work to increase what you have. You can stop at any time you like. Why should my taxes pay for someone else to get something for nothing?

Consider Clinton's reform of welfare a decade ago. Pundits called it the betrayal of the poor and that there would be starvation on the streets.
Instead, the welfare rolls shrunk and cities (like NYC) had a DECREASE in crime as people went to work and had money.

Hmm.

There's some capitalist failures. Plus, having 3.5 million homeless people is not something to boast about. That is the same as the population of Ireland being homeless.

I beg to differ. The US has twice the population of Ireland as illegal aliens, and most Euros say we should just "accept them". CONSIDER THE SIZE of the country. And that 3.5 is the UN number (the least favorable.) What's the EU's homeless rate?

As for the ranking thing, more than half of the capitalist countries are below the world average of 90 too, and there are nearly forty capitalist countries below the lowest non-capitalist one. GDP is not an indication of the level of individual wealth in a country, either.

Really? Name one please. Do you mean a capitalistic powerhouse like Belize? :rolleyes: I doubt you can find one below a non-capitalist one that isn't there for a reason. Dig a little, I think you'll find that most of the ones you might sight have had state-controlled economies in the recent past.

That EVERY country above the world average is capitalist is far more compelling.

PPP (which is what the graph was) is the purchasing parity (per person) of the country, or their relative wealth. If you know of a better metric, let's hear it.

The problem is, Cuba's economy is in the can, in part due to the forty years of sanctions (also in part due to central planning). Which means it can't afford to offer both. Brilliant might be an overstatement, but it is damn good. It's brilliant if you take into account the limitations on the country.

The U.S. is pretty much the only country with sanctions against Cuba. In contrast, nearly the entire world imposed sanctions on Rhodesia, yet Rhodesia's economy prospered and thrived. Cuba's received the equivalent of several Marshall Plans - untold billions upon billions of dollars of Soviet aid - yet its economy is in the toilet. If anything is to be blamed, it's Cuba's repugnant economic system.

Corporatism. ;) It's also dominating the US nowadays, although I would label it more accurately as consumerist corporatism. It is important to disambiguate capitalism proper from perversions thereof.

Not exactly. Crony capitalism is what you have under people like Suharto of Indonesia or Stroessner of Paraguay. Which is definitely not capitalism, but is not corporatism.

Using properly defined meanings of Capitalism though, the USSR is anything but capitalist in the true sense of the word.

The U.S.S.R. was socialist in the true sense of the word.

Not exactly. Crony capitalism is what you have under people like Suharto of Indonesia or Stroessner of Paraguay. Which is definitely not capitalism, but is not corporatism.
Perhaps not. It's still useful to try and distance it as far as possible from true capitalism though.

Perhaps not. It's still useful to try and distance it as far as possible from true capitalism though.

That's true.

The U.S.S.R. was socialist in the true sense of the word.
More or less, yes. Its authoritarian elements were significantly more pronounced than in most socialist systems, ideological or real, yet it was still essentially socialist.

More or less, yes. Its authoritarian elements were significantly more pronounced than in most socialist systems, ideological or real, yet it was still essentially socialist.

Agreed.

Um, no. That would be the United States. Cuba has the most doctors per capita. Cuba has the cheapest cost for healthcare. That does not equal the best care, nor the best healthcare system.
Feel free to cite a source if you like, but if you look at housing values, number of cars owned, etc, the average person is MUCH richer than their great-grandparents.
As for the gap, what was the gap between the slaves and the masters in the old south? How about the 90 hour a week factory workers in the company-towns before the Unions? You choose the decade after the country is on the winning side of the biggest war in history (and is holding billions in IOUs and was relatively unscathed) as your counter-example?
How about 1933? 1984? 1869? Selective statistics indeed!
And now you see my point. I wasn't trying to prove that Cuba had a better healthcare system (although I still believe it does, and I did get kinda drawn down that line), merely that your statistics don't prove that capitalism is good, or even working for people.
Oh, and the reason I picked the fifties is because it was the decade I knew. I assume that it was picked because it's the decade our parents would have started work (well, for folk a bit old than me anyways...)

I beg to differ. The US has twice the population of Ireland as illegal aliens, and most Euros say we should just "accept them". CONSIDER THE SIZE of the country. And that 3.5 is the UN number (the least favorable.) What's the EU's homeless rate?
Three million, on a significantly larger population.

Really? Name one please. Do you mean a capitalistic powerhouse like Belize? :rolleyes: I doubt you can find one below a non-capitalist one that isn't there for a reason. Dig a little, I think you'll find that most of the ones you might sight have had state-controlled economies in the recent past.

That EVERY country above the world average is capitalist is far more compelling.

PPP (which is what the graph was) is the purchasing parity (per person) of the country, or their relative wealth. If you know of a better metric, let's hear it.
How many communist countries are there, anyways? Not that many. Fully communist? I can think of Cuba and North Korea, and that's it. SO that two countries
GDP, even adjusted for purchasing power, isn't really a good metric of absolute wealth. It measures how much the companies make, but a lot of that is used for research, or passed on to investors, rather than necessarily benefitting the people of the country. A better metric would be a graph of wages, or the range of incomes that the middle 80% earn, or something similar - unfortunately not something we can easily find out. I'll admit it's the best we have, but there could be better.

I have come to the realisation that we are all talking at cross purposes here (don't mock me if I'm being slow, I don't know if this is common knowledge what I'm about to say, or if I'm actually being perceptive...) Both sides are talking about different capitalisms and communisms. To me, capitalism is any production system which involves the means of production being concentrated in the hands of a few, and communism is any production system in which the means of production are owned communally. That is why I call the USSR state capitalist - the means of production were owned by the bureaucrats of the state.
But other people are arguing with me using a totally different definition of capitalism... Maybe I should just defend my own corner, go away and come up with a definition of my system and defend it and not get distracted by things that look shiny...

The U.S.S.R. was socialist in the true sense of the word.

Oh the libertarians and their funny funny lies.

Oh the libertarians and their funny funny lies.

The U.S.S.R. had a collectivist, uber-protectionist, centrally planned economy.

The U.S.S.R. had a collectivist,

If you mean "state-owned," that is not synonymous with "socialist."

uber-protectionist,

Nothing to do with socialism.

centrally planned economy.

Still doesn't make it socialist.

A socialist economy is one where there exists actual popular ownership and management of the means of production - not ownership by a totalitarian state.

I used to go to a communist book store in downtown ATL for the Socialist Workers Party which is now defunct. I kinda went to the middle and now decided to be pretty much liberal-left. I still go to this booth in L5P that is a store for the Revolutionary Communist Party, which is a Maoist political group. I don't support marxist communism. It's still kind of a turn-off or me.

And now you see my point. I wasn't trying to prove that Cuba had a better healthcare system (although I still believe it does, and I did get kinda drawn down that line), merely that your statistics don't prove that capitalism is good, or even working for people.

I posted facts with citations. You posted opinion. Try again please.

Oh, and the reason I picked the fifties is because it was the decade I knew. I assume that it was picked because it's the decade our parents would have started work (well, for folk a bit old than me anyways...)

Hardly. My father was 14 when the 50s ended, my mother 8. And they both lived in a Communist country at that time.

However, it still doesn't make a difference: I can just as easily say that the poor were doing VERY WELL in 1933, since the delta between rich and poor was much less -- because rich people were going broke. That really doesn't mean a thing against actual poverty, though.

Three million, on a significantly larger population.

You really don't cite anything, do you?
3 million? Fantasy!!
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030210-418527,00.html
Hard numbers are scarce, but according to the European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), a Brussels-based umbrella body of homeless organizations, at least 3 million Western Europeans are homeless this winter
...now, how about Poland? Or any of the recent ascension countries that aren't E-10?

That Europe's homelessness problem is roughly the same as America's — and that one of the fastest-growing segments of Europe's homeless population is families — is a shock. After all, Europe sees itself as kinder, gentler and more socially responsible than the U.S., with an extensive, expensive social safety net that's designed to nurture and protect the most vulnerable sections of the populace — the kind of people who are thrown to the wolves in winner-take-all America. But that might just be the point: it's easier to be homeless in Europe, where even the down-and-out get social-welfare checks.


How many communist countries are there, anyways? Not that many. Fully communist? I can think of Cuba and North Korea, and that's it. SO that two countries

Who said anything about Communist? We're talking about capitalist vs. non-capitalist. Chad is a non-capitalist country. So is Iran, and I suggest you consider Madagascar as a model for a country turning from non-capitalist to capitalist.
(BTW: there are 5 communist countries left: Cuba, North Korea, Laos, China, & Viet Nam.)

GDP, even adjusted for purchasing power, isn't really a good metric of absolute wealth. It measures how much the companies make, but a lot of that is used for research, or passed on to investors, rather than necessarily benefitting the people of the country.

Again, it's the best measurement we have.
However, it most CERTAINLY is to the benefit of the people of the country. Or can you name a country at $7000 PPP whose citizens enjoy a higher standard of living than any first world country like the UK or Japan?

A better metric would be a graph of wages, or the range of incomes that the middle 80% earn, or something similar - unfortunately not something we can easily find out. I'll admit it's the best we have, but there could be better.

Thanks.
Sure. And we could all be paying 8% taxes, too. But we must abandon the "ideal systems" to the classroom, as they are not possible to replicate in real life.

I have come to the realisation that we are all talking at cross purposes here (don't mock me if I'm being slow, I don't know if this is common knowledge what I'm about to say, or if I'm actually being perceptive...) Both sides are talking about different capitalisms and communisms.

Actually, I'm talking about Capitalism being the best economic system yet devised and the only fair one.

To me, capitalism is any production system which involves the means of production being concentrated in the hands of a few, and communism is any production system in which the means of production are owned communally.

Um, no. The means of production in a capitalist system can be anyone. In Communism, since there is no official ownership, it is owned by the state, which means the ruling elite. Since it is in [I]their[/B] best interests to stay on top, they never achieve that alleged state of final Communism.

So, as you see, you've got it backwards. Want proof? Look at China today. EVERYONE is building factories and investing heavily. Why? Because they can now. Compare that to the actual, planned Communist 5 year plan budgets and the truth is evident.

That is why I call the USSR state capitalist - the means of production were owned by the bureaucrats of the state.
...and that's backwards.

But other people are arguing with me using a totally different definition of capitalism... Maybe I should just defend my own corner, go away and come up with a definition of my system and defend it and not get distracted by things that look shiny...

Maybe.

I posted facts with citations. You posted opinion. Try again please.
Consideration #1: Adventures in a TV Nation, pgs 154-162.
Consideration #2: The lowest earning 20% of Americans are earning 100 dollars a year less (after inflation) than in 1979. http://www.s-t.com/daily/05-01/05-31-01/a02wn011.htm. I assume you accept the CEO thing?
Consideration #3: World Gini rating rankings - the US is the highest of developed countries. Ireland, Singapore, and the UK are others among the top developed countries.

You really don't cite anything, do you?
3 million? Fantasy!!
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030210-418527,00.html
Hard numbers are scarce, but according to the European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), a Brussels-based umbrella body of homeless organizations, at least 3 million Western Europeans are homeless this winter
...now, how about Poland? Or any of the recent ascension countries that aren't E-10?
Wikipedia article on homelessness says that the UN-HABITAT survey - the same one the US stats are from - says 3 million homeless. And it was made in 2004, when those nations had joined.

Who said anything about Communist? We're talking about capitalist vs. non-capitalist. Chad is a non-capitalist country. So is Iran, and I suggest you consider Madagascar as a model for a country turning from non-capitalist to capitalist.
(BTW: there are 5 communist countries left: Cuba, North Korea, Laos, China, & Viet Nam.)
China is communist? I thought it was moving towards a market economy... Same for Vietnam. Don't know about Laos though. Point taken, though. When I said communist (the first time), I was including countries like Iran that are state-run to a large degree.

Um, no. The means of production in a capitalist system can be anyone. In Communism, since there is no official ownership, it is owned by the state, which means the ruling elite. Since it is in [I]their[/B] best interests to stay on top, they never achieve that alleged state of final Communism.

So, as you see, you've got it backwards. Want proof? Look at China today. EVERYONE is building factories and investing heavily. Why? Because they can now. Compare that to the actual, planned Communist 5 year plan budgets and the truth is evident.
Nope. In capitalism, the means of production are owned privately. And the communism you've described is Marxist communism - and I agree wholeheartedly with your description of it. I don't see that as communism at all - because the people do not own the means of production - rather, the state 'holds it in trust' for them. <rolling of eyes> The means of production are really held by the elite, which is

...anyway, I've only ever considered Communism in those choose-between Hitler/Stalin or Nazi/Communism type threads. but even then i wind up rejecting it.

Not if the company passes laws to prevent such an occurrence...
?
Companys have no de jure soverignity. Companys can't pass laws if they can then they are not a company but part of the government/legislator.


There were more militant parts of it that were closer to socialist. And I accept the fact that 'anarcho'-capitalism exists. I just believe that giving it equal time with anarcho-syndicalism or any of the other more important types of anarchism in a survey course is a little foolish - compared to other forms of anarchism it's small and unimportant. When was the last time anarcho-capitalists had a protest, or brought a country to its knees?
?

Thats not what anarcho capitalists try to do. They don't look to cause protest or violent revolution, they simply influence via logic and reason. Thatcher herself was a self proclaimed follower of Hayek and there has been a considerable shift to viewing a state that governs least best.
True it may have little direct impact but thats true of all anarchism.



But, if he pays people more than they would receive in the commune, then he'll have to pay them out of his own pockets. He'll be making a loss!
If I'm not clear, take it like this. There's a commune, and then there's a business. Both have workers who can pick ten apples a day, and both have ten workers. In the commune, these hundred apples are divided between ten people, so each gets ten. In the business, the hundred apples are divided between eleven. The workers get nine each and the owner gets ten, say. If he wants to out pay the commune, he'll have to either pick apples himself to match it, or go into his own pockets to pay them more.
Now I know this is very simple, but simple is best for examples.
?

Ah right that clears it up better. Well the entire reason the boss makes more is because he invests his own money to take a risk building a companys and marketing a product. All the worker has to do it turn up make something and the rest is taken care of.
If the workers in the form of a commune want to make the same investment and risk that the "capitalist" makes that they are entitles to make more.


I don't see it as communism - marxism says that the state (and really the party) should own the means of production. In my books, communism should be the PEOPLE owning it, not the state. But marxists will disagree...
?

Dictatorship of the proletariat means the proletariat (the working class) take control of the means of prod. Lennin just happend to think the proletariat was a combination of too small and dumb to do it for themselves so he did it on behalf of them. Marx also wrote very little about the party, so lennin had to make it all up.
Marx also felt the only need for the dictatorship of the proletariat is to defend from the people they are taking the property from. Synicalism responds to this via trade unions while anarcho communism just seems to take it on faith that it will work out fine...


Tongue-in-cheek, of course... But, you'll admit, that a mixed economy is not socialist, but rather a mix - basically capitalist with socialist elements, yeah?

Certainly. Like America has a far greater capitalist influecnce than socialist which is why its generally called capitalist (as it the "west") but its clear to have a distinction between pure capitalism and mixed economies.

Of course you think it's wrong - that's why you're pro-capitalist. Anarchists think it's right - that's why they are anti-capitalist. If a person lays claim to capital that he himself isn't using, then anarchists don't believe he has a right to that claim. If he did have that claim, anarchists believe it is an unnecessary restriction of the freedoms of those who are currently using the capital to produce things.

So because I think ahead and save/invest either by putting money in a savings accout or by buying a product/shares that I expect to rise in the near future, that is wrong because I'm not directly using them.

Ever hear of the two squirrels. One ate all his food when he had it the other saved some for the winter. Would left anarchists really claim the one who saves is wrong because he's claiming ownership of something hes not directly using...

Um, no. That would be the United States. Cuba has the most doctors per capita. Cuba has the cheapest cost for healthcare. That does not equal the best care, nor the best healthcare system.


What is your evidence that the United States has better health care than everywhere else? Here are some stats on life expenctancy from the World Health Organization http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf (which probably are indicative of the quality of health care):

United States is tied with Cuba at 78.
Switzerland (81), Sweden (81), Italy (81), Norway (80), Spain (80), Canada (80), France (80), Germany (79), UK (79), and Finland (79) beat out the US.

These are statistics from 2004. I don't know if more recent stats are available. How many of the nations with higher life expectancy have universal health care?

Ever hear of the two squirrels. One ate all his food when he had it the other saved some for the winter. Would left anarchists really claim the one who saves is wrong because he's claiming ownership of something hes not directly using...

There's nothing wrong with saving as far as anarchists are concerned (assuming you're going to use it in the future, of course. What would be the point of saving if you aren't going to use it?). There is nothing in your example about the relationship between employer and employee. There is only an issue if you buy raw material, equipment, buildings etc that you don't use yourself, but get others to use, so you can profit. Anarchists at that point would support the right of the employees to assume control over the means of production. Let's say someone else spends his hard earned money to buy a slave. Anarchists would also support the right of the slave to be free, without having to compensate the slave owner for the loss of his "property".

What is your evidence that the United States has better health care than everywhere else? Here are some stats on life expenctancy from the World Health Organization http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf (which probably are indicative of the quality of health care):

United States is tied with Cuba at 78.
Switzerland (81), Sweden (81), Italy (81), Norway (80), Spain (80), Canada (80), France (80), Germany (79), UK (79), and Finland (79) beat out the US.

Not necessarily, because healthcare isn't the only factor that's measured in life expectancy. Behavior also plays a major role in this, and we all know the stereotypes of American behavior...


There's nothing wrong with saving as far as anarchists are concerned. There is nothing in your example about the relationship between employer and employee. There is only an issue if you buy raw material, equipment, buildings etc that you don't use yourself, but get others to use, so you can profit. Anarchists at that point would support the right of the employees to assume control over the means of production. Let's say someone else spends his hard earned money to buy a slave. Anarchists would also support the right of the slave to be free, without having to compensate the slave owner for the loss of his "property".
How is it wrong if the other people who are operating the stuff do it of their own free will?

Ever hear of the two squirrels. One ate all his food when he had it the other saved some for the winter. Would left anarchists really claim the one who saves is wrong because he's claiming ownership of something hes not directly using...

No.

If the same squirrel (or a group of squirrels) takes all the acorns in the area, lays claim to them all, and sells most of them for extortionate prices during the winter, then the squirrel is wrong.

Acorns saved so that they can be used later is a kind of direct use; it is simply delayed.

How is it wrong if the other people who are operating the stuff do it of their own free will?

Because the threat of unemployment (and more importantly, the associative negative consequences) hanging over their heads ensure that it is not "of their own free will."

Because the threat of unemployment (and more importantly, the associative negative consequences) hanging over their heads ensure that it is not "of their own free will."

I don't even know how to respond to that, the argument is so incredibly flawed.

No one is making them work there. No one is holding a gun to their head and saying "Work or die." A basic law of nature, you have to make it so you can survive, the world doesn't just give itself to you on a plate. Fine, you don't want to work for this employer? Then go get another job, or even better, start your own company! Christ almighty. :rolleyes: It almost sounds like you're preaching freedom from consequence.

No.

If the same squirrel (or a group of squirrels) takes all the acorns in the area, lays claim to them all, and sells most of them for extortionate prices during the winter, then the squirrel is wrong.

Acorns saved so that they can be used later is a kind of direct use; it is simply delayed.

Absolutely not.

If the squirrel goes out, spends all of his time collecting the acorns, removing the little 'hats' and stocking them up in a safe, dry place until winter, when there's a shortage of acorns, and then trading them for squirrel dollars or whatever the hell squirrels would use for cash, then the squirrel is in the absolute right. After all, the other squirrels clearly had the opportunity, they just didn't take it .

Yes, I have considered communism.

It's perfect in theory, but people naturally want to succeed, and you can't succeed in communism. So it'll never work correctly, and therefore be an inferior government system. Democracy is the best choice still.

I don't even know how to respond to that, the argument is so incredibly flawed.

No one is making them work there. No one is holding a gun to their head and saying "Work or die."

So? Do they have a third option?

And yes, someone is holding a gun to their head. Do you think private property springs out of nowhere?

A basic law of nature, you have to make it so you can survive, the world doesn't just give itself to you on a plate.

Capitalist property rights are not a "law of nature."

Fine, you don't want to work for this employer? Then go get another job,

What benevolence! If I don't like serving someone else's will, I get to... serve yet another person's will. Yay! :rolleyes:

or even better, start your own company!

With the capital I magically conjure out of nowhere?

Christ almighty. :rolleyes:

Some of us actually take "freedom" to mean "freedom," not "absolute property rights." Sorry to shock you so.

Absolutely not.

If the squirrel goes out, spends all of his time collecting the acorns, removing the little 'hats' and stocking them up in a safe, dry place until winter, when there's a shortage of acorns, and then trading them for squirrel dollars or whatever the hell squirrels would use for cash, then the squirrel is in the absolute right. After all, the other squirrels clearly had the opportunity, they just didn't take it .

No, he still isn't. With every acorn he collected, he made it harder for all the others to acquire acorns; he restricted their right to use the acorns of the area. That is only justified insofar as it satisfies his own legitimate use; once it goes beyond that, he has elevated himself above the others illegitimately, claiming more for himself than is his fair share.

Unless, of course, the supply of acorns is essentially unlimited, in which case he can do as he pleases. That is not the case in our world regarding most of the relevant goods (like, say, land.)

No, he still isn't. With every acorn he collected, he made it harder for all the others to acquire acorns; he restricted their right to use the acorns of the area. That is only justified insofar as it satisfies his own legitimate use; once it goes beyond that, he has elevated himself above the others illegitimately, claiming more for himself than is his fair share.

Unless, of course, the supply of acorns is essentially unlimited, in which case he can do as he pleases. That is not the case in our world regarding most of the relevant goods (like, say, land.)

Absolutely not. His fair share is however many he can collect. Just as it is the fair share of every other squirrel out there.

Absolutely not. His fair share is however many he can collect. Just as it is the fair share of every other squirrel out there.

Ah, collective maximization of the capability to exploit others. Whoever wastes more of her time, or perhaps just gets luckier, gets to be tyrant for the winter.

I love capitalism.

Edit: How is this arrangement consistent with freedom? Aren't you forcing every squirrel to work as hard as every other squirrel, when working far less hard would be suitable to meet their natural needs?

What is your evidence that the United States has better health care than everywhere else? Here are some stats on life expenctancy from the World Health Organization http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf (which probably are indicative of the quality of health care):

I didn't say everywhere else, though I'd bet the US is towards the top of the medical tech scale. I said that it was better than Cuba.
Proof? No one flees the US for Cuba for a heart bypass operation, but many people come to the US from Canada for one. (Of course, we go there to get the cheap drugs, so...)

United States is tied with Cuba at 78.
Switzerland (81), Sweden (81), Italy (81), Norway (80), Spain (80), Canada (80), France (80), Germany (79), UK (79), and Finland (79) beat out the US.

These are statistics from 2004. I don't know if more recent stats are available. How many of the nations with higher life expectancy have universal health care?

Please explain to me the 1-1 ratio of universal health care to long life. You can't, because it does not exist.
The are dozens if not hundreds of reasons why life expectancy is higher or lower in any given country, not least of which are diet, activity levels/exercise, crime, standard of living, etc.

That a homogenous population like Cuba could tie the US (which has on all accounts rampant obesity, for example) is of little surprise to me. Cuba, by merits of not having a winter, not having much of a manufacturing base (few contagions/poisons), and not having a diverse populace (little to no crime, as there is little to take from each other and as with the Icelandic, very few "hate crimes"), is of COURSE going to fare pretty well.

Let's look a little further: the US also has the #3 largest populace on Earth, of which there are MANY immigrants. Many come from disadvantaged lands (ie: Cuba, Russia, Mexico, Hondouras, various West African countries) that also effect the scales. If you lived with dysentary early in life and didnt' get 3 squares a day, odds are you won't live to be 90.

Is quality healthcare a factor? Sure. Is it the only/main one? Nope.

Nor do I believe it should be universal/free.
Consider: how many of the countries with universal healthcare have poor care (ie: British dentists or Canadian heart surgeons, anyone?)? How many countries are being bankrupted BY universal healthcare as their populace ages (Germany & France come to mind).

So? Do they have a third option?
Work or die. You can't just sit there and expect to live.

And yes, someone is holding a gun to their head. Do you think private property springs out of nowhere?
Private property springs out of the individuals own labor. Sometimes the individual or the state is forced to protect private property from those who would take it unjustly.


Capitalist property rights are not a "law of nature."
No. If you want to survive you have to do work.


What benevolence! If I don't like serving someone else's will, I get to... serve yet another person's will. Yay! :rolleyes:
Then serve yourself. Just don't demand that everyone else sacrifice their own labor for your benefit, without you having done so much as move a finger.



With the capital I magically conjure out of nowhere?
Take out a loan, get investors, work on your own.





Some of us actually take "freedom" to mean "freedom," not "absolute property rights." Sorry to shock you so.
Freedom to steal, what a great freedom.

Ah, collective maximization of the capability to exploit others. Whoever wastes more of her time, or perhaps just gets luckier, gets to be tyrant for the winter.

I love capitalism.

No, whoever spends their time most efficiently gets to control the fruits of their labor.

i consider myself leninist, but i created Saint Revan as a corporate police state, and now im trying to make it a socialist government. i agree with the "original" commuism (marxism and leninism) when it was free and promising, but stalin and other communists ruined that. now communism seems to be like Oceania in "1984." i oppose that. ive never worn a che guevara shirt, but if they made a lenin shirt, I'd wear that. all in all, leninism and the original marxism (not the stuff that was twisted and corrupted by stalin) is the way to utopia. :fluffle:

i consider myself leninist, but i created Saint Revan as a corporate police state, and now im trying to make it a socialist government. i agree with the "original" commuism (marxism and leninism) when it was free and promising, but stalin and other communists ruined that. now communism seems to be like Oceania in "1984." i oppose that. ive never worn a che guevara shirt, but if they made a lenin shirt, I'd wear that. all in all, leninism and the original marxism (not the stuff that was twisted and corrupted by stalin) is the way to utopia. :fluffle:

It was free and promising under Lenin?

Might I remind of the birth of the KGB, the Gulag system, the deportations, the summary executions and the war of aggression against Poland?

I'm fairly convinced by Soheran's posts that all communists read Das Kapital while working at Burger King and say, "I'm...just...not...going...to...take...this...ANYMORE!"

Work or die. You can't just sit there and expect to live.

No. If you want to survive you have to do work.

Then at least let me work on my own terms, not on the terms of those who own most of the capital.

Private property springs out of the individuals own labor.

Does not a thief labor, too?

Sometimes the individual or the state is forced to protect private property from those who would take it unjustly.

And the chief "injustice" here is the exclusive right to property in the first place.

Then serve yourself. Just don't demand that everyone else sacrifice their own labor for your benefit, without you having done so much as move a finger.

When did I advocate anyone sacrificing their labor for my benefit? If they want to labor, fine. If they don't want to labor, also fine. I have a problem when they take what they don't use so that they can extort others. It is nothing short of tyrannical usurpation.

Take out a loan, get investors,

"Get another boss."

work on your own.

With what?

Freedom to steal, what a great freedom.

Freedom from tyranny is a great freedom. Freedom to "steal" what is not justly owned is perfectly legitimate.

No, whoever spends their time most efficiently gets to control the fruits of their labor.

"Efficiently"? You mean whoever works hardest? So me working hard gives me the right to make others work hard, unless they wish to be compelled into serving me?

And you are still ignoring the issue of luck.

Consideration #1: Adventures in a TV Nation, pgs 154-162.
Consideration #2: The lowest earning 20% of Americans are earning 100 dollars a year less (after inflation) than in 1979. http://www.s-t.com/daily/05-01/05-31-01/a02wn011.htm. I assume you accept the CEO thing?
Consideration #3: World Gini rating rankings - the US is the highest of developed countries. Ireland, Singapore, and the UK are others among the top developed countries.

#1: Anything by Michael Moore is automatic bullshit. Or else I may as well start quoting Fred Phelps and Rush Limbaugh to retort. C'mon, use scholarly resources. Otherwise I can get this sort of thing by flipping between CNN and FOX news.

#2: Valid. But look at the end of that same article:
Conservatives also took issue with the study's findings that Americans of all income groups lost less of their earnings on average to federal taxes in 1997 than in 1979. They noted that if the reporting period started just two years later -- in 1981, the first year of President Reagan's big tax cut -- the tax burden would show a drop for all but the best-off one-fifth of Americans.
Starting the comparison in 1979 is "really stacking the deck," said Ralph Rector, a tax analyst at Heritage.

Of course I detest the absurd scale that CEO pay has risen on.

#3: (A link would have been helpful, here). Okay, so what about it? Don't you think that some reasons why the US has a higher Gini are because it has less favorable welfare laws, more immigrants and a larger populace?

Wikipedia article on homelessness says that the UN-HABITAT survey - the same one the US stats are from - says 3 million homeless. And it was made in 2004, when those nations had joined.

Wiki is great for light research, but I somehow doubt that it has the veracity of TIME Magazine. After all it is editable by everyone. :)

China is communist? I thought it was moving towards a market economy... Same for Vietnam. Don't know about Laos though. Point taken, though. When I said communist (the first time), I was including countries like Iran that are state-run to a large degree.

All 5 are most assuredly politically Communist. But China and Viet Nam have both mostly abandoned economic Communism. North Korea, Cuba and Laos have not... and it shows.

Nope. In capitalism, the means of production are owned privately. And the communism you've described is Marxist communism - and I agree wholeheartedly with your description of it. I don't see that as communism at all - because the people do not own the means of production - rather, the state 'holds it in trust' for them. <rolling of eyes> The means of production are really held by the elite, which is

Which is correct if you're reading it from an educational point of view -- that's how it's described in The Manifesto. However, real world experience has shown that once there is a dictatorship of the proletariat, that they have no incentive to move to the final phase: after all, they are getting rich in a land of supposedly no riches.

The chief problem with Communism is that the only time it has ever worked was in ancient Sparta: and that was because the Spartans had outlawed currency. Each family had a house of the same size, drinking vessels, sheep, clothes etc exactly as everyone else.

I'm fairly convinced by Soheran's posts that all communists read Das Kapital while working at Burger King and say, "I'm...just...not...going...to...take...this...ANYMORE!"

In Soviet Russia, Whopper orders you! :D

Then at least let me work on my own terms, not on the terms of those who own most of the capital.

Fine, feel free to do so. Don't expect anyone to help you out though.


Does not a thief labor, too?
A thief's labors are to remove something rightfully gained from the possession of another person.



And the chief "injustice" here is the exclusive right to property in the first place.
Bull. Crap.


When did I advocate anyone sacrificing their labor for my benefit? If they want to labor, fine. If they don't want to labor, also fine. I have a problem when they take what they don't use so that they can extort others. It is nothing short of tyrannical usurpation.
Use is not a justification for property rights. Labor is.



"Get another boss."
If you want to do something, the resources don't just spring out of thin air.



With what?
Perhaps a skill you have, perhaps some bit of knowledge that you possess. Not my job to tell you what to do with your life.



Freedom from tyranny is a great freedom. Freedom to "steal" what is not justly owned is perfectly legitimate.

You don't even exist in the paradigm that the vast majority of people exist in then. There's no point in arguing with you.

Use is not a justification for property rights. Labor is.You believe in the Labor Theory of Value?

You believe in the Labor Theory of Value?

I believe that value is fundamentally subjective, and best decided through mutual consent of two parties involved in exchange.

When taking something out of a state of nature though, labor validates it as private property.

I believe that value is fundamentally subjective, and best decided through mutual consent of two parties involved in exchange.

When taking something out of a state of nature though, labor validates it as private property.Why is that?

Fine, feel free to do so. Don't expect anyone to help you out though.

I don't. But I do expect that others not be permitted to impede me, as I do not impede them. What you have advocated is the universal right to exploit others (the "universality," of course, being highly questionable); what I am advocating is the universal right not to be exploited.

A thief's labors are to remove something rightfully gained from the possession of another person.

Ah, so the product of my labor does not justly belong to me if it is not justly gained. I agree; that's what I've been arguing.

Bull. Crap.

It deprives me of my right to use, and of a considerable portion of my liberty.

Use is not a justification for property rights. Labor is.

I am not advocating "property rights." I am advocating rights of use. I do not "own" what I use; I merely use it. When I cease using it, another can use it. What right is violated? Merely the "right" of those who would deprive others of their right to use; that is, the "right" of usurpation, which is not a right at all.

That is the natural state, and if we must abolish it, the very least we can do is ensure that the ownership is collective and not concentrated in a few hands.

If you want to do something, the resources don't just spring out of thin air.

No, but the resources need not spring out of thin air. They exist. They are merely denied to me.

Perhaps a skill you have, perhaps some bit of knowledge that you possess.

So, again, I must sell myself to those with access to capital. What "freedom" is this?

Not my job to tell you what to do with your life.

No, it isn't. But it is the job of every decent person to oppose social systems that deny human beings freedom on a wide scale.

You don't even exist in the paradigm that the vast majority of people exist in then. There's no point in arguing with you.

And a framework of absolute property rights does?

Why is that?

Three primary, interlocking rights can generally encompass all of that which is needed by society.

We start off with life. I am guaranteed my right to my life, not to be interfered with by any other human being.

Derived from my life is my ability to do what I will with myself. This is my liberty. If I am not at liberty to do what I will with myself, then my life is not under my control.

From liberty, we come to the results and reactions of my liberty, and my manipulation of the natural world. That which results from my liberty, from my actions also results from my life. I make a clay bowl out of mud, I have poured part of my life into the creation of that clay bowl. Not only that, but my actions, my liberty, were required for the clay bowl to have come into existence. To deprive me of my little clay bowl is to deprive me of part of my life and part of my liberty. Hence, a right to property.

To take my property is to take part of my life and my liberty, a part that I will never be able to regain. To do that is oppression.

It deprives me of my right to use, and of a considerable portion of my liberty.
Right of use does not come into play until after you have mixed your labor with it. Until that point it's up for grabs. Because, before that point, things in a state of nature might as well not exist at all.

Three primary, interlocking rights can generally encompass all of that which is needed by society.

We start off with life. I am guaranteed my right to my life, not to be interfered with by any other human being.

Derived from my life is my ability to do what I will with myself. This is my liberty. If I am not at liberty to do what I will with myself, then my life is not under my control.

From liberty, we come to the results and reactions of my liberty, and my manipulation of the natural world. That which results from my liberty, from my actions also results from my life. I make a clay bowl out of mud, I have poured part of my life into the creation of that clay bowl. Not only that, but my actions, my liberty, were required for the clay bowl to have come into existence. To deprive me of my little clay bowl is to deprive me of part of my life and part of my liberty. Hence, a right to property.

To take my property is to take part of my life and my liberty, a part that I will never be able to regain. To do that is oppression.Fine, but why would that entitle you to the clay itself?

Fine, but why would that entitle you to the clay itself?

Without my mixing of labor it might as well not exist.

From liberty, we come to the results and reactions of my liberty, and my manipulation of the natural world. That which results from my liberty, from my actions also results from my life. I make a clay bowl out of mud, I have poured part of my life into the creation of that clay bowl. Not only that, but my actions, my liberty, were required for the clay bowl to have come into existence. To deprive me of my little clay bowl is to deprive me of part of my life and part of my liberty. Hence, a right to property.

To take my property is to take part of my life and my liberty, a part that I will never be able to regain. To do that is oppression.

But there is a condition. You have already admitted that condition:

A thief's labors are to remove something rightfully gained from the possession of another person.

Depriving a thief of her property is not "oppression," it is merely the cessation of "oppression," because the thief has taken what she has no right to take.

What right do I have to claim more than I use? After all, if no one else desired to use it, I would not need property rights over it; the fact that I demand them is an indication that others do indeed want them. I am thwarting the will of others, depriving them of the liberty to use the property I own, simply because I want to profit from them. I am harming them and depriving them of opportunities; this is an injustice, just as theft is an injustice (and indeed, what is occuring here is basically theft). Any benefit I garner is at the needless expense of others. There is enough for all, but I have taken more than my fair share, and have thus deprived others of theirs. As they did not consent to this seizure, it is merely an illegitimate and unacceptable usurpation.

Without my mixing of labor it might as well not exist.I don't know, it could have lots of uses; the ground holds us up, after all. The water that you used to mix it with could have been consumed by someone, or used to water crops.

But there is a condition. You have already admitted that condition:

Depriving a thief of her property is not "oppression," it is merely the cessation of "oppression," because the thief has taken what she has no right to take.
I don't see what this has to do with anything at all.

What right do I have to claim more than I use?
Every right in the world.
After all, if no one else desired to use it, I would not need property rights over it; the fact that I demand them is an indication that others do indeed want them.
They want the improved version, not the original. They had every chance to claim it in the first place and they didn't. Now that it's yours and they want it, then too bad.

I don't know, it could have lots of uses; the ground holds us up, after all. The water that you used to mix it with could have been consumed by someone, or used to water crops.

As I've said, use is not what gives right. Improvement is.

Possibilities do not matter, only that which is matters.

Right of use does not come into play until after you have mixed your labor with it. Until that point it's up for grabs. Because, before that point, things in a state of nature might as well not exist at all.

Before that point, anyone else could have come up and mixed their labor with it. By taking it for myself, I have deprived everyone else, without their consent, of this capability. If the resources did not exist at all, no one would be able to use them. If I can take anything that I mix my labor with, I am free to ensure that no one but me is able to use them. My preference is for everyone to be able to use them.

I'd love to keep this lovely conversation going, but I've got a bus to catch back home, and then a couple of responsibilities to deal with. Laters.

Before that point, anyone else could have come up and mixed their labor with it. By taking it for myself, I have deprived everyone else, without their consent, of this capability. If the resources did not exist at all, no one would be able to use them. If I can take anything that I mix my labor with, I am free to ensure that no one but me is able to use them. My preference is for everyone to be able to use them.


Possibilities do not matter, only that which is matters.

I don't see what this has to do with anything at all.

Simply that the right to the product of my labor is conditional on it not coming at the expense of others' rights.

They want the improved version, not the original. They had every chance to claim it in the first place and they didn't.

Really? So all the natural resources in the world are infinitely plentiful?

Edit: And if they really want the "improved version" rather than the original, then you should have no trouble attaining the profit you want by agreeing to perform the improvement for someone else in exchange for a service. To claim the improved resources as yours, however, is not only to claim the improvement but also to claim the resources; it is usurpation. After all, you cannot improve resources and claim them as yours when they are owned by another.

As I've said, use is not what gives right. Improvement is.

Possibilities do not matter, only that which is matters.What right does somebody have to 'improve' something?

Edit: Also, I know I've asked you this already, but for the purposes of this thread, how do we know when it's improved?

Possibilities do not matter, only that which is matters.

You are missing the point. We can divide the relevant states into three categories:

Untouched natural resources: Useless to everyone in their current state, but potentially exploitable by everyone.

Altered/in use/whatever natural resources in a framework of private property: Useful to the owner, who can control access as she sees fit, and can exploit others through this control; useless (unless they serve the owner) to everyone else.

Altered/in use/whatever natural resources in a framework of universal right to use: Useful to everyone, because no one can deprive another of their right to use them (except to fulfill their own right, but not beyond that.)

I prefer the third option. It is not the same as the first.

I have so far answered of of my NS issues as how I truthfully feel about them, and i ended up with 'Libertarian Police State'.

i have no idea where the police state part came from (i said they couldnt have political parties, i didnt say they couldnt run for leading ours)

besides, my crime rate is too phr33kishly high to be a police state ;)

How is it wrong if the other people who are operating the stuff do it of their own free will?

Well, if you volunteer to be my slave, anarchists won't mind. However, if after a few months of being by slave, you try to escape and I prevent you, then anarchists would help the slave be free. The same is true of wage slavery. If a bunch of people agree to be wage slaves, working for a capitalist, that's fine. However, if they ever decide they don't want to be wage slaves anymore and assert their control over the means of production, then anarchists would support them. Yes they are confiscating the property of the capitalist. Anarchists believe it is the same type of property confiscation involved in freeing slaves, and is justified because it is the wage slaves doing the work anyway, and only they are important to the economy.

Fine, you don't want to work for this employer? Then go get another job, or even better, start your own company!

If you took a bunch of poor people and asked them to start a company, what will they use for capital? Where will they get the raw materials, the computers, the office buildings, etc to run the business? If they want to compete, their only recourse (in the capitalist system) is to give up their freedom in return for capital from financiers. To anarchists, this is not freedom. Anarchists would assume democratic control over the means of production, so that any new company would have starting capital without being forced to listen to the commands of financiers. That is economic freedom in the anarchist sense.

No one flees the US for Cuba for a heart bypass operation, but many people come to the US from Canada for one.

If you have a health care system that redirects resources away from the poor to serving the rich, of course the rich will have much better health care than the poor. The best the wealthy can buy can be expected to be better than what the average person with universal health care gets. However, the best the poor get will not be better than what the average person with universal health care gets. In the end, a measure like life expectancy is not a measure of the best standard of living available to the wealthy few, it is a measure of how good it is to the general population.

No, it isn't. But it is the job of every decent person to oppose social systems that deny human beings freedom on a wide scale.

So you agree, then, that socialism should be opposed. That's a start. :)

God this thread is tedious. I'm sorry but you're not a "slave". I'd love to see you whiny ass kids go back to a time before unions and government regulation. I work full time on 7 dollars an hour and I live comfortably with good health care in a nice clean apartment.

Communists in America are just slackers who need to compensate their jealousy of "the Rich". Move out of your mom's basement and do something with your life.

So you agree, then, that socialism should be opposed. That's a start. :)
:fluffle: Nice riposte. ;)

So you agree, then, that socialism should be opposed. That's a start. :)

With the alternative being full-fledged propertyless anarchism? Maybe. That is one question I am struggling with right now.

With the alternative being capitalism? Absolutely not. As you knew already. ;)

My aunt and uncle own a business, a small restaurant. I don't see how they exploit everyone. They treat their employees well, and they work extremely hard. My uncle is one of the cooks as well as one of the pizza deliverers, and my aunt is one of the waitresses. They work as hard as the employees do.

My aunt and uncle own a business, a small restaurant. I don't see how they exploit everyone. They treat their employees well, and they work extremely hard. My uncle is one of the cooks as well as one of the pizza deliverers, and my aunt is one of the waitresses. They work as hard as the employees do.

Are you aunt and uncle prepared to pay their "wage slaves" (oxymoron) reperations?

My aunt and uncle own a business, a small restaurant. I don't see how they exploit everyone. They treat their employees well, and they work extremely hard. My uncle is one of the cooks as well as one of the pizza deliverers, and my aunt is one of the waitresses. They work as hard as the employees do.
Don't you get it, being capitalist they are automatically evil, heartless tormentors of their poor, just and unfailingly honest workers. :rolleyes:

My aunt and uncle own a business, a small restaurant. I don't see how they exploit everyone. They treat their employees well, and they work extremely hard. My uncle is one of the cooks as well as one of the pizza deliverers, and my aunt is one of the waitresses. They work as hard as the employees do.

"The general character of capitalism is exploitative" =/ "every capitalist exploits her employees."

... "wage slaves" (oxymoron)...

Really? So as long as you are paid, it does not matter whether or not you are free?

Don't you get it, being capitalist they are automatically evil, heartless tormentors of their poor, just and unfailingly honest workers. :rolleyes:

"Evil" and "heartless" are terms best reserved for propaganda; they are obviously false in the real world, though that fact does not change the character of the institution.

"Evil" and "heartless" are terms best reserved for propaganda; they are obviously false in the real world, though that fact does not change the character of the institution.

Propaganda is necessary to Communism. I've never heard a Communist argue for their viewpoint without some serious propaganda slip into their speech-- "wage slave" is a favorite one. Wage slave can only apply to a very limited selection of instances, such as sweatshops. The average worker in, say, the US or Europe is far from a wage slave.

Propaganda is necessary to Communism.

"Useful" (as it is to every ideology), not "necessary."

I've never heard a Communist argue for their viewpoint without some serious propaganda slip into their speech

Point out "serious propaganda" in my arguments here, please.

"wage slave" is a favorite one. Wage slave can only apply to a very limited selection of instances, such as sweatshops. The average worker in, say, the US or Europe is far from a wage slave.

I think it is a term with fairly broad legitimate application, but it has its flaws - one of them being that few people understand what it is getting at, and instead of evaluating its merit take it as an excuse to insult the user.

...to be shit?

God this thread is tedious. I'm sorry but you're not a "slave". I'd love to see you whiny ass kids go back to a time before unions and government regulation. I work full time on 7 dollars an hour and I live comfortably with good health care in a nice clean apartment.

Communists in America are just slackers who need to compensate their jealousy of "the Rich". Move out of your mom's basement and do something with your life.Uh, it was the communists who were the original unionists.
Additionally, there is a difference between jealousy and righteous indignation.

Uh, it was the communists who were the original unionists.
Additionally, there is a difference between jealousy and righteous indignation.

Yea, but in this case, it's jealousy.

If the world you live in is so black and white that you think either people are: A) super rich making millions or B) "wage slaves", you need to get your nose out of the Manifesto and out into the real world.

Utterly ridiculous, Communists are just quitters. You don't get instant gratification from your labor and so you just give up on social mobility and settle for a piss poor ideology that legitimizes your laziness, your failure as a human being.

Yea, but in this case, it's jealousy.

If the world you live in is so black and white that you think either people are: A) super rich making millions or B) "wage slaves", you need to get your nose out of the Manifesto and out into the real world.

Utterly ridiculous, Communists are just quitters. You don't get instant gratification from your labor and so you just give up on social mobility and settle for a piss poor ideology that legitimizes your laziness, your failure as a human being.

Most Communists are communists because of righteous indignation. I know, because I have met and talked with many of them. They are usually from middle class families, and are usually genuinely caring people. Sure, there are plenty of asseholes among us, but I am insulted when you fling the accussation of "being quitters" or "laziness." More often then not, its leftists that are getting up off of their asses and trying to change the world.

When you say that we are "failures as human beings," you attack us for something that you have no proof of. Are we failures if we ask why so many are poor? Are we failures if we try to find something to be done to help the common person? Are we failures if common decency and humanism is more important to us then making a buck?

Of course not. You have utterly failed to recognize the real issue that drives leftist groups. You have failed to say anything about how things can be made better for everyone. You are the failure, not us.

Most Communists are communists because of righteous indignation. I know, because I have met and talked with many of them. They are usually from middle class families, and are usually genuinely caring people. Sure, there are plenty of asseholes among us, but I am insulted when you fling the accussation of "being quitters" or "laziness." More often then not, its leftists that are getting up off of their asses and trying to change the world.

When you say that we are "failures as human beings," you attack us for something that you have no proof of. Are we failures if we ask why so many are poor? Are we failures if we try to find something to be done to help the common person? Are we failures if common decency and humanism is more important to us then making a buck?

Of course not. You have utterly failed to recognize the real issue that drives leftist groups. You have failed to say anything about how things can be made better for everyone. You are the failure, not us.
How about bitter loser who works at burger king and hates his boss?

Yes, you are. The focus of any individual should be his own personal gain, or, if he wishes to focus on society, to do it himself, and to not demand that others do it as well, if they do not desire to do so.

How about bitter loser who works at burger king and hates his boss?

Yes, you are. The focus of any individual should be his own personal gain, or, if he wishes to focus on society, to do it himself, and to not demand that others do it as well, if they do not desire to do so.

It's impossible to objectively measure sucess vs. failure. But what I can say from experience, is that money doesn't buy happiness, but a lack of money brings unhappiness. Granted, there are bitter losers out there, but all of the bitter losers I know aren't communists. In most cases, they are bitter losers because of either apathy, or circumstances beyond their control. But, then again, I don't know many bitter losers. But I do know plenty of people who work too hard for what little they get paid, and in the end never get anything to show for it. That's not fair, but it doesn't automatically make one a bitter loser.

Call me what you will. I never said that people should be forced to do anyting. I said that my definition of failure, which is just as legitimate as Strippers and Blows, is that you don't measure sucess by personal acheivement. Success to me is making a contribution to society in what ever way you can. Everyday, people are forced to take one for the team. To say that you are exempt on principle from doing something to better the world is inherently selfish.

Why should I owe myself to society, I fail to see the reason. The only person who has any legitimate claim over myself and the works of my labors is myself. Should I desire to trade the works of my labors, then that is my own goddam right.

It's impossible to objectively measure sucess vs. failure. But what I can say from experience, is that money doesn't buy happiness, but a lack of money brings unhappiness. Granted, there are bitter losers out there, but all of the bitter losers I know aren't communists. In most cases, they are bitter losers because of either apathy, or circumstances beyond their control. But, then again, I don't know many bitter losers. But I do know plenty of people who work too hard for what little they get paid, and in the end never get anything to show for it. That's not fair, but it doesn't automatically make one a bitter loser.

How are you to know what is the proper amount for them to get paid? Do you have some magical "value meter" that no one else has, or are you just pulling normative bullshit out of your ass. The only just value is that which is consented to voluntarily. There is no other way to determine value besides that method.

Sorry about being hyper-aggressive. I'm busily experiencing a rough hangover, and combine that with my current troll-ish mood, that is tending to make me a bit more offensive than normal.

How are you to know what is the proper amount for them to get paid? Do you have some magical "value meter" that no one else has, or are you just pulling normative bullshit out of your ass. The only just value is that which is consented to voluntarily. There is no other way to determine value besides that method.

There is a big difference between "voluntary consent" and uncoerced consent. In capitalism, more often than not, you have the former. A worker can accept an employee's terms, or he can not work and starve. Not a real choice. I argue that in order for voluntary consent to be fair, it has to be uncoerced. That's why i believe in worker self-management.

As for being hyper-agressive, don't sweat it. I've been up all night, so I'm a little touchy too. I don't take offense to other people being agressive towards me in debates because I often hold the unpopular opinion.

There is a big difference between "voluntary consent" and uncoerced consent. In capitalism, more often than not, you have the former. A worker can accept an employee's terms, or he can not work and starve. Not a real choice. I argue that in order for voluntary consent to be fair, it has to be uncoerced. That's why i believe in worker self-management.
But that's the choice that must be made. No matter what, you have to work, or you have to starve, this is so under any economic system, or lack of one.

As for being hyper-agressive, don't sweat it. I've been up all night, so I'm a little touchy too. I don't take offense to other people being agressive towards me in debates because I often hold the unpopular opinion.

I'm also wishing that I didn't wake up as early as I tend to do when I'm hung over. The long hours of wakeful suffering are terrible. Christ, I went to sleep at 3 and woke up at 7. ugh.

But that's the choice that must be made. No matter what, you have to work, or you have to starve, this is so under any economic system, or lack of one.

But under a properly designed participatory self management system, new employees would in theory have the same rights are already employed workers, and should have the ability to agree to fairer terms on employment without coercion. There are some actual working businesses that run on a ParEcon self management system, the most notable of which is South End Publishing.

But under a properly designed participatory self management system, new employees would in theory have the same rights are already employed workers, and should have the ability to agree to fairer terms on employment without coercion. There are some actual working businesses that run on a ParEcon self management system, the most notable of which is South End Publishing.

Let's get this straight. There is no such thing as fair, unless active coercion is involved, in which case it becomes unjust, unfair and wrong. Short of active coercion (physically pointing a gun at your head) all decisions are voluntary, and therefore just and fair.

Beyond that, I keep hearing about participatory workplaces. Why? The entire reason the workplace exists is because an investor purchased the materials that are required make the workplace run. He purchased the machines, the raw materials, the building, all of it. And if the business fails, he stands to lose everything that he's invested. If the business fails, the worker loses nothing, he actually comes out of the situation in the positive. No creditors will come knocking at the workers door if his employer fails, no, they only come to the investors door. The investor runs a risk of loss, therefore, he carries partial power in determining wages.

Let's get this straight. There is no such thing as fair, unless active coercion is involved, in which case it becomes unjust, unfair and wrong. Short of active coercion (physically pointing a gun at your head) all decisions are voluntary, and therefore just and fair.

Inequity is by its nature coercion. If someone benefits more from the fruit of society than I, and is vested by that with more control in society's direction, he/she by defintion has power/authority greater than mine. In many cases, he/she has as a result, power and authority over me. That is coercion. Just because I voluntarily give up my wallet to a mugger doesn't mean it is fair. It was completely voluntary, I could have chosen to get beaten up/killed. But I personally would rather not.

Beyond that, I keep hearing about participatory workplaces. Why? The entire reason the workplace exists is because an investor purchased the materials that are required make the workplace run. He purchased the machines, the raw materials, the building, all of it. And if the business fails, he stands to lose everything that he's invested. If the business fails, the worker loses nothing, he actually comes out of the situation in the positive. No creditors will come knocking at the workers door if his employer fails, no, they only come to the investors door. The investor runs a risk of loss, therefore, he carries partial power in determining wages.

If you look at it this way, the workers in a participatory workplace also fill the role of the investor. Their personal well being is tied to the well being of their firm. The difference is that ownership of the means of produciton in a participatory economy is both participatory and equitable because it is proportional to the amount of effort undertaken by that worker.

Why should I owe myself to society, I fail to see the reason. The only person who has any legitimate claim over myself and the works of my labors is myself. Should I desire to trade the works of my labors, then that is my own goddam right.

Why do you think the present arrangement of property in our society is based on "the works of labor" in the sense you insist upon?

Nope, never.. Always saw through that kind of trash.

In a contract you need to recognise that the two parties each have the same right to agree to what they want to do. If the employer doesn't like the terms than he can get another employee. If the worker doesn't like the terms then he can go to another employer. If he doesn't like any of the terms then, frankly, he is overrating himself, because he clearly thinks that his work is worth more than the natural economic value of it that the market has found.

As soon as you try to make the employer pay more money, you are doing two things:

i) You are making a subjective judgement about how much people are worth. Nothing wrong with that per se, but what should give anyone the right to force their view on other people?
ii) You are being coercive to one party, in favour of the other. That is the only coercion involved in this scenario.


Inequity is by its nature coercion. If someone benefits more from the fruit of society than I, and is vested by that with more control in society's direction, he/she by defintion has power/authority greater than mine. In many cases, he/she has as a result, power and authority over me. That is coercion. Just because I voluntarily give up my wallet to a mugger doesn't mean it is fair. It was completely voluntary, I could have chosen to get beaten up/killed. But I personally would rather not.

This is a false analogy. Firstly, it is not employers who force people to work for them. People feel that they have to work because otherwise they will be no money, which is a fact of life that is not the fault of the employer. The employer therefore coerces nothing. In your example, the mugger has himself created the unpleasant choice, and so is responsible for it - therefore he is coercing you to give him your money.

Secondly, employers do not take anything away from a person apart from the time that he agrees to give. In return he gives the employee money. And because the employee consented to the transaction we can assume that he values the money more than he values his time (or else he wouldn't have made the exchange), so overall he is in a better position than he would have been if he had remained unemployed. The existence of the employer has therefore worked to his benefit.

In a contract you need to recognise that the two parties each have the same right to agree to what they want to do. If the employer doesn't like the terms than he can get another employee. If the worker doesn't like the terms then he can go to another employer. If he doesn't like any of the terms then, frankly, he is overrating himself, because he clearly thinks that his work is worth more than the natural economic value of it that the market has found.

That "value" is not natural; it is the result of a certain unnatural, state-enforced distribution of property.

As soon as you try to make the employer pay more money, you are doing two things:

i) You are making a subjective judgement about how much people are worth. Nothing wrong with that per se, but what should give anyone the right to force their view on other people?

The welfare of others. For the same reason, we need not ask murderers whether they approve of laws against murder.

ii) You are being coercive to one party, in favour of the other.

Indeed. So?

That is the only coercion involved in this scenario.

No, there is another major form of coercion applicable here - that of state-protected private property rights.

This is a false analogy. Firstly, it is not employers who force people to work for them. People feel that they have to work because otherwise they will be no money, which is a fact of life that is not the fault of the employer.

No, the choice of working for a capitalist or starving is not a fact of life. It is the result of a certain distribution of property. Working or starving may be, but there are plenty of other arrangements of labor that don't involve working on the terms of the rich minority.

The employer therefore coerces nothing.

No, he doesn't. So? The choice is still coercive; it is merely not the employer who is coercing the employee, but rather the capitalist system of property that is coercing her.

Secondly, employers do not take anything away from a person apart from the time that he agrees to give.

And the mugger does not take away anything from the mugging victim that the mugging victim did not agree to give.

In return he gives the employee money.

And the mugger gives her victim the reward of not shooting her.

And because the employee consented to the transaction we can assume that he values the money more than he values his time (or else he wouldn't have made the exchange), so overall he is in a better position than he would have been if he had remained unemployed.

Similarly, the person who is robbed by the mugger is better off giving up her money than resisting, and being shot.

The existence of the employer has therefore worked to his benefit.

Maybe, but not necessarily the existence of capitalism, which forces the choice in the first place.

Chopping up a reply into zillions of quoted lines and statements is a bad habit. It makes for bad debate because the arguments lose their cohesion to each other and the central point tends to get lost in a sea of petty dogfights over irrelevancies. Anyway...


The first point, which you really must admit, is that if no one works, everyone will starve. Right? No food will be produced and we will all die. Food only appears because people work to make it. Therefore there is, in general terms, the choice to work or die. This is not unique to capitalism, as you seem to believe. This is entirely universal.

On an individual level, a person will only be able to eat if either he works, or someone else does the work and gives him food. So, when you say that it is "coercion" that makes a person have to get a job, and that is a failing of the capitalist system, you are basically blowing smoke out of your ring. Every system requires people to work, not just capitalism. Nor is it in any way unfair that people should have to work for their food. Why should anyone else make it for them?

In the West we do have unemployment benefits, and rightly so - we don't want, or need to have, people starving in our countries. But this is not a "fair" redistribution of wealth, but state-imposed charity (if you'll pardon the oxymoron), where people who have created wealth give it to those who have not to help them to survive.

Chopping up a reply into zillions of quoted lines and statements is a bad habit. It makes for bad debate because the arguments lose their cohesion to each other and the central point tends to get lost in a sea of petty dogfights over irrelevancies. Anyway...

The first point, which you really must admit, is that if no one works, everyone will starve. Right? No food will be produced and we will all die. Food only appears because people work to make it. Therefore there is, in general terms, the choice to work or die. This is not unique to capitalism, as you seem to believe. This is entirely universal.

On an individual level, a person will only be able to eat if either he works, or someone else does the work and gives him food. So, when you say that it is "coercion" that makes a person have to get a job, and that is a failing of the capitalist system, you are basically blowing smoke out of your ring. Every system requires people to work, not just capitalism. Nor is it in any way unfair that people should have to work for their food. Why should anyone else make it for them?

In the West we do have unemployment benefits, and rightly so - we don't want, or need to have, people starving in our countries. But this is not a "fair" redistribution of wealth, but state-imposed charity (if you'll pardon the oxymoron), where people who have created wealth give it to those who have not to help them to survive.

Read my post again, and if you wish to reply to it, avoid straw men - because your whole argument here is one. I have never said that "work or starve" is a choice unique to capitalism. My problem with capitalism is not that it offers us the choice to "work or starve." My problem with capitalism is the character of the first option under capitalism. The response to this argument, however, is often that the worker consents, so there is no problem. The worker, however, does not consent; her choice is "work (under capitalism) or starve."

That said, the argument could be reasonably made that there are ways of exerting effort to acquire food and other goods that are not comparable to "work", and that "work or die" is indeed a choice specific to certain social systems.

Just to step in again. It seems to "leftists" seem to miss a valuable point about capitalism. It allows for freedom of association.

In the case of the mugger, if I do not like the options he provides for me I have the freedom not to deal with him. If of course the mugger acts agains't my will and trys to force a transaction (ie. Taking my wallet) than he's violated one of my freedoms and thus is unacceptable under capitalism. Similarly under communism a greedy individual could kill someone and take whatever resources they happened to be using at the time.

The slave example is simiarly non valid. Under Capitalism if the so called slave did not like his master he has the freedom to leave and association with someone else or no one should he choose. - the moment the master forces him to stay either through violence or any other means against my will my fundamental right of association is gone.

Now to jump in with a question of my own. We agree that many resources are scarce, and need is subjective (a heavy weight boxer will need more food than a model). In this situation either we have the state or the more knowledged members of society determine these subjective needs (which they can't do very well) or we let people take what they want and end up with the tragedy of the commons.
How would a communist deal with this. And lets hope its not letting the state decide how much you "need" to live like I have heard once before :rolleyes:

My aunt and uncle own a business, a small restaurant. I don't see how they exploit everyone. They treat their employees well, and they work extremely hard. My uncle is one of the cooks as well as one of the pizza deliverers, and my aunt is one of the waitresses. They work as hard as the employees do.

They could very well be nice people. There were plenty of slaveowners who were nice people too. Some slaveowners even educated their slaves or even fathered children with them. However, no matter how nice some slaveowners are, that doesn't make the entire institution of slavery right.

If anarcho-syndicalists took over your aunt and uncle's restaurant, they would recognize the fact that they work hard and vote to pay them appropriately. The difference is that the decision of pay is no longer made in an authoritarian matter - every employee gets a say in how much they think the pay scales in the company should be. There would also be a difference if the rest of society went along - most small businesses today suffer from a lack of access to capital compared to those funded by the wealthy, so they have a harder time competing against well funded establishments. If access to capital were determined democratically, it would be much more likely for small businesses to get the capital they need to compete on a level playing field, without having to sell control of the business to financiers, resulting in a better standard of living for all the employees.

Interesting. I hate to be patronising, but I'm not sure that you quite understand the implications of your own arguments.


You did[i] say earlier that work-or-starve was a problem that was related to capitalism, or similar systems:
No, the choice of working for a capitalist or starving is not a fact of life. It is the result of a certain distribution of property...
which implies that capitalism (or similar systems) create the unhappy choice, and that the choice does not exist under other systems.

If you say that the work-or-starve option that exists under capitalism is coercion, then I don't know what it is that makes the same choice under any other system [i]not coercion. In each case it is the existence of the choice that forces people to work, and the choice will always exist

The worker, however, does not consent; her choice is "work (under capitalism) or die."
And under communism, the choice is "work (under communism) or die." You say that it is the character of the work that makes it coercive. I don't see how this works at all, unless you believe that people would enjoy working under communism for its own sake. In other words, they would do it even without being rewarded. I doubt they would. The work is the same work, is it not? It is just about how much you think you will get at the end of it in return.


Also, we are spending a lot of time talking about "work-or-die". That's fine because it is a convenient phrase, but what is the actual choice that Westerners face? It is to work or live on benefits - here in the UK you will be given someone else's money even if you choose to do nothing. That is the actual choice. Let's not forget that.


And lastly - the great thing about capitalism is that people can do as they want. If people will be better off by working differently, not being employed by a company but instead having a worker's co-operative, then they can do so. They generally don't. Why not? If people would be better off that way, surely we would all be doing it? No?

On an individual level, a person will only be able to eat if either he works, or someone else does the work and gives him food. So, when you say that it is "coercion" that makes a person have to get a job, and that is a failing of the capitalist system, you are basically blowing smoke out of your ring. Every system requires people to work, not just capitalism. Nor is it in any way unfair that people should have to work for their food. Why should anyone else make it for them?

The difference between capitalism and non-capitalism is where you get the capital necessary for you to do the work. Under capitalism, the average person doesn't have much capital, so he must give up a portion of his freedom, in return for access to capital, so that he can make a living. Anarcho-syndicalists do not believe he needs to give up that portion of his freedom at all in order to make a living. They would instead allow employees full ownership of the capital they are already using. The only portion of their freedom that is still limited is that they still have to please consumers. They just wouldn't have to worry about the demands of the financiers anymore.

Interesting. I hate to be patronising, but I'm not sure that you quite understand the implications of your own arguments.

I'm not sure you have a clue what my arguments are. You obviously aren't reading them.

You did[i] say earlier that work-or-starve was a problem that was related to capitalism, or similar systems:

which implies that capitalism (or similar systems) create the unhappy choice, and that the choice does not exist under other systems.

You clearly didn't read my whole post.

If you had, you'd have seen that in the very next sentence I make my meaning clear, anticipating this exact line of argument.

Here's the whole quote:

No, the choice of working for a capitalist or starving is not a fact of life. It is the result of a certain distribution of property. Working or starving may be, but there are plenty of other arrangements of labor that don't involve working on the terms of the rich minority.

If you say that the work-or-starve option that exists under capitalism is coercion, then I don't know what it is that makes the same choice under any other system [i]not coercion. In each case it is the existence of the choice that forces people to work, and the choice will always exist

Read:

My problem with capitalism is not that it offers us the choice to "work or starve."

It is coercion whenever that choice is presented (though, again, I'm not sure the choice has to be presented at all), but my objection to capitalism is not (just) that it presents us with this choice, but what it coerces us into with it.

And under communism, the choice is "work (under communism) or die." You say that it is the character of the work that makes it coercive.

Did I? Where? I don't think I ever did. I said I objected to the character of the work; I didn't say that character made the choice "work or starve" more coercive. It doesn't, it just makes the first option unnecessarily bad.

I don't see how this works at all, unless you believe that people would enjoy working under communism for its own sake. In other words, they would do it even without being rewarded. I doubt they would. The work is the same work, is it not? It is just about how much you think you will get at the end of it in return.

No, the work wouldn't be the same work. Not in the Marxist conception of communism, nor in mine (which is growing more and more distinct from the Marxist conception.)

Also, we are spending a lot of time talking about "work-or-die". That's fine because it is a convenient phrase, but what is the actual choice that Westerners face? It is to work or live on benefits - here in the UK you will be given someone else's money even if you choose to do nothing. That is the actual choice. Let's not forget that.

"That is the actual choice" for some, yes. It is still coercive, though, if not as severely coercive as "work or starve" is.

And lastly - the great thing about capitalism is that people can do as they want. If people will be better off by working differently, not being employed by a company but instead having a worker's co-operative, then they can do so. They generally don't. Why not? If people would be better off that way, surely we would all be doing it? No?

No, capitalism doesn't permit people to do what they want. It permits them to do what they want if they have the money.

The difference between capitalism and non-capitalism is where you get the capital necessary for you to do the work. Under capitalism, the average person doesn't have much capital, so he must give up a portion of his freedom, in return for access to capital, so that he can make a living. Anarcho-syndicalists do not believe he needs to give up that portion of his freedom at all in order to make a living. They would instead allow employees full ownership of the capital they are already using. The only portion of their freedom that is still limited is that they still have to please consumers. They just wouldn't have to worry about the demands of the financiers anymore.

Why would you need to please consumers. Would your job be at risk if you do it poorly, would you suffer via material wealth if you perform your job baddly.

Also enter the mindset of a young teenager. I could do and study to get a valuable degree or I could just walk into a nearby company and claim it as mine since I'm using the resources... what do I pick.

I once made a Che-style Loyd Grossman shirt with the caption "¿Quién vive en una casa como esto?".

Does that count?

Just to step in again. It seems to "leftists" seem to miss a valuable point about capitalism. It allows for freedom of association.

No. We recognize three things about this "freedom of association" that rightists tend to miss:

1. It is not genuinely free unless all the participants are self-sufficient - which they are not.
2. Unequal levels of dependence on "association" in general (caused by inequalities in access to capital) lead to inequalities in power, and thus to exploitation. This imbalance is independent of competition.
3. Competition is not one-sided; just as capitalists sometimes compete for workers, workers sometimes compete for jobs.

The slave example is simiarly non valid. Under Capitalism if the so called slave did not like his master he has the freedom to leave and association with someone else or no one should he choose. - the moment the master forces him to stay either through violence or any other means against my will my fundamental right of association is gone.

And, similarly, the master can get rid of him and choose someone who will accept less pay. Competition cuts both ways - but because of unemployment and a greater coordination problem on the part of workers, it tends to cut at them harder.

Now to jump in with a question of my own. We agree that many resources are scarce, and need is subjective (a heavy weight boxer will need more food than a model). In this situation either we have the state or the more knowledged members of society determine these subjective needs (which they can't do very well) or we let people take what they want and end up with the tragedy of the commons.
How would a communist deal with this.

If we're keeping to the framework of our present society, I'd just keep money and prices.

I consider myself more of a socialist, but have thought about communism.

Soheran, I think we're going round in circles. You need a lesson in logic. It is very hard to see what your coherent argument is when you are arguing points that appear contradictory, and when you don't make certain things clear. It is therefore very hard for me to discuss the points that you are trying to raise.

For example, you talked about the coercive nature of capitalism, and stated that the problem was not just the choice of work or starving, but that you had a problem with the character of the work under capitalism. Now, to me it seems that either:

i) the character of the work makes it coercive, or
ii) you're making no sense whatsoever.

And yet you have slated me for assuming option i. Maybe I should have gone for option ii.



They could very well be nice people. There were plenty of slaveowners who were nice people too. Some slaveowners even educated their slaves or even fathered children with them. However, no matter how nice some slaveowners are, that doesn't make the entire institution of slavery right.

If anarcho-syndicalists took over your aunt and uncle's restaurant, they would recognize the fact that they work hard and vote to pay them appropriately. The difference is that the decision of pay is no longer made in an authoritarian matter - every employee gets a say in how much they think the pay scales in the company should be. There would also be a difference if the rest of society went along - most small businesses today suffer from a lack of access to capital compared to those funded by the wealthy, so they have a harder time competing against well funded establishments. If access to capital were determined democratically, it would be much more likely for small businesses to get the capital they need to compete on a level playing field, without having to sell control of the business to financiers, resulting in a better standard of living for all the employees.

This notion is superficially attractive, but has a few problems:

Firstly, the effectiveness of the capitalist system is partly based on the movement of capital, and that requires that people put money into businesses where they may not be working. Only in this way can small businesses grow at any decent speed when the market demands it. Your system appears to either entirely preclude this or severely restrict it, which would lead to economic inflexibility and stagnation.

Secondly, you haven't really explained where the capital comes from in the first place, other than that access to it would be determined democratically. This means having a large government structure deciding where the money goes, no? This is bound to be extremely corrupt by its very nature.

Thirdly, the pay structure will inevitably be determined more or less entirely through self-interest. It will all become very political within the workplace, and that, rather than the actual value of the work, will have the biggest influence on who gets paid what.

There are also one or two small incorrect assumptions:

most small businesses today suffer from a lack of access to capital compared to those funded by the wealthy, so they have a harder time competing against well funded establishments.

Wealthy people will invest in any business that will make money, whether large or small. Because investors like to back winners, a "well-funded establishment" is one that will prosper, because it will provide customers with what they want at a good price - in other words, the sort of companies that we want.

In fact, larger companies will usually be floated on the stock market, which means that their shareholders will mainly be insurance companies and pensions funds, which invest the money that they get from every person, rich and poor, and eventually return to them. Ordinary people therefore benefit from the profits made by large companies to a degree that is not usually appreciated.

Soheran, I think we're going round in circles.

No, we aren't. We are going nowhere, because you are not paying attention to what I am saying.

For example, you talked about the coercive nature of capitalism, and stated that the problem was not just the choice of work or starving, but that you had a problem with the character of the work under capitalism. Now, to me it seems that either:

i) the character of the work makes it coercive, or
ii) you're making no sense whatsoever.

I explained this already. I'll try to explain it again.

Let's say the character of work under capitalism is x. I object to x for whatever reason. Some defender of capitalism responds that my objections to x are illegitimate, because x is freely agreed to by the workers. I respond that no, it is not; under capitalism, the choice is work with x or starve.

Now, someone else comes along and says that the choice of "work or starve" is common to all social systems. I reply, okay, but my objection is not to "work or starve," it is to "work with x or starve." Do you see the distinction?

No. We recognize three things about this "freedom of association" that rightists tend to miss:

1. It is not genuinely free unless all the participants are self-sufficient - which they are not.
2. Unequal levels of dependence on "association" in general (caused by inequalities in access to capital) lead to inequalities in power, and thus to exploitation. This imbalance is independent of competition.
3. Competition is not one-sided; just as capitalists sometimes compete for workers, workers sometimes compete for jobs.

.

Well what do you mean self sufficient. Lets look at a well paid doctor. For the sake of arguement lets assume he does not know how to build a house or farm food. This makes him dependent on association with people who can build him a house or who can cook/grow a wide range of food.
Let us take even the most uber evil capitalist CEO is he not to exploited by the need to associate with people who can do jobs (that are essential for life) that he cannot do on his own!

However if we mean not self sufficient as in unable to do any job or any skill whatsoever that can keep us alive. I'd have to assume they are either extremely handicapped or have some mental disorder, than there is always the welfare that is already avalible to the "disadvantaged".

We've already established some are more self sufficient than others and have unequal abilities. Why not then should there be an unequal distribution of goods to reflect this. Otherwise we'd live in a world where those who imput more are being held back and coerced by those who imput less.

Of course workers need to compete for jobs! Whats the alternative we force individuals to give "workers" money which they don't want to give to do a job they don't want done.


And, similarly, the master can get rid of him and choose someone who will accept less pay. Competition cuts both ways - but because of unemployment and a greater coordination problem on the part of workers, it tends to cut at them harder.
.

Thats how supply and demand runs. If lots of people train to be clowns and no one wants to see clowns than the clowns lose out. If there are lots of unskilled workers and few employers looking for them than yes they will have difficulty.
Generally this is why less tax on businesses is useful in order to make sure lots of companys set up and the demand for labour goes up (increasing employment and wages).


If we're keeping to the framework of our present society, I'd just keep money and prices.

Let me rephrase.
In a communist society based on catering to everyones need. How is this need determined?
- Either by a state/society (in which case you're livelyhood is decided by someone other than yourself)
- Or we let people take what they think they need from a collectivised source. (And we end up with The tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) in which everyone is worse off)

Or is there some 3rd alternative....other than capitalism :D

Well what do you mean self sufficient. Lets look at a well paid doctor. For the sake of arguement lets assume he does not know how to build a house or farm food. This makes him dependent on association with people who can build him a house or who can cook/grow a wide range of food.
Let us take even the most uber evil capitalist CEO is he not to exploited by the need to associate with people who can do jobs (that are essential for life) that he cannot do on his own!

Absolutely. They are both denied genuine free association.

We've already established some are more self sufficient than others and have unequal abilities. Why not then should there be an unequal distribution of goods to reflect this. Otherwise we'd live in a world where those who imput more are being held back and coerced by those who imput less.

Preventing the exploitation of "those who input less" by "those who input more" is perfectly legitimate. What is "coercive" is for some to hoard what they do not use so as to gain leverage over others.

Furthermore, ownership of capital does not necessarily have anything to do with "input," and even if it does at first, the exploitation it permits leads to a situation in which it no longer does.

Of course workers need to compete for jobs! Whats the alternative we force individuals to give "workers" money which they don't want to give to do a job they don't want done.

No, the alternative is socialism.

Thats how supply and demand runs. If lots of people train to be clowns and no one wants to see clowns than the clowns lose out. If there are lots of unskilled workers and few employers looking for them than yes they will have difficulty.

Yes, I know that that's how supply and demand works. That's the point I'm making - you insist that workers can always find another, better job, but I'm pointing out that the competition of capitalists for workers is not the whole story; there is also competition of workers for capitalists. Free association does not change the core imbalance between capitalist and worker; it merely leads to market fluctuations that change it in the favor of one or the other on occassion.

Generally this is why less tax on businesses is useful in order to make sure lots of companys set up and the demand for labour goes up (increasing employment and wages).

Yes, the capitalists do indeed hold us hostage to their profit. That's one reason we should abolish the capitalist economic framework entirely, rather than merely reform it (in which case you run into those sorts of problems.)

Let me rephrase.
In a communist society based on catering to everyones need. How is this need determined?
- Either by a state/society (in which case you're livelyhood is decided by someone other than yourself)
- Or we let people take what they think they need from a collectivised source. (And we end up with The tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) in which everyone is worse off)

Or is there some 3rd alternative....other than capitalism :D

Yes, money and prices. Which is not necessarily capitalism. Give everyone enough money to cater to their needs; let them buy what they wish.

Now to jump in with a question of my own. We agree that many resources are scarce, and need is subjective (a heavy weight boxer will need more food than a model). All the more reason to not allow the exclusive use by individuals of scarce resources.

- Or we let people take what they think they need from a collectivised source. (And we end up with The tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) in which everyone is worse off)The "Tragedy of the Commons" is a myth: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

Absolutely. They are both denied genuine free association.
.

But it is, because everyone has needs that need to be catered for. Because of this we all have our own jobs and skills we develop to cater for these needs. This via consentual trade for mutual benefit our association with others allows everyone to co-operate and it becomes in our own self interest to provide for others needs. Now when you think how animals or primitive humans acted the kind of voluntary co-operation that exists in capitalism is amazing.


Preventing the exploitation of "those who input less" by "those who input more" is perfectly legitimate. What is "coercive" is for some to hoard what they do not use so as to gain leverage over others.

Furthermore, ownership of capital does not necessarily have anything to do with "input," and even if it does at first, the exploitation it permits leads to a situation in which it no longer does.
.

But those who imput and achieve more who is exploited? They have simply achieved X ammount of wealth from others as gratitude for what they have done for their behalf.
Why is it wrong to "hoard" what one has legitimately earnt. And what gives you or 51% of society any legitimacy to decide how he should spend his own money. I see nothing coercive about keeping your own private property and chooseing how its used yourself.

If you suggest keeping (legitimatly earned) property via force is coercion, well it isn't. Let me use the mugger example in an appropriate mannor, if someone comes to take my property via force (be they a revolutionary anarchist, a mugger or even a fascist) it is legitimate to use an appropriate measure of self defence. Society has nicely set up so that the state has a legitimate role in defending property rights and the police are a resource for everyone in society to have their rights protected.



No, the alternative is socialism.
.

Thats what I described as the alternative ;) forcing individuals to give "workers" money (via coercive taxation) which they don't want to give (tyranny of the majority) to do a job they don't want done (some inefficient poorly run public service).


Yes, I know that that's how supply and demand works. That's the point I'm making - you insist that workers can always find another, better job, but I'm pointing out that the competition of capitalists for workers is not the whole story; there is also competition of workers for capitalists. Free association does not change the core imbalance between capitalist and worker; it merely leads to market fluctuations that change it in the favor of one or the other on occassion.
.

I'm not at all insisting that every worker will always find a job, particuarly a better job. Resources are always limited and not everyone can keep getting people to spare their resources for what ever the workers service may be. I am however insiting individuals should take more responcibility for their own lives and having some consequences (be they good or bad) for their actions. Socialism and communism seem to dislike this and want consequences risks and inicitive to disolve as everyone murges closer together in a system of collective equality.


Yes, money and prices. Which is not necessarily capitalism. Give everyone enough money to cater to their needs; let them buy what they wish.

And how much money does one need to cater to their needs? Can you decide. Can the state?

Freedom from nature feels like the only argument I'm hearing from some of the leftists. Explain to me chaps, how can one be free from nature, from the basic law that if you want something, you have to do something to get it?

I mean, all I see is a demand to be able to do/get what you want, without having done anything to get it, with no antecedent actions. It's every sixteen year olds dream come true, but it runs antithetical to the basic manners of how the world works.

Freedom from nature feels like the only argument I'm hearing from some of the leftists. Explain to me chaps, how can one be free from nature, from the basic law that if you want something, you have to do something to get it?

I mean, all I see is a demand to be able to do/get what you want, without having done anything to get it, with no antecedent actions. It's every sixteen year olds dream come true, but it runs antithetical to the basic manners of how the world works.

Isn't it simple. By coercing the minority to provide for everyone else those poor common workers don't have to worry about that nasty evil nature. Problem solved.

But it is, because everyone has needs that need to be catered for. Because of this we all have our own jobs and skills we develop to cater for these needs. This via consentual trade for mutual benefit our association with others allows everyone to co-operate and it becomes in our own self interest to provide for others needs. Now when you think how animals or primitive humans acted the kind of voluntary co-operation that exists in capitalism is amazing.

Yes, I'm familiar with the justification. But you're missing the point.

A person in any modern economy, whatever the social system, has a certain economic role that is incapable of providing for her needs. She is forced throughout her life to rely on others, to do the will of others, in order to get what she needs. This is indeed a choice she makes to maximize her self-interest, but to call it that is to miss its full character - it is a choice she must make in order to survive, and certainly in order to live a decent life. She has no alternative; there is nowhere she can go where this is not the case.

In any economy where that is the case (and that includes libertarian socialist ones), we cannot blindly trust in "free association" to solve our problems, because we no longer have real "free association." We have a version of it, but a highly limited one. Since people are forced to associate, they do not, solely through free association, have as much bargaining power as they should have; they must accept a deal sooner or later. Thus, we must ensure through other means that our associations are just. Socialism attempts to do so through democratic ownership and management of the means of production.

But those who imput and achieve more who is exploited? They have simply achieved X ammount of wealth from others as gratitude for what they have done for their behalf.

The problem is with the private ownership of such forms of wealth in the first place, wealth that holds a large portion of the population hostage to a small minority.

Why is it wrong to "hoard" what one has legitimately earnt. And what gives you or 51% of society any legitimacy to decide how he should spend his own money. I see nothing coercive about keeping your own private property and chooseing how its used yourself.

Slave-owners appealed to property rights, too, but thankfully in the end we did not listen to them. The problem is that while the form of property we are discussing, unlike slavery, does not necessitate exploitation and injustice, in the form of economy we have it tends to lead to it. I don't think such a form of property is legitimate.

If you suggest keeping (legitimatly earned) property via force is coercion, well it isn't. Let me use the mugger example in an appropriate mannor, if someone comes to take my property via force (be they a revolutionary anarchist, a mugger or even a fascist) it is legitimate to use an appropriate measure of self defence. Society has nicely set up so that the state has a legitimate role in defending property rights and the police are a resource for everyone in society to have their rights protected.

Most "property" in the world, and certainly practically everything in this country, has not been "legitimately earned"; pretty much all the land on this continent, for instance, was stolen from its original inhabitants.

Protecting "property rights" is indeed coercion; it is just coercion excused away by those who prefer to define away such unfortunate terms.

Your assumption that the current distribution of property in this society is legitimate is merely assuming your conclusion before stating your argument; it is fairly common on this topic. If the distribution is just, of course it is unjust to take it. I am disputing that the distribution is just.

Thats what I described as the alternative ;) forcing individuals to give "workers" money (via coercive taxation) which they don't want to give (tyranny of the majority) to do a job they don't want done (some inefficient poorly run public service).

Forcing someone to do what she doesn't want to do is "tyranny"? And why do you think there would be "taxation" as we conceive of it under socialism?

I'm not at all insisting that every worker will always find a job, particuarly a better job. Resources are always limited and not everyone can keep getting people to spare their resources for what ever the workers service may be. I am however insiting individuals should take more responcibility for their own lives and having some consequences (be they good or bad) for their actions. Socialism and communism seem to dislike this and want consequences risks and inicitive to disolve as everyone murges closer together in a system of collective equality.

Ah, you want people to take responsibility for their lives after admitting that they may not have much of a choice.

I am not arguing against "consequences risks and inicitive," I am arguing against exploitation.

And how much money does one need to cater to their needs? Can you decide. Can the state?

I don't want the state to decide, I want self-governing autonomous communes to decide. But that aside, this "problem" is not much of one; since scarcity remains, it is inevitable that some people will be unsatisfied, but consumer choice permits enough freedom that both necessities and most-desired luxuries would be provided for.

All the more reason to not allow the exclusive use by individuals of scarce resources.
]

You mean all the more reason to allow people to have the freedom to pursue their own subjective needs and decide what YOU value rather than be at the whim of a bureaucracy built to define them for you.


The "Tragedy of the Commons" is a myth: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

Perhaps if human nature somehow changes and you bring forth a group of extremely like minded indiviudals to be the sole users of a particular resource. From the article it seemed to suggest that popular control will force people to co-operate with what they regard as "need" or the proper usage. Is this really your so called free society?

Freedom from nature feels like the only argument I'm hearing from some of the leftists. Explain to me chaps, how can one be free from nature, from the basic law that if you want something, you have to do something to get it?

I mean, all I see is a demand to be able to do/get what you want, without having done anything to get it, with no antecedent actions. It's every sixteen year olds dream come true, but it runs antithetical to the basic manners of how the world works.

If anything, what I desire is freedom of nature. But that's a topic for another day.

I'm not sure why I'm replying to this at all. I've replied to this straw man a dozen times already.

What is my objection to capitalist property rights?

No.

If the same squirrel (or a group of squirrels) takes all the acorns in the area, lays claim to them all, and sells most of them for extortionate prices during the winter, then the squirrel is wrong.

Acorns saved so that they can be used later is a kind of direct use; it is simply delayed.

Am I arguing against the necessity of finding acorns? No; I am arguing against hoarding them.

Then at least let me work on my own terms, not on the terms of those who own most of the capital.

In direct response to this objection. Either you didn't read what I said, or you ignored it.

There is a difference between natural necessity and capitalist-enforced necessity. I make the same point in my next reply:

I don't. But I do expect that others not be permitted to impede me, as I do not impede them. What you have advocated is the universal right to exploit others (the "universality," of course, being highly questionable); what I am advocating is the universal right not to be exploited.

I say the same thing in reply to Westmorlandia:

No, the choice of working for a capitalist or starving is not a fact of life. It is the result of a certain distribution of property. Working or starving may be, but there are plenty of other arrangements of labor that don't involve working on the terms of the rich minority.

I clarified my meaning twice more:

Read my post again, and if you wish to reply to it, avoid straw men - because your whole argument here is one. I have never said that "work or starve" is a choice unique to capitalism. My problem with capitalism is not that it offers us the choice to "work or starve." My problem with capitalism is the character of the first option under capitalism. The response to this argument, however, is often that the worker consents, so there is no problem. The worker, however, does not consent; her choice is "work (under capitalism) or starve."

I explained this already. I'll try to explain it again.

Let's say the character of work under capitalism is x. I object to x for whatever reason. Some defender of capitalism responds that my objections to x are illegitimate, because x is freely agreed to by the workers. I respond that no, it is not; under capitalism, the choice is work with x or starve.

Now, someone else comes along and says that the choice of "work or starve" is common to all social systems. I reply, okay, but my objection is not to "work or starve," it is to "work with x or starve." Do you see the distinction?

You're pretty reasonable usually, but this is ridiculous. I've been making this point again and again throughout this thread; if you want to respond to it, actually respond to it and don't conjure up a straw man.

You mean all the more reason to allow people to have the freedom to pursue their own subjective needs and decide what YOU value rather than be at the whim of a bureaucracy built to define them for you.

No one is "deciding" them for anyone. Every choice the worker has under capitalism (except investment in a company) is open to her under socialism.

If anything, what I desire is freedom of nature. But that's a topic for another day.

I'm not sure why I'm replying to this at all. I've replied to this straw man a dozen times already.

What is my objection to capitalist property rights?
If this is a strawman, then your dithering about use is a strawman as well. I, as well as plenty of other people, have emphasized the fact that neither use nor possibility can be the basis, nor justification, for anything. Only in origination can any sort of right be defined. Only in creation, the mixing of labor. Once the labor is mixed, it cannot be removed.



Am I arguing against the necessity of finding acorns? No; I am arguing against hoarding them.
This same drivel about use.
Use is worthless for determining anything. Only origination by labor is worth determining something.


Beyond that, under capitalism, if you do not wish to operate within the system you can operate outside of the system. Be it that you start your own business, or you can go and become a hermit in the woods for all I care. I've been making the point that an individual is free to do what they want, and you've been totally ignoring it. They can go work for the South End Publishing company, or whatever it is if they please.

Yes, I'm familiar with the justification. But you're missing the point.

A person in any modern economy, whatever the social system, has a certain economic role that is incapable of providing for her needs. She is forced throughout her life to rely on others, to do the will of others, in order to get what she needs. This is indeed a choice she makes to maximize her self-interest, but to call it that is to miss its full character - it is a choice she must make in order to survive, and certainly in order to live a decent life. She has no alternative; there is nowhere she can go where this is not the case.
.

Okay this is true but where is the problem. In all systems we need to rely on others the economics of capitalism gives people a reason to help others not through force of by coercion from any particular agent but because its in their interest to do so. Yes the choice is sometimes limited, which is why competition is so important to maximize choice. Do I similarly not have to make a choice between eating Pork or Beef for dinner or I starve, these choices are just part of life. And as long as we maximize choice via competition and the freedom of association alternatives do exist.

If you want to survive or have a decent life you have to choose who you co-operate with. As Andaluciae already mentioned if we want someone to do something for us we have to do something for them. Otherwise what right do we have to live a decent life.


Socialism attempts to do so through democratic ownership and management of the means of production.
.

Okay so the means of production are managed by the same people who do the ordinary work. As a consumer do I still not have to make a choice over which one I want to fufill my needs?


Slave-owners appealed to property rights, too, but thankfully in the end we did not listen to them. The problem is that while the form of property we are discussing, unlike slavery, does not necessitate exploitation and injustice, in the form of economy we have it tends to lead to it. I don't think such a form of property is legitimate.
.

The pro slave camp did not recognise black people as equal humans thus the basic human rights everyone in capitalism is guarenteed was an issue of debate for them. I'm glad everyone is offered the same rights as well :)


Most "property" in the world, and certainly practically everything in this country, has not been "legitimately earned"; pretty much all the land on this continent, for instance, was stolen from its original inhabitants.
.

Is there not the story that one American state was bought for the equivilent of $24 worth of goods. None the less I don't condone the violence American's used to steal the property from the natives as they did. Obviously the natives needed a state and police to protect their own property rights slightly better.


Protecting "property rights" is indeed coercion; it is just coercion excused away by those who prefer to define away such unfortunate terms.
.

So if I were to break into your house to take your stuff and you used appropriate force to defend yourself and property you're the one in the wrong?


Your assumption that the current distribution of property in this society is legitimate is merely assuming your conclusion before stating your argument; it is fairly common on this topic. If the distribution is just, of course it is unjust to take it. I am disputing that the distribution is just.
.

True some unjust things happened in the past. All we can do now is ensure that todays affairs remain as legitimised as possible as wealth passes through billions of people hands every day in voluntary deals (that are fair and would be unfairly redistributed should socialist and anarchists take power)


Forcing someone to do what she doesn't want to do is "tyranny"? And why do you think there would be "taxation" as we conceive of it under socialism?
.

A group of individuals (be they under the label of society or not) deciding what to do with what is not legitimatly theirs is tyranny. Should I disagree with the actions of this society and refuse to submit I'm either put in prison or kicked out of society.
And taxation/redistribution of resources its all the same. Its forcing someone with more to give to someone with less which while you may not label as taxation is the same thing.


Ah, you want people to take responsibility for their lives after admitting that they may not have much of a choice.
.

Choice of who to get to provide for their needs (should they want someone else to do it for them).
As for choice in other aspects, under capitalism the world is your oyster but its up to you to create and find some opportunities and take control of what you want to do. Its not always easy but why should someone else do it for you.


I am not arguing against "consequences risks and inicitive," I am arguing against exploitation.
.

Your arguing agains't anyone having more than what a 3rd party considers their need or current use.


I don't want the state to decide, I want self-governing autonomous communes to decide. But that aside, this "problem" is not much of one; since scarcity remains, it is inevitable that some people will be unsatisfied, but consumer choice permits enough freedom that both necessities and most-desired luxuries would be provided for.

Now the market defines the value of good quite well so its not a problem under capitalism. But in a system of luxuries under communism how do we ensure we each get a fair ammount of our subjective desire satisfied.
Not to mention we're again as individuals subject to what the communes decide to offer to us, rather than pursuing what we want ourselves.

No one is "deciding" them for anyone. Every choice the worker has under capitalism (except investment in a company) is open to her under socialism.

The worker can negotiate a pay with the employer. Under communism your pay is equal to everyone elses thus you cannot choose to work for X ammount of money. You can only work to keep your place in society and contribute to the greater good.

If this is a strawman, then your dithering about use is a strawman as well. I, as well as plenty of other people, have emphasized the fact that neither use nor possibility can be the basis, nor justification, for anything. Only in origination can any sort of right be defined. Only in creation, the mixing of labor. Once the labor is mixed, it cannot be removed.

Then it is not a straw man, it is an argument, because I am arguing against a position of yours - that rights of use can be ignored.

And I'd still like to hear an argument from you, because you haven't presented one on this subject, except mere contradiction.

The reason rights of use matter is that material goods are essential to us; they are the necessities of life, they ensure and expand our capabilities, and they thus guarantee individual sovereignty. If I have no rights of use, I am at the mercy of the owners; I am no longer free. Almost every freedom I have depends on material means to express it; a society that denies rights of use, thus, makes almost every freedom I have conditional, conditional on fulfilling the will of another.

This same drivel about use.
Use is worthless for determining anything. Only origination by labor is worth determining something.

"Origination." Who "originated" land? Who "originated" plant life? Who "originated" all the resources that we use to make things? Not their owners.

Yes, they or the people who gave/exchanged it to them "labored" for it (actually fairly unlikely, but I digress.) But so what? The owner does not merely own the product of the labor; he also owns whatever the product was made of. The base resources are clearly not "useless" without labor, because last time I checked, we cannot use labor to make something from nothing. If I own nothing but my labor, I cannot make anything.

With "ownership" opportunity is restricted; not the opportunity to live without labor, but the opportunity to live with labor in a manner freely chosen, according to terms that aren't dictated by the wills of others. I will grant that public ownership (as opposed to no ownership) does not solve this problem, but it alleviates it somewhat; it uses democratic mechanisms to give workers more control over the terms of their association.

Beyond that, under capitalism, if you do not wish to operate within the system you can operate outside of the system. Be it that you start your own business, or you can go and become a hermit in the woods for all I care. I've been making the point that an individual is free to do what they want, and you've been totally ignoring it. They can go work for the South End Publishing company, or whatever it is if they please.

I can only operate outside the system if I have the capital necessary to do so or if I can find someone with the capital necessary to do so. Most people do not have the former (or, in order to have the former, would be forced to sacrifice immensely), and because of that, as well as the human desire for profit, the latter is fairly rare as well.

Thus, it swiftly becomes the case that I am not really operating outside the system; I make concession after concession to it, by necessity.

Okay this is true but where is the problem. In all systems we need to rely on others the economics of capitalism gives people a reason to help others not through force of by coercion from any particular agent but because its in their interest to do so. Yes the choice is sometimes limited, which is why competition is so important to maximize choice. Do I similarly not have to make a choice between eating Pork or Beef for dinner or I starve, these choices are just part of life. And as long as we maximize choice via competition and the freedom of association alternatives do exist.

The problem is that it makes us less than free. It makes us dependent on others, and thus subject to their wills.

If you want to survive or have a decent life you have to choose who you co-operate with. As Andaluciae already mentioned if we want someone to do something for us we have to do something for them. Otherwise what right do we have to live a decent life.

We have to get someone to do something for us in order not only to live a decent life, but to live at all. This is not a necessity of life itself; it is a necessity of life only in a society with a high degree of division of labor and property rights independent of use.

Okay so the means of production are managed by the same people who do the ordinary work. As a consumer do I still not have to make a choice over which one I want to fufill my needs?

Yes, and as a worker you still have to choose where to work. But you not only have this choice, but you can also participate in the decisions these institutions make, to ensure that they meet your needs.

The pro slave camp did not recognise black people as equal humans thus the basic human rights everyone in capitalism is guarenteed was an issue of debate for them. I'm glad everyone is offered the same rights as well :)

Same legal rights, yes, but that is meaningless. Legal rights are class-blind. I may have the right to eat, but that doesn't help me if I have no money. I may have the right to own a company, but if I don't have the money to own one, that doesn't stop me from being exploited.

The important point is that there are certain kinds of property - like the ownership of slaves and like the ownership of the means of production in an economy like ours - that are incompatible with genuine freedom.

Is there not the story that one American state was bought for the equivilent of $24 worth of goods. None the less I don't condone the violence American's used to steal the property from the natives as they did. Obviously the natives needed a state and police to protect their own property rights slightly better.

Okay, you "don't condone the violence." Great, I agree. I don't condone it either. But you're missing the point - if you really want to claim property rights as they exist today are legitimate, you have to somehow get around the fact that the present distribution of property is just the result of a prior distribution based on massive theft.

So if I were to break into your house to take your stuff and you used appropriate force to defend yourself and property you're the one in the wrong?

To defend myself, no. To defend property that I have a right to, no. To defend my factory in Thailand from an uprising by its workers, yes.

True some unjust things happened in the past. All we can do now is ensure that todays affairs remain as legitimised as possible as wealth passes through billions of people hands every day in voluntary deals (that are fair and would be unfairly redistributed should socialist and anarchists take power)

The problem is that like most advocates of capitalism, you are focusing on the exchange. But to focus on the exchange is to miss the point. I do not care so much about the exchange; what I am more concerned with is the distribution prior to the exchange. A deal between a worker and a capitalist is "voluntary" in a certain sense, sure - but if the capitalist has no right to own the company in the first place, that consensual aspect is irrelevant. The deal is still unjust.

Exchange requires a prior distribution of property; it does not spring out of nowhere. I cannot exchange what I do not already own.

A group of individuals (be they under the label of society or not) deciding what to do with what is not legitimatly theirs is tyranny.

I agree. That is why capitalism is tyranny. As far as "legitimately theirs," socialism is not all that much better (because the majority is capable of depriving the minority of freedom), but by making everyone partial owners it still does better than capitalism.

Should I disagree with the actions of this society and refuse to submit I'm either put in prison or kicked out of society.
And taxation/redistribution of resources its all the same. Its forcing someone with more to give to someone with less which while you may not label as taxation is the same thing.

I deny that she should have more in the first place.

Choice of who to get to provide for their needs (should they want someone else to do it for them).

Absolutely. I believe in free association, that's one reason I'm an anarchist.

As for choice in other aspects, under capitalism the world is your oyster but its up to you to create and find some opportunities and take control of what you want to do. Its not always easy but why should someone else do it for you.

Why should someone else have property rights that impede you?

Your arguing agains't anyone having more than what a 3rd party considers their need or current use.

Said "third party" is the party enforcing property rights in the first place. How long do you think a capitalist would maintain ownership of a factory if the power of the state didn't protect her claim?

I am not against property beyond the right of use. I could not be and still be a socialist, because public ownership is not all that much more tied to the rights of use than private ownership; it merely alleviates the effect of the rejection of such rights more than private ownership does. What I am against is usurping the rights of use of people in order to establish such systems; in a decent world, property rights beyond the rights of use would only apply to freely-associating members of the society in which they existed. Non-members' rights of use would not be violated, but, on the other hand, they would not be capable of violating the rights of use of the community.

Similarly, I don't have a natural rights objection to capitalism per se, either; simply to capitalism as it exists today (and not enough of one to advocate overthrowing it in an undemocratic manner). A community that did not hoard resources, did not interfere with the rights of use of non-members (beyond the community's own collective right of use), and permitted its members to leave could legitimately adopt capitalism. I would oppose that decision, because I think public ownership is better than private ownership, but as long as it is the free choice of the community's members I would not interfere.

Now the market defines the value of good quite well so its not a problem under capitalism.

Yes, it is. You are honestly saying that everyone has their subjective desires satisfied under capitalism?

But in a system of luxuries under communism how do we ensure we each get a fair ammount of our subjective desire satisfied.

Democratically, and according to egalitarian principles.

Not to mention we're again as individuals subject to what the communes decide to offer to us, rather than pursuing what we want ourselves.

Just as in capitalism, only this time you have the right of democratic participation.

The worker can negotiate a pay with the employer. Under communism your pay is equal to everyone elses thus you cannot choose to work for X ammount of money. You can only work to keep your place in society and contribute to the greater good.

But the "freedom" you suggest is not really "freedom" at all; it is freedom that necessarily comes at the expense of another. In order for you to be paid more, another must be paid less.

You mean all the more reason to allow people to have the freedom to pursue their own subjective needs and decide what YOU value rather than be at the whim of a bureaucracy built to define them for you. No, I meant what I said; that there is no inherent right to exclusive use, and especially with scarce resources such a right shouldn't be granted.

Perhaps if human nature somehow changes and you bring forth a group of extremely like minded indiviudals to be the sole users of a particular resource. From the article it seemed to suggest that popular control will force people to co-operate with what they regard as "need" or the proper usage. Is this really your so called free society?I would say that as long as the person who takes the resources is using them, then that's fine; hoarding the resources or selling them is not.

The problem is that it makes us less than free. It makes us dependent on others, and thus subject to their wills.
.

And how is this different than collectivist anarchism. We are dependent on society to provide us with our needs and the goods for a decent life. The only difference is we are "free" to democratically allocate resources we have not earned.


We have to get someone to do something for us in order not only to live a decent life, but to live at all. This is not a necessity of life itself; it is a necessity of life only in a society with a high degree of division of labor and property rights independent of use.
.

And again in collectivist anarchism do we suddenly have a decent life without others having to farm food, built houses design new technology etc..



Yes, and as a worker you still have to choose where to work. But you not only have this choice, but you can also participate in the decisions these institutions make, to ensure that they meet your needs.
.

So as a worker investing nothing other than yourself and potentially having no economic/production or market skills you suddenly have equal standing with an ex market executive with years of experiance? And what of inefficient companys that suffer from this poor way of running things that can no longer to produce whatever they are producing and cater to these "needs" workers have.


Same legal rights, yes, but that is meaningless. Legal rights are class-blind. I may have the right to eat, but that doesn't help me if I have no money. I may have the right to own a company, but if I don't have the money to own one, that doesn't stop me from being exploited.
.

You have a right to eat. You don't have a right to take food someone else has harvested. Otherwise why would he harvest it (unless society forces him to). Similarly if I want a company no one will make one from thin air for me, I can take out a loan, form a partnership with a friend. Either way it merrits a big risk lots of inicitive and hard work. Its the reason potential pay offs are so big.


The important point is that there are certain kinds of property - like the ownership of slaves and like the ownership of the means of production in an economy like ours - that are incompatible with genuine freedom.
.

Meaningless comparison. Just because slavery is wrong because it violates essential human rights does not make building, buying or loaning a basic machine wrong.



Okay, you "don't condone the violence." Great, I agree. I don't condone it either. But you're missing the point - if you really want to claim property rights as they exist today are legitimate, you have to somehow get around the fact that the present distribution of property is just the result of a prior distribution based on massive theft.
.

So because a long time ago some property was wrongly taken by force we should erase all the progress and legitimate trades and production that has occured in the hundreds of years since... er yeah I'm not buying it.


To defend myself, no. To defend property that I have a right to, no. To defend my factory in Thailand from an uprising by its workers, yes.
.

And why do I not have the right to set up a business in Thailand. Thailand need as many businesses as they can get at the moment.
If I have the right to trade goods and amass money. Than why can I not sell off what I have an start a business or factory anywhere and get volunteers to agree for a trade between labour/time and money.


A deal between a worker and a capitalist is "voluntary" in a certain sense, sure - but if the capitalist has no right to own the company in the first place, that consensual aspect is irrelevant. The deal is still unjust.
.

Sorry just to ask. New companys will need to be set up in collectivist anarchism to cater to new needs right?
Why will a collection of individuals on behalf of society be allowed to form a company but a collection of individuals who have traded to earn enough for start up costs any different.


Exchange requires a prior distribution of property; it does not spring out of nowhere. I cannot exchange what I do not already own.
.

You own yourself. You time. Your labour. Your mind. Do with it what you will, the aim of everyone in capitalism should be to extend what you can do with this for the best of your benefit.


I agree. That is why capitalism is tyranny. As far as "legitimately theirs," socialism is not all that much better (because the majority is capable of depriving the minority of freedom), but by making everyone partial owners it still does better than capitalism.
.


Again making everyone regardless of tallent, contribution or even desire to own equal is tyranny.


I deny that she should have more in the first place.
.

Do you not deny that individuals possess different tallents, skills, motivations, desire to work, luck and countless other factors. To simply ignore these traits and bunch everyone equally not only means holding back these individuals with better traits but to ultimately discourage them!


Absolutely. I believe in free association, that's one reason I'm an anarchist.
.

I beleive in free association its why I'm loosely a libertarian. People should be free to associate without needing the permission of society and be free to trade without it coming down to a democratic vote among other people.



Why should someone else have property rights that impede you?
.

Incentives, freedom the result of increased production and countless other reasons I've already mentioned throughtout the thread.



Said "third party" is the party enforcing property rights in the first place. How long do you think a capitalist would maintain ownership of a factory if the power of the state didn't protect her claim?
.

Who knows. How long will it take before the ownership of your comp last if no one would protect your right to own one. Or how long before some individuals attack others without fear of punishment if the state wouldn't protect individuals rights to not be attacked.


I am not against property beyond the right of use. I could not be and still be a socialist, because public ownership is not all that much more tied to the rights of use than private ownership; it merely alleviates the effect of the rejection of such rights more than private ownership does. What I am against is usurping the rights of use of people in order to establish such systems; in a decent world, property rights beyond the rights of use would only apply to freely-associating members of the society in which they existed. Non-members' rights of use would not be violated, but, on the other hand, they would not be capable of violating the rights of use of the community.
.

Why do people have a right to use products they had no had in creating. Even if they do have a hand in creating it that still doesn't merit having guarenteed use.
Lets say society has some private jets, I want to use them all day and don't like working much. In anarchism does anyone have a legitimate right to say I don't deserve to use this private jet. Or use a huge mansion that I enjoy sleeping in.
And if the community decides I've used it too much can they not simply say this on any issue. Thus all my actions come down to if the community will allow me to do it. Thats essentially slavery.



Similarly, I don't have a natural rights objection to capitalism per se, either; simply to capitalism as it exists today (and not enough of one to advocate overthrowing it in an undemocratic manner). A community that did not hoard resources, did not interfere with the rights of use of non-members (beyond the community's own collective right of use), and permitted its members to leave could legitimately adopt capitalism. I would oppose that decision, because I think public ownership is better than private ownership, but as long as it is the free choice of the community's members I would not interfere.
.

Capitlaism by definition gives the freedom to generate more resources than are directly "needed" for an individual.
Secoundly I assume you own the computer you're using to engage in this debate. Is your ownership not denying another person of access to the internet. (I don't care myself but by your arguements you dislike people preventing others from using something). And assuming you let others borrow your comp regularly. Do you also let others use your shower or your toothbrush? Because your ownership prevents another from using it..right?

Similarly if some people want to pool their resources voluntarily together to become subject to their own community control thats fine. I do have an issue should non willing individuals have their proerty taken by force (either via revolution or by 51% democratic approval)


Yes, it is. You are honestly saying that everyone has their subjective desires satisfied under capitalism?
.

No. Its up to them to have them fufilled themselves. And their dedication to have them fufilled is the only requirement in the equasion.



Just as in capitalism, only this time you have the right of democratic participation.

No one decided to GIVE you anything in capitalism. Its all done on the basis of trade for mutual benefit. A companys are dependent on labour just as the labour is dependent on the companys.

But the "freedom" you suggest is not really "freedom" at all; it is freedom that necessarily comes at the expense of another. In order for you to be paid more, another must be paid less.

Capitalism is not a zero sum game. This freedom creates new opportuites new roads and the increased efficiency and production means everyone is vastly better off than a restricted controlled system.

No, I meant what I said; that there is no inherent right to exclusive use, and especially with scarce resources such a right shouldn't be granted.
.

This is the only way to preserve these resources. Exclusive use of property is essential in allowing us to recieve the benefits of the labour we invest in preserving and improving these goods.


I would say that as long as the person who takes the resources is using them, then that's fine; hoarding the resources or selling them is not
.

And if these resources are hard to find. Take effort to extract or are extremely useful when improved with my efforts. Selling them for profit is the obvious reward for doing such services (assuming the market demands them).

This is the only way to preserve these resources. Exclusive use of property is essential in allowing us to recieve the benefits of the labour we invest in preserving and improving these goods.

You're jumping to conclusions. You are assuming that because the minority right to property has always existed, it must therefore always exist ad infinitum. Exclusive use of property gives the property owner the power and the right to coerce others into falling into line. If you don't own property, and you work for someone who does, your freedoms are limited to whatever the property owner will let you get away with him. If you talk to your boss the in same tone he/she talks to you, you get fired.
Profits exist only because of the acts of labor. Without labor, capital is barren and unproductive. Why should the capitalist be entitled to the full benefit of labor if all he does is own capital?

And if these resources are hard to find. Take effort to extract or are extremely useful when improved with my efforts. Selling them for profit is the obvious reward for doing such services (assuming the market demands them).

WHat if the resources you control are nescesary for the contiuation of human life? What if you own the supply of water? People can pay you your going rate for water, or they can die. There is no free choice. The resources of the world should belong to everyone, because everyone needs them in order to ensure the continued existence of civilization.

...that because the minority right to property has always existed...

:confused:

It has?

And how is this different than collectivist anarchism. We are dependent on society to provide us with our needs and the goods for a decent life. The only difference is we are "free" to democratically allocate resources we have not earned.

I have consistently granted that collectivist anarchism would not solve this problem. All I have pointed out is that it will alleviate it.

So as a worker investing nothing other than yourself and potentially having no economic/production or market skills you suddenly have equal standing with an ex market executive with years of experiance? And what of inefficient companys that suffer from this poor way of running things that can no longer to produce whatever they are producing and cater to these "needs" workers have.

The workers can appoint leaders if they so choose.

You have a right to eat. You don't have a right to take food someone else has harvested. Otherwise why would he harvest it (unless society forces him to).

If he did harvest it voluntarily while knowing that anyone would be allowed to take it (or that it would be sold), there is nothing wrong with it.

Similarly if I want a company no one will make one from thin air for me, I can take out a loan, form a partnership with a friend. Either way it merrits a big risk lots of inicitive and hard work. Its the reason potential pay offs are so big.

It also requires access to capital, and that is what advocates of capitalism miss.

Meaningless comparison. Just because slavery is wrong because it violates essential human rights does not make building, buying or loaning a basic machine wrong.

Way to miss the point.

If in fact I am right and property rights of a certain kind deprive people of freedom, as with property rights over slaves, such property rights are illegitimate.

Pointing out that in making that point I did not prove the premise that capitalist property rights deprive people of freedom (because I have discussed it elsewhere) is mere sophistry.

So because a long time ago some property was wrongly taken by force we should erase all the progress and legitimate trades and production that has occured in the hundreds of years since... er yeah I'm not buying it.

The problem is that you are using a process-based justification for capitalism when all the "legitimate trades" and "voluntary exchanges" you glorify are "voluntary exchanges" and "legitimate trades" of stolen goods.

It doesn't mean that the present owners deserve what they have.

And why do I not have the right to set up a business in Thailand. Thailand need as many businesses as they can get at the moment.

Sure, I have no problem with you doing so now. What you have no right to do is claim ownership over that factory in Thailand if it is challenged by those who have a more just claim - like the people who live there.

If I have the right to trade goods and amass money.

Let's give you that for a moment.

Than why can I not sell off what I have an start a business or factory anywhere and get volunteers to agree for a trade between labour/time and money.

If labor could magically produce goods, sure. It can't; it requires resources, and resources are scarce.

Sorry just to ask. New companys will need to be set up in collectivist anarchism to cater to new needs right?
Why will a collection of individuals on behalf of society be allowed to form a company but a collection of individuals who have traded to earn enough for start up costs any different.

If you are capable of starting a company without claiming land or other scarce resources, go right ahead.

You own yourself. You time. Your labour. Your mind.

And nothing else.

If you want to exchange labor with someone else, go right ahead.

Again making everyone regardless of tallent, contribution or even desire to own equal is tyranny.

Maybe the last of three, but not the first two. Neither talent nor contribution, in and of itself, gives anyone the right to inequality.

Incentives, freedom the result of increased production and countless other reasons I've already mentioned throughtout the thread.

Bought at the price of freedom?

Again, societies should be able to create forms of property beyond the rights of use if they see fit to benefit the common good (and to switch between those forms of property), but they should also abide by the rights of non-members. Furthermore, any such arrangement would be closer to a sort of social renting of certain goods to "owners," rather than inviolable ownership; this is because the "ownership" is justified by the advancement of the common welfare rather than by any sort of natural right. As such, there is no reason such societies could not regulate such "ownership" as they saw fit.

I beleive in free association its why I'm loosely a libertarian. People should be free to associate without needing the permission of society and be free to trade without it coming down to a democratic vote among other people.

Free to trade what they rightfully own, yes. Free to trade what they do not rightfully own, no.

Who knows. How long will it take before the ownership of your comp last if no one would protect your right to own one. Or how long before some individuals attack others without fear of punishment if the state wouldn't protect individuals rights to not be attacked.

The difference is that the only real connection the capitalist has to her factory in Thailand is a legal one; my computer, on the other hand, is in my home, naturally recognizable as "mine."

Individuals do have the right to self-defense, and while our governments have constrained this capability of late, this need not be the case.

Why do people have a right to use products they had no had in creating.

Why do property owners have a right to use resources - land, for instance - that they had no hand in creating?

Even if they do have a hand in creating it that still doesn't merit having guarenteed use.

No, it doesn't.

Lets say society has some private jets, I want to use them all day and don't like working much. In anarchism does anyone have a legitimate right to say I don't deserve to use this private jet. Or use a huge mansion that I enjoy sleeping in.

In a society, the rights of use would be constrained.

And if the community decides I've used it too much can they not simply say this on any issue. Thus all my actions come down to if the community will allow me to do it. Thats essentially slavery.

No, it isn't. You are always free to disassociate, as in capitalism. The difference is that you can be an active participant in the decisions that affect you (with the others whom the decision affects).

Capitlaism by definition gives the freedom to generate more resources than are directly "needed" for an individual.

So?

Secoundly I assume you own the computer you're using to engage in this debate. Is your ownership not denying another person of access to the internet. (I don't care myself but by your arguements you dislike people preventing others from using something). And assuming you let others borrow your comp regularly. Do you also let others use your shower or your toothbrush? Because your ownership prevents another from using it..right?

You are being disingenuous. I have already explained the distinction between ownership and use.

Similarly if some people want to pool their resources voluntarily together to become subject to their own community control thats fine. I do have an issue should non willing individuals have their proerty taken by force (either via revolution or by 51% democratic approval)

Their "property" that they have no right to?

No. Its up to them to have them fufilled themselves. And their dedication to have them fufilled is the only requirement in the equasion.

Self-contradictory. What is "dedication" but the willingness to suppress one's "subjective desires" in the pursuit of some objective?

No one decided to GIVE you anything in capitalism. Its all done on the basis of trade for mutual benefit.

We have already gone over the uselessness of "mutual benefit" as a positive indicator.

A companys are dependent on labour just as the labour is dependent on the companys.

Maybe, but the owners of the company are rarely dependent on the company making the little more profit hiring a new worker would garner them. Their independence tends to give them far more bargaining power than the worker seeking employment.

Capitalism is not a zero sum game. This freedom creates new opportuites new roads and the increased efficiency and production means everyone is vastly better off than a restricted controlled system.

Now you change the issue.

You were maintaining that capitalism is a freer system because I am free to earn a higher wage than others. This might make capitalism more effective; it does not make it freer, unless the worker who is deprived of her equal share agrees to give it to me.

And if these resources are hard to find. Take effort to extract or are extremely useful when improved with my efforts. Selling them for profit is the obvious reward for doing such services (assuming the market demands them).

No, it isn't a "service." It's mere usurpation.

Let's say finding or improving the resources is really a service people want me to do. They make a deal with me - I'll find or improve the resource and give it to them, and in trade they'll do something for me. I do so; mutual benefit ensues, without exploitation.

So why would I want to claim exclusive control, independently of use, over a resource that I claim I have "improved"? Only so that I may deny others the opportunity to use the resource. The labor can be exchanged in other ways.

:confused:

It has?

In a historical context, sadly it has. Somewhere in the world, at any time there has been written history, there has been private property. Communalist societies, tragically, have been systematically exterminated by property based societies.

i consider myself leninist, but i created Saint Revan as a corporate police state, and now im trying to make it a socialist government. i agree with the "original" commuism (marxism and leninism) when it was free and promising, but stalin and other communists ruined that. now communism seems to be like Oceania in "1984." i oppose that. ive never worn a che guevara shirt, but if they made a lenin shirt, I'd wear that. all in all, leninism and the original marxism (not the stuff that was twisted and corrupted by stalin) is the way to utopia. :fluffle:It was free and promising under Lenin?

Might I remind of the birth of the KGB, the Gulag system, the deportations, the summary executions and the war of aggression against Poland?
Loath as I am to agree with the evil capitalist enemy Andaluciae, he's right. Marxism and Leninism are both nearly as bad as Stalinism - Kronstadt Rebellion, anyone?

#1: Anything by Michael Moore is automatic bullshit. Or else I may as well start quoting Fred Phelps and Rush Limbaugh to retort. C'mon, use scholarly resources. Otherwise I can get this sort of thing by flipping between CNN and FOX news.

#2: Valid. But look at the end of that same article:
Conservatives also took issue with the study's findings that Americans of all income groups lost less of their earnings on average to federal taxes in 1997 than in 1979. They noted that if the reporting period started just two years later -- in 1981, the first year of President Reagan's big tax cut -- the tax burden would show a drop for all but the best-off one-fifth of Americans.
Starting the comparison in 1979 is "really stacking the deck," said Ralph Rector, a tax analyst at Heritage.

Of course I detest the absurd scale that CEO pay has risen on.

#3: (A link would have been helpful, here). Okay, so what about it? Don't you think that some reasons why the US has a higher Gini are because it has less favorable welfare laws, more immigrants and a larger populace?
#1. Now, maybe, but back when that was made (and broadcast on NBC, Fox, and BBC), less so. I will try find other sources, but bear in mind that evaluation of a healthcare system and its quality is a highly subjective thing, depending on what you value highest.
#2. Once again backing up my point about statistics proving anything. (Point of interest - this fact came from the same Michael Moore book...)
#3. I don't see why the Gini coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) isaffected by population, but for some reason it is. Point taken. However, I see having unfair welfare laws as exploitative. As for the immigrants, you seem to be justifying paying them less... Am I right? Nonetheless, there is a correlation between how economically liberal a country is, and how high its Gini coefficient is, at least within developed countries.

Wiki is great for light research, but I somehow doubt that it has the veracity of TIME Magazine. After all it is editable by everyone. :)
TIME is not quality journalism, to be honest... Some daily newspapers I read have far higher journalistic standards. But that's a personal opinion. UN-HABITAT do not make it easy to find stats on this. This (http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/ifup/conf/soniafayman.doc) is the best I can do. It says that the US and the EU have similar numbers of homeless people (say, between 3 and 3.5 million, which jibes well with the level of homelessness in Britain). Remember, though, that the EU has about half the population again of the US.

Which is correct if you're reading it from an educational point of view -- that's how it's described in The Manifesto. However, real world experience has shown that once there is a dictatorship of the proletariat, that they have no incentive to move to the final phase: after all, they are getting rich in a land of supposedly no riches.

The chief problem with Communism is that the only time it has ever worked was in ancient Sparta: and that was because the Spartans had outlawed currency. Each family had a house of the same size, drinking vessels, sheep, clothes etc exactly as everyone else.
The point you make about the "dictatorship of the proletariat", or party dictatorship if you have a Leninist party, is totally correct. There is absolutely no incentive for the party elite to give up their cushy positions - just like theres is no incentive for capitalists to give up theirs. But, of course, the capitalists don't have the advantage of having their population totally subjugated...
I would oppose Spartan 'communism' for the same reason I oppose Marxist 'communism' - they are authoritarian in character, and don't give control of the means of the production to the people.

In a historical context, sadly it has. Somewhere in the world, at any time there has been written history, there has been private property.

You are limiting yourself to a fairly small time frame of the human species' existence.

You are limiting yourself to a fairly small time frame of the human species' existence.

Unfortunately, its hard to prove what societies before recorded history were like. To the minds of most people, private property has always historically existed. And quite frankly, most people only care about recorded history.

#1. Now, maybe, but back when that was made (and broadcast on NBC, Fox, and BBC), less so. I will try find other sources, but bear in mind that evaluation of a healthcare system and its quality is a highly subjective thing, depending on what you value highest.

Bullshit = bullshit, punditry = pundrity.
Yes, it is subjective. But at no point has my theorem of "most doctors + cheapest price = not necessarily the best" been disproven.

#2. Once again backing up my point about statistics proving anything. (Point of interest - this fact came from the same Michael Moore book...)

Huh? The thing is a waffle!

#3. I don't see why the Gini coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) isaffected by population, but for some reason it is. Point taken. However, I see having unfair welfare laws as exploitative. As for the immigrants, you seem to be justifying paying them less... Am I right? Nonetheless, there is a correlation between how economically liberal a country is, and how high its Gini coefficient is, at least within developed countries.

Unfair? That there are ANY wefare laws are exploitive in my mind -- I'm paying for people not to work! Fuck that, I want my streets clean and no lines at the DMV.

Not at all. Immigrants deserve the same pay for the same work -- it's a job after all. I don't care if a doctor is a black lesbian Catholic Republican or a white straight Satanist that likes Kelly Clarkson. I just want the best. I focused on immigrants because (and my own parents are examples here) they have to learn English, and that costs time and income earning.

There is also a correlation between how north a country is and the number of hockey teams it has. Does this mean that New Zealanders can't play hockey? Of course not.

TIME is not quality journalism, to be honest... Some daily newspapers I read have far higher journalistic standards. But that's a personal opinion.

Yeah, but I had to cancel my subscription to the NY Times after Bush was elected in 2001, as the "Gray Lady" has swung left of Dick Gephart, and IT has ceased to be the "newspaper of record". :(

UN-HABITAT do not make it easy to find stats on this. This (http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/ifup/conf/soniafayman.doc) is the best I can do. It says that the US and the EU have similar numbers of homeless people (say, between 3 and 3.5 million, which jibes well with the level of homelessness in Britain). Remember, though, that the EU has about half the population again of the US.

The page http://www.unhabitat.org:80/programmes/ifup/conf/soniafayman.doc cannot be found

HTTP 404 - File not found
Information Services Section
UN-HABITAT

...but even so, the point is being missed: that the US has such a low level of homelessness is a great achievement and a testament that capitalism works.
Ah, if only there were records of the ACTUAL homelessness in (say) 1980 Poland or 1951 Soviet Union.

The point you make about the "dictatorship of the proletariat", or party dictatorship if you have a Leninist party, is totally correct. There is absolutely no incentive for the party elite to give up their cushy positions - just like theres is no incentive for capitalists to give up theirs. But, of course, the capitalists don't have the advantage of having their population totally subjugated...

Exactly. At least in Capitalism, in theory anyone can rise to a "cushy" post. There are thousands and thousands of examples.

I would oppose Spartan 'communism' for the same reason I oppose Marxist 'communism' - they are authoritarian in character, and don't give control of the means of the production to the people.

Sparta was a special case since the people literally WERE the state.
All male Spartans (aged 30+) were in their Apella, which were held monthly. Any one of them could become an Ephor, and possibly King (if he could prove a drop of blood from either of the two bloodlines, which practically any Spartan could).

This is the only way to preserve these resources. Exclusive use of property is essential in allowing us to recieve the benefits of the labour we invest in preserving and improving these goods. I don't know about that; I'm concerned with preserving the environment, and I don't use it exclusively, though I do use it.

And if these resources are hard to find. Take effort to extract or are extremely useful when improved with my efforts. Selling them for profit is the obvious reward for doing such services (assuming the market demands them).The market is in and of itself a poor reason for doing things as it is not the best indicator of whether or not something is a good idea.