Post for JimmyJazz or whoever else wishes to engage.
First off I know that since you are vastly outnumbered on this forum your placed at a disadvantage at the rate of which you can respond to every single individuals point. No matter how frivilous their argument may be. I realize that there are children everywhere. Posting on a forum with opposing ideologies while keeping your composure tells us bounds about your maturity and character. I'd just like to recognize that quality about you and remind others here to keep that in mind and police their own posts with a tone of respect.
That said you made a post about on another thread where you stated.
JimmyJazz Said,
I will give a very broad type of answer to how I think production might be planned "under socialism": it would be coordinated using, at the minimum, all of the same methods that General Motors has at its disposal to plan production internally. Corporations don't have an internal market; they don't have internal prices. Corporations are giant islands of planning in a sea of markets, of cooperation in a sea of competition. Also, central "planning" is of course not the only option available to a democratic society for directing the productivity of whatever wealth it controls. I'm sure you are familiar with Lange's ideas, and it's unclear that "planning" which follows market inputs as he proposes is really engaging in "planning" at all.
First off I would love to contend this point as I think in my opinion it is very easy. However I'd like to present an entirely different angle at you and get your opinion and comments from you if you would be willing to share.
Lets say hypothetically speaking that we live in a world where the political and economical ideologies that you promote(True stateless communism, or any other ideology you agree to) are in practice. Lets even go so far as to say that the system in place actually works and that natural resources are adequately distributed around the area where this system is being practiced.
My questions are as follows In the context of this utopian world:
1) Would it be permited for me to optionally leave this society to live in isolation on my own outside of the system. Far out in the country by my own rules, far away from all others in the modern commune. Hypothetically assuming I could do no harm to anyone else and realizing I would have to tend the land myself to provide for myself? Would this be allowed?
2) Could others join me by their own will choose to live by me and my land producing their own fruits. Hypothetically assuming we would not effect the modern commune as we know it?
3) Lets say a small village decides to form around my area deep in the mountains and isolated away from the modern commune. We create our own trading system based on the Anarcho-Capitalist ideologies. We keep our beleifs, ideologies, and economic systems to ourselves confined in our own village. Would this be permitted by the modern commune?
3a)IF yes, would we be granted or allowed to trade with the Modern Commune?
3b) For the sake of argument we may find that the Modern Commune is capable of providing all the needs for itself, and that there is no desire to trade with my village as we would have nothing to offer. Would we still be permitted to live by our own rules in our own way completly isolated from the systems you promoted and live by?
Thanks for your time.
JimmyJazz : I will give a very broad type of answer to how I think production might be planned "under socialism": it would be coordinated using, at the minimum, all of the same methods that General Motors has at its disposal to plan production internally. Corporations don't have an internal market; they don't have internal prices. Corporations are giant islands of planning in a sea of markets, of cooperation in a sea of competition. Also, central "planning" is of course not the only option available to a democratic society for directing the productivity of whatever wealth it controls. I'm sure you are familiar with Lange's ideas, and it's unclear that "planning" which follows market inputs as he proposes is really engaging in "planning" at all.
Let's not forget that GM went bankrupt.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Insofar as "corporations" (I assume that this means large limited liabilty joint stock companies integrated into the white market, in this context) don't have internal markets or internal prices, they are islands of calculational chaos. The only thing that then keeps them from being out-competed by alternative organizational forms is state violence, whether direct or indirect.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
I ma not too sure we will see JJ here, but I will repost my questions to see if he answers...
I have questions, this coming from a "worker" mind you....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
filc:First off I know that since you are vastly outnumbered on this forum your placed at a disadvantage at the rate of which you can respond to every single individuals point. No matter how frivilous their argument may be. I realize that there are children everywhere. Posting on a forum with opposing ideologies while keeping your composure tells us bounds about your maturity and character. I'd just like to recognize that quality about you and remind others here to keep that in mind and police their own posts with a tone of respect.
Thanks. I'll probably just reply to whichever comments jump out to me as something I have a good answer for. I'm not going to stretch myself too much to try an answer a question that really isn't in the realm of what I've spent my time considering before, because I wouldn't even be giving a very quality answer if I did.
filc:Lets say hypothetically speaking that we live in a world where the political and economical ideologies that you promote(True stateless communism, or any other ideology you agree to) are in practice. Lets even go so far as to say that the system in place actually works and that natural resources are adequately distributed around the area where this system is being practiced. My questions are as follows In the context of this utopian world
My questions are as follows In the context of this utopian world
To be honest, I wonder if you understand in what way Marxism was a break from previous socialist thought.
