A friend sent me this link: http://www.eternalrevolution.com/564/the-microcapitalist-manifesto-full-text-for-free/
I was not familiar with Chesterton, the Christian apologist, and with the term "microcapitalism." From what I've read, the author is analyzing capitalism from essentially a Marxist point of view.
Can anyone provide their thoughts on this document and perhaps any major criticism?
The employee’s wage, and any benefits, such as health insurance, are the only compensation they receive for their work. Seldom is such compensation equitable for the amount of capital produced by the labor.
Depending on how you interpret this, can be a slight departure from the labor theory of value, or a canonical case of it.
Their cost, that is, their compensation, must not exceed their output – otherwise, they are a liability.
Out of context, this quote sounds sane, but this fact is positioned as a bad thing.
What he paints in vivid colors after that, is the desciption of corporatism, not capitalism as we know it (free market). E.g., eminent domain and bailouts are part of capitalism? Seriously?
As a good Marxist should, the guy has some religious fear of "usury".
Well, so what is the microcapitalism? By definition, it is a special case of capitalism, in which capital is precluded from concentration in hands of a few people. Sounds like Yugoslavia of the Cold War times (please correct me here, my info comes only from Soviet sources).
Later comes a strawman of capitalism being based on profit only:
Self-interest and profit motive are not the same thing. In a Capitalist society, the terms profit motive and self-interest are used synonymously. However, to act in one’s own interest does not necessarily mean that making the most money, or exceeding your expenditures by the largest possible margin is your goal. Profit motive is a Capitalist term; self-interest is a Microcapitalist term.
This definitely does not apply to AE's vision - human action is analysed as driven by self-interest, not just monetary profit.
Ok, by this point I was fairly sure the proposed solution would be for the state to regulate capitalism so it is limited to microcapitalism. Surprisingly:
Microcapitalism is limited Capitalism; but it must be limited by the people directly, not the state.
Then the author goes on to describe how to arrive to microcapitalism by deregulation.
All in all, it looks like the author is a latent libertarian, coming to minarchism from Marxism point of view.
Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists. -G.K. Chesterton, The Uses of Diversity, 1921
@ MyVirtueMyVice (cool name btw)
I'll do a quick critique
The problem with Capitalism lies in its lack of limitations. Any definition of Capitalism states only that the people should own property, and that individual property should be protected from government control. There is no definition of Capitalism that states how much is too much for a single person or entity to own.
There is more to Capitalism than property, like Economic laws, such as the Law of Diminishing Returns, which deals with this whole "How much property is too much".
The employee trades their time and their work for the means for day-to-day living. If they do not work, they do not receive the means to survive. They do not control their compensation, and they must follow whatever commands they are given – even regarding such personal decisions as expression, recreational activities, or family matters – or else risk termination. In this way their situation is not unlike those of slaves, a class which has existed throughout human history. Slaves own nothing, not even themselves or the fruits of their labor. Their freedom is non-existent, and they must trade their toil for the means of survival.
I answer this on my blog... "for the most part, slavery involves a zero-sum game. In other words, one side wins, while the other loses. Capitalism is not a zero sum game though. When two parties trade, they both benefit in the psych because in trade, and we trade because we value something MORE"
For this reason employees in a capitalistic society have been called wage-slaves. If this seems unjust, consider they have also been referred to by some, such as J.D. Salinger, as another long-standing class who sells themselves for the means of survival: prostitutes.
Yes, prostitution has a market in capitalism, is that a crime? nevertheless, can you say strawman comment
Employees quickly become viewed by the company they work for as part of the machine. Their cost, that is, their compensation, must not exceed their output – otherwise, they are a liability. Jobs and employee roles are defined so that a person fits an opening like a bolt fits a nut. Just about anyone meeting certain criteria will do. Recruiters brag about computer systems that scan a person’s qualifications and fit them to a job that uses similar terms to describe its requirements. How is this different from replacing a part from your car from a warehouse of various parts? People have become part of a machine, an asset just like the tools they use.
Yes, the propose of a business is to profit! Way to state the obvious. And yes if the worker is decreasing efficentcy or productivity, the worker will get fired, but why would one want to keep a worker that is inefficent or productivity in the first place. Clearly if the worker cares about his job or has to support a family, he would put some effort into his work. The whole analogy of workers as machine parts is invalid because business gives wages to their employees. In this trade, the workers benefit from wage and the business benefits from the productivity revenue created by the employee. Thus, both parties benefit.In the parts example, the parts do not benefit directly from the machine.
As companies grow, more of their customers become their employees. When the company cuts staff or wages to improve profitability, they reduce the buying power of their own employees. In this way they resemble a snake eating their own tail.
(This guy sucks at analogies, maybe he should stop with those :p) Well first off if a company CUTS ITS STAFF, the person is not an employee anymore is he/she? But if employees feel that these cuts hurt them, then quit. All buisnesses are in competition with each other in regards to wages and working conditions, thus it is rare for a company, that is competing with all other companies, to just cut wages without something effecting the market.
With almost limitless resources, the few capitalists still free had the means to run for political office or support the campaigns of those who protected their interests. News was delivered to citizens by means of only a handful of companies, and thus could be influenced by those subsidizing the media with advertising dollars. Once a political career was over, many politicians could look forward to a well-paying job in the private sector. Bribery took on new forms such as employment and lucrative business contracts. Education became a means to the end of supplying workers who fit job descriptions, who would be less likely to challenge authority and more likely to fall in line. Those who posed a problem were dealt with in several ways, such as expulsion, or personality altering medications. In other cases, the government directly interfered in private affairs to benefit large corporate interests. In the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing residential property owners to surrender their property to a large corporation, because the exchange was supposed to benefit the community at large. In other words, a corporation could petition a city or township to seize property owned by citizens, if they could show their plans would create more jobs. In 2008, the U.S. Government passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which authorized the expenditure of up to $700 billion, paid by citizens through taxes, to private financial companies. Struggling automaker General Motors received over $50 billion, driven by fear that if the manufacturer failed, the lost jobs would cripple the national economy. The justification for the use of public funds to aid private corporations was that the companies were “too big to fail” and had to be subsidized by taxpayers.
Education became a means to the end of supplying workers who fit job descriptions, who would be less likely to challenge authority and more likely to fall in line. Those who posed a problem were dealt with in several ways, such as expulsion, or personality altering medications.
In other cases, the government directly interfered in private affairs to benefit large corporate interests. In the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing residential property owners to surrender their property to a large corporation, because the exchange was supposed to benefit the community at large. In other words, a corporation could petition a city or township to seize property owned by citizens, if they could show their plans would create more jobs.
In 2008, the U.S. Government passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which authorized the expenditure of up to $700 billion, paid by citizens through taxes, to private financial companies. Struggling automaker General Motors received over $50 billion, driven by fear that if the manufacturer failed, the lost jobs would cripple the national economy. The justification for the use of public funds to aid private corporations was that the companies were “too big to fail” and had to be subsidized by taxpayers.
This is not a critique on capitalism, per se, because capitalism means privatization of all goods/services. A government influenced by capitalism is a mixed economy based system. I am just as critical to state capitalism as this guy is in his statement but like I said, this doesnt apply to capitalism(maybe I should be more specific and say this does not apply to free market capitalism).
Like Scylla, Capitalism requires the sacrifice of some citizens for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, in the case of Capitalism, it is the many that are sacrificed for the benefit of the few.
Not true... like I said before, when two parties trade, BOTH BENEFIT!!! If I trade a tie for your pen that means I value the pen, that you have, more than I value the tie that I have. And if you accept the trade, you value the tie that I have more than the pen that you have. Since we both value eachothers items MORE, then we benefit from ALL legit trade.
I'll stop there
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
It's mostly a sob story."Not fair" arguments against capitalism all over the place.\
The author fails to understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
He says so here, I hope I didn't misunderstand him though. the few capitalists still free had the means to run for political office or support the campaigns of those who protected their interests.
I couldn't read more, it's mostly a a silly view of capitalism. Especially the part of Aristotle and usury "evil". No, I should just lend money like that for free without expecting anything in return, try it out with all your cash, see how that works.
Also from my limited understanding of English, he defines microcapitalism as the "means of production in the hands of the individual", that's anarcho-collectivism and does not work. There are tons of books that refute syndicalism. A dumbed down version is http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/22547/396621.aspx#396621
Valject and John nailed it.
The author has a problem with definitions. Capitalism is chiefly concerned with the State taking private property or redistributing it. Microcapitalism is concerned with every individual’s right to property.
I think he is either dumb or playing the semantics game. According to him, his system protects individual property by letting everyone own property.
While some of these masters of capitalism were philanthropic with some of their earnings, their fortunes were made by denying capital to those who earned their fortunes. Credit for Carnegie Hall belongs to Andrew Carnegie as much as the Great Pyramids are the work of the Pharaohs. In both cases the master
And this is where he crossed the line. Comparing Andrew Carnegie with the Pharaos is the most erroneus statement one can ever make. No, I'm too tired to point out why, do I really have to? ...(It's not because I have his picture as my avatar, if that's what you are thinking).
Many capitalists were too greedy; working their employees long and for extremely low pay. The employees joined together in unions to protect their interests, but even then they were already broken. They demanded better working conditions, better hours, better pay. They were still content to be slaves, to sell their labor outright for much less than it was worth.
If you know this genius in real life, ask him, who decides what low pay is? exploited according to whom?
And what is "too greedy" to him?
Money is at once the most versatile form of capital, but also the most worthless. Its value continually shifts, generally downward with inflation. It does nothing in and of itself, and it alone is insufficient to meet the basic needs of any human being.
ORRLYY!!!!!
By the end of the 20th Century, the industrial revolution had created a culture of consumerism almost around the world. Giant companies controlled millions of employees, able to make policies more binding and restrictive than law through the simple threat of firing. Instead of fearing big government, corporations became the villains in the dystopian nightmares of movies, books and television. Governments around the world were so entangled, influenced, and even controlled by big business it no longer mattered to the average citizen who was elected to office.
cONSUMERISM, Oh God not this jababbajabba again.
Does the author ever realize that corporations are the villains created by big governement. A anarchist society, let alone a limitgov society cannot have corporations control the economy. That should be obvious.
Computers which filled rooms in the 1950s were outclassed in power by wristwatches made in the 1990s. In time, desktop computers became far more affordable than automobiles, and far more versatile than any other tool mankind had created.
Oh, so you like capitalism!!! By your definition it's evil but you praise it for bringing you computers?
And then came the Internet.
The industrial revolution’s mass production had created the tools for its own destruction. Producers were now connected to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, large companies still had control over their most valuable and crucial asset – their human employees.
Alleluhia brother!!
Even as the companies laid off and fired hundreds of thousands of employees, the employees clung to the empty promises and oppression under which they had lived so long. Just as the Hebrews who had recently been delivered from Egyptian slavery begged to return to their oppression, so too did the workers of the world seek to remain or return to their tyrannical rulers even as they were set free
Apparently me, Drewie the paper boy is no different then a Jew under Egyptian Pharaos.
Employers, having already enslaved the body of their employees, were quick to also ensure they owned the minds of their slaves. Employment contracts included “Work for Hire” clauses that gave the employer rights to any ideas, systems, concepts or works that the employee developed. After a profitable idea was produced, the employer had every right to dispose of the employee and keep the productive property, or continue to pay the employee a regular wage while the employee’s property produced millions of dollars for his employer.
He doesn't seem to understand the term "voluntary" and "contract". No one forced anyone to sell their work. The employee fully agreed to the consequences, if he didn't like the consequences he wouldn't have chosen the job. Also the employee agreed to work on his property and his investment.
Why Microcapitalism?
Do tell....
Consider a meadow, with a single tree and millions of blades of grass. Science tells us that grass is the most important plant on earth for animal life, including humans, on Earth. But the tree competes with the grass for its nourishment – it requires the nutrients and water in the soil the grass also needs. It also requires the sun’s light, as does the grass. However, when full of leaves, the tree blocks the light from the grass. If water or nutrients are scarce, the tree monopolizes the precious resources, and the grass withers. While size and type are factors, a single tree produces enough oxygen for two people a year. The same oxygen output can be produced by a patch of grass that is 36 feet long and 36 feet wide.
I found this funny, sorry. I love where he is going with it.
If we only consider the oxygen output, which system is better able to withstand failure? Would you rather be a leaf on the tree, or a leaf of grass? A leaf on the tree requires the trunk to nourish it. The leaf, in turn, produces food for the tree. If the leaf is plucked off, the leaf dies and the tree survives. If the tree dies, all the leaves die. If the tree cuts off nourishment to a particular branch, all the leaves on that branch die. The leaf is at the mercy of whatever happens to the tree.
This speaks for itself, the author is slowly discrediting himself.
A leaf of grass, however, is more closely connected to the network of roots. It lives or dies by the circumstances that directly affect it, not some other part of the plant. And there are many of them; the death of even a patch of grass does not have such catastrophic consequences as the death of a tree for the local ecosystem.
While the allegory cannot be perfect, it illustrates the difference between the two systems. Capitalism, unchecked, creates big businesses with thousands of employees, like the tree and its leaves. Microcapitalism, comprised of a more independent workforce distributed over many smaller businesses, has the resilient qualities of the grass.
What do we understand from this?.....
Trees are bad grass is good. Grass is better for humans. Although I see what he's trying to point out, this metaphor is no good.
Instead of workers having to fit a mold to become a part of a corporate machine, Microcapitalism works on the principle that people can produce and bring their products and services directly to the world marketplace on their own, or through much smaller enterprises.
Again, workers are capitalists and capitalists are workers. If one is not able to grasp that, then debating people like this is pointless.
Consider again Ayn Rand’s story of Atlas Shrugged. Henry Rearden, an ambitious capitalist and owner of a steel company, had invested his own time and money into a new kind of metal. Pressure was put on him to share his idea with the world and his competition, which Rand condemns.
I love Rand, I don't agree with her on many points. But I believe she was right. It was his property. He invested money, time and effort. All of these were his tools.
But what if Rearden didn’t own the company? What if he was a foreman, or another worker at the company, who put in the time to invent the new metal? His labor, his capital would instantly become the property of the company – and they were under no obligation to promote him, compensate him, or even retain him after that. In the best world, he would be rewarded, but Capitalism has no grounds to condemn such robbery. Many of us know of at least one instance where such a crime was committed. Thomas Edison did the very thing to Nikola Tesla, failing to deliver a promised bonus, or even a raise, in return for innovations from his brilliant assistant.
If Rearden didn't own the company all this belonged to the person who did, because we assume Rearden had agreed to work on his property for a certain wage. I can also personally assume that if Rearden had a great idea he wouldn't have shared it with his employer for free, he would have started his own company to compete.
Nikola Tesla was an idiot then, he shouldn't have agreed to work for Edison. How stupid can one be? You would rather invent "things" to give to your employer while hoping for a raise, hoping he likes you, or just go solo? If you don't have the nerve to go solo, then you deserve what you get.
To turn a phrase of Karl Marx’s: From each according to their ability, to each according to their production.
Basically, this is what would have happened if Marx decided to love capitalism.
There are already a number of methods companies can employ to justly compensate their staff. Paying by the rate of production, also called piece-rate, consists in paying each employee for the percentage of the total job they do. The company could be established as a cooperative, in which every employee receives a percentage of the profits the company earns. Not as options on stock in the company, but an actually cut of the earnings in excess of expenses. Companies can also give or sell the tools of the job to the employee; if the employee is terminated he takes the tools with him to start a new venture. His labor paid for the tools, they ought to belong to him by right. Finally, each employee can be an independent contractor of the company instead of an employee.
Ahh this crap again. Who decides what percentage? Why should the employee get payed more then the entrepeneur that invested in everything?
And please don't tell me he believes in paying everyone the exact value of what they do. According to him, if I understand correctly, if a worker who assembles a toy and the toy is sold for 35$ the worker should get the exact same value? What if the toy doesn't sell for that value? Should the worker pay back?
We cannot define Microcapitalist businesses in terms of revenue, number of employees or size. Whether or not employees are directly compensated for the value of their capital is the test.
Because you have absolutely no idea how it's going to work. You just sell dreams of how your lala land should be.
There are some institutions that thrive in unrestricted capitalism that will suffer under Microcapitalism. Merchants, such as retail stores, will have their role in society greatly reduced as producers reconnect with customers via the marketplace. The role of a manager will also be redundant. As businesses shrink, employees are given back the self-interest and fruits of their work – multiple levels of localized management staff will no longer be needed.
Everyone is just going to get along just like that?????? I suspect someone is going to pay the workers, I guess who that would be?
When workers unite, they shall not unify under an organization that will represent them as a whole, govern their demands, and in all ways form a small socialist community, as the unions have. Rather, each man will be seen as an independent practitioner of his trade within the organization. They shall be self-regulating, self-limiting, and overseen by those who have mastered the trade and earned mutual respect for having set an example of excellence. In this way, workers will form Guilds rather than Unions.
A union unites all men against a company for better wages; a Guild keeps scoundrels out of its organization so that the members’ reputation will be renown, and thus more desirable to clients. Being a member of a Guild shows competency, being part of a union shows you were only present to join a mob.
He's assuming that guilds are different then unions.
The medical profession is an example of a Guild in a modern form. Doctors are engaged in limited competition with each other, and they run their own practices, in most cases. They have the ability to inform, decide, and act as a body through their independent organizations which are self-regulating and managed by practitioners of their craft.
It doesn't ring in his head why prices are so high. If there were competition prices will be incredibly low.
No, let's write our own dictionary while we are at it. Definition:Profit is not in my self interest.
No that you've told us "what is", please say why.
Money is a tool of exchange, not real productive property. As it was stated earlier, money is the most versatile and yet worthless form of capital. It only represents capital. It can be traded for productive property, however it can also be squandered on luxuries, or lose value over time. It cannot be eaten, it cannot be worn or shelter you, or meet any human need on its own. On its own, it loses value, unless gambled in games of chance or in a financial market.
@#@!#@!#@!#@!#!@#!#!@#!@#!#!#!#!@
"real" productive property is what we need? And luxuries are bad apparently.
Also, you failed to answer on what the difference between profit motive and self-interest is. You expect us to swallow your definitions like that? You're just going to pass through?
Wealth is determined by the amount of productive property you control, not the amount of money you have.
@!#!@#!@#!@#!#!
A “good job” is not one where you serve at the whim of an employer in exchange for a wage for showing up. Educators and parents bring up children to get good grades in school, to get into a good college, where getting good grades gets you a good job. A good job means a steady, high-paying job. Not a rewarding job, not a difficult job, not a challenging or productive job. A job which anyone with similar training can do. A job where, if you don’t fit in, you can be terminated for no reason whatsoever. A job where you can lose your livelihood because the company can’t afford to pay you what they agreed to when they hired you.
That’s not exactly a good goal in life, much less a good job.
No one forces any goals on anyone. I think he's going to shove in the statement" Some jobs I determine bad forthesociety" by unionrevolte.
A job in which one simply shows up and receives a regular wage for their time from an employer is just as much on welfare as a person who receives welfare payments from the state. Everyone knows at least one person who does the absolute minimum to keep their job. Unionized workers and government employees in particular have safeguards preventing their termination, and some employees take advantage of the situation by riding out the clock. They show up, they get paid. Why do more?
The question is, why not do less? In a welfare state you get paid to be home and not work.
So it's not ok to get payed for your job, it's ok to get payed for nothing?
That's it, I'm tired of this crank.
Microcapitalism cannot promise equality. It cannot promise that every citizen will be master of his own personal capital. But it can promise a more sustainable, secure future for the country that adopts it and encourages its people to be responsible for their own welfare.
So now we're changing our minds?
To sum it up, like all socialists, it gets us here:
History has shown that when inequality of freedoms, property, and rights becomes too great, a redistribution eventually takes place. Often, the shift is violent, bloody, and unjust.
Even as this book is written the clouds of discontent are showing signs of a violent storm. It is not hard to see the anger turning to hatred in the future. Do not underestimate the cruelty of oppressed masses!
Just as Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea, so shall a banker be drowned in his own swimming pool. Just as the French rulers were beheaded, so shall bloody coups end civilized governments. Just as the abolition of slavery in the United States devastated the Southern economy, so shall new oppression rise in the violent wake of the next class war.
We have the tools, the means, and the ability to restore natural rights to productive property to all – peacefully and justly. If we fail to exercise them, if we hesitate to change, if we do not conduct the revolution peacefully now, the change will be forced upon us just as it was forced upon the great civilizations before us.
This is not the task for government. This is not a task for society, or for everyone. This is a task that must be undertaken by you.
We can change the world now, or pay in blood later.
So here's how it works, Tom and millions like him are too lazy too start their own business. They prefer to all unite to kill the ones they work for in order to remove inequality.I should have summed it all up like that, but then again I have a case of insomnia right now.
I've never heard about Chesterton. What other important works has he written?
"I've never heard about Chesterton. What other important works has he written?"
One of my favorite writers. He wrote mostly autobiographical-theological things: Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man are two of his tops.
I've also heard that his biography of Dickens is one of the best bios ever written.
He wasn't an economist so his writings on that are suspect. I've never read anything he's written on that, save for a few quotes.
It saddens me that not a single person has mentioned probably his most notable book, The Man Who Was Thursday. As for distributism, it might serve one better to examine Hillarie Bellock's The Servile State; out of the two, Bellock was a slightly more self-learned on such subject matter, imo.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
It's interesting to note that many white nationalists support distributism, because they don't seem to understand true capitalism.
It saddens me that not a single person has mentioned probably his most notable book, The Man Who Was Thursday.
I just finished that a few months ago. It's a hilarious jab at anarchists. All in good fun, though.
As a side note, Rothbard referred to Chesterton as one of his favorite authors. Not sure I have ever seen mention of why that was.
"It saddens me that not a single person has mentioned probably his most notable book, The Man Who Was Thursday. "
I read this as well, but I haven't heard that it was his most notable.
"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists. -G.K. Chesterton"
I don't understand this quote. It sounds like he's using two different definitions of capitalism in one statement. Is he saying that too much capitalism (i.e. too much private/public partnerships or crony capitalism) is indicative of their being too few capitalist (i.e. actors who respect private property rights, NAP, etc.)?
I understand "too few" as "concentrated". The author is extremely worried by capital being concentrated in hands of the few.