This will be frustrating to some people, as it was once frustrating to me when, as a pretty free-market guy, I engaged with socialists. However, here is my honest answer: I don't have a blueprint for the "future" socialist society. I've read some interesting books that float ideas, and I've read a bit about the economies of the Soviet Union (central planning) and Yugoslavia (workers' self-management), as well as Oscar Lange's version of "Market Socialism" (not a mixed economy, but rather one in which a single central producer used a 'market', i.e. trial and error pricing, to assess demand for various goods). But ultimately, I no longer identify myself with any one of these. My viewpoint is grounded in the labor theory of value, and the consequent entitlement which I believe that the producing class(es) have to whatever value they create (which is all value). How they end up doing that is a matter of history. I'd like to see the movement be very grassroots and bottom-up; and I'd like it to be as peaceful and as libertarian/non-statist as possible. But I am open to any type of society which the working class might devise in which no one commands the labor of anyone else.
This is the difference between Marxism and the so-called (by Engels) "utopian socialists", who believed that socialism would be the result of implementing the ideas of "this or that universal reformer" (to paraphrase from memory).
Now that that point is out of the way, I promise not to bring it up again. Because it can tend to be used as an excuse not to give a better answer, and makes some Marxists very slippery debaters, at least seemingly so to those who want concrete policy proposals to argue with. But it is a fundamentally true thing about my perspective and had to be said.
filc:1) Would it be permited for me to optionally leave this society to live in isolation on my own outside of the system. Far out in the country by my own rules, far away from all others in the modern commune. Hypothetically assuming I could do no harm to anyone else and realizing I would have to tend the land myself to provide for myself? Would this be allowed? 2) Could others join me by their own will choose to live by me and my land producing their own fruits. Hypothetically assuming we would not effect the modern commune as we know it? 3) Lets say a small village decides to form around my area deep in the mountains and isolated away from the modern commune. We create our own trading system based on the Anarcho-Capitalist ideologies. We keep our beleifs, ideologies, and economic systems to ourselves confined in our own village. Would this be permitted by the modern commune? 3a)IF yes, would we be granted or allowed to trade with the Modern Commune? 3b) For the sake of argument we may find that the Modern Commune is capable of providing all the needs for itself, and that there is no desire to trade with my village as we would have nothing to offer. Would we still be permitted to live by our own rules in our own way completly isolated from the systems you promoted and live by?
All of this is fine with me.
In fact, I am against the nation-state as such; no single entity should have a monopoly of power on such a large territory. I'd prefer to have cities--or something equivalently large--be granted political autonomy. (And as a matter of fact, I'm convinced that if they were, most cities would have gone socialist by now. See: Paris 1871, St. Louis 1877, Petrograd 1917, Seattle 1919, parts of Germany 1918-19, parts of Spain 1936...).
I don't have any kind of practical idea as to how to decentralize the power of the nation-state to such a degree, however, while capitalism still exists. I believe that the modern state evolved out of the needs of a capitalist economy for centralization over a wide territory (read as: a large market), and that imperialism arose when even these territories proved too confining for the needs of the giant modern commodity producers. (See Michael Tigar's book, Law and the Rise of Capitalism.) So, while the material basis for large nation-states still exists, large nation-states will still exist; I don't see any way around this.
I think you'll find that I am extremely open to anti-statist ideas, and that I greatly prefer anti-statist solutions over statist ones. But I don't base my whole philosophy around anti-statism, and I think it is silly to do so for the following reasons. The state, like violence, is a means of struggle. Within societies in which a great wealth disparity exists, there is a real, material conflict between rich and poor; this is especially true in those societies where the relationship between rich and poor takes the form of the former commanding the labor of the latter (I can recommend some excellent labor history books if you are interested). So, if a real, material basis for conflict exists, then a conflict or the immediate potential for conflict will always exist. You can't just wish this away because it happens to make your job of social analysis messier (for instance, you think capitalism perfectly serves people as consumers, and don't want to be bothered considering that as three-dimensional economic beings, humans also occupy a role as producers).
And if a conflict exists, then the things which can act as tools in this struggle--such as the state or physical coercion/violence--always have the potential to be used. You and I can renounce the state, or we can renounce violence; but there will always be some others on BOTH sides of the conflict between classes who will not hesitate to use the state and violence, sometimes to truly disgusting extremes. The 20th century is the evidence of this.
The only effective long term solution is the remove the material basis for social conflict, which is great disparities in wealth. Otherwise, anti-statism, or pacifism, are akin to the stance some people took during the Cold War of refusing to take sides in that conflict and instead focusing on anti-nuclear activism. Their stance was an admirable one, but what did they really achieve? Nothing; the threat of nuclear war arising from the Cold War disappeared only when the Cold War itself ended. No amount of anti-nuclear activism could have eliminated the risk while the Cold War continued.
Daniel: Let's not forget that GM went bankrupt.
Hehe. I was thinking as I wrote it that this might be a poor choice of corporation, but I was too lazy to even pull another name out of my hat. :)
Harry Felker:Exactly how does your beliefs justify stealing from me to benefit others?
A matter of perspective, or even semantics. What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value?
Too subjective a question to be seriously answered.
However, I would ask you to remember what it is, exactly, that I am proposing the working class "steal". It is not money, through taxes; it is productive capital. And of course when I advocate "stealing" it, I don't advocate transferring its ownership as private property of person X to private property of person Y, but rather that it should pass from private into collective ownership (=/= state ownership) and management.
The reason you threw me for a loop and made me think that perhaps you were addressing tax-and-spend liberal methods of wealth redistribution, as opposed to socialist ones, is because you said specifically that my proposed theft would "benefit" people. Yet, we all know that every society in which the socialist form of redistribution (i.e., collectivization of productive wealth) occured was a terrible hellhole to live in! So the word "benefit" made me think perhaps you were addressing some other form of theft besides the one I propose.
Ronald Coase kind of addressed this in his work on The Nature of the Firm.
Transactions costs exist, but only within smaller agencies and anything beyond that - like on a society level, simply doesn't work.
It's about limiting the structure really.
existence is elsewhere
GM buys metals and materials for its production on markets, and it buys the construction work to make its factories on markets as well. It designs its products to sell on markets. It simply is not correct that it is a microcosm of socialism. GM both buys capital goods and sells consumer goods on markets. It is because market prices for these goods exist that GM can plan. Or at least, it once did.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
JimmyJazz:All of this is fine with me.
JimmyJazz:I am against the nation-state as such; no single entity should have a monopoly of power on such a large territory. I'd prefer to have cities, or something equivalently large, be granted political autonomy. (And as a matter of fact, I'm convinced that if they were, most cities would have gone socialist by now. See: Paris 1871, St. Louis 1877, Petrograd 1917, Seattle 1919, parts of Germany 1918-19, parts of Spain 1936...).
Why is it OK then for a single entity to have a monoply of power on a small teritory like a city? Or am I misreading this?
JimmyJazz: I don't have any kind of practical idea as to how to decentralize the power of the nation-state to such a degree, however, while capitalism still exists. I believe that the modern state evolved out of the needs of a capitalist economy for centralization over a wide territory (read as: a wide market), and that imperialism arose when even these territories proved too confining for the needs of the giant modern commodity producers. (See Michael Tigar's book, Law and the Rise of Capitalism.) So, while the material basis for large nation-states still exists, large nation-states will still exist; I don't see any way around this.
I don't have any kind of practical idea as to how to decentralize the power of the nation-state to such a degree, however, while capitalism still exists. I believe that the modern state evolved out of the needs of a capitalist economy for centralization over a wide territory (read as: a wide market), and that imperialism arose when even these territories proved too confining for the needs of the giant modern commodity producers. (See Michael Tigar's book, Law and the Rise of Capitalism.) So, while the material basis for large nation-states still exists, large nation-states will still exist; I don't see any way around this.
I think this constitutes equivocation on what capitalism is. Capitalism=the free market. Mercantilism/Corporatism=some extent of government intervention on behalf of large corporations. By contrast the free market and by extention capitalism is the complete absence of government or collective itnervention in market processes. Large businesses do not need the government. Some do. Halliburton needs the government, whatever you think of them they rely on it. GM needs the government, whatever you think of them. However, Wal-Mart (whatever you think of them) satisfies consumer demands well and doesn't need government intervention.
JimmyJazz:You and I can renounce the state, or we can renounce violence; but there will always be some others on BOTH sides of the conflict between classes who will not hesitate to use the state and violence, sometimes to truly disgusting extremes. The 20th century is the evidence of this.
JimmyJazz:What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch?
JimmyJazz:What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value?
Why does Aerosmith performing earn them more money than my feces sculpture ever will? Because the potential consumers of Aerosmiths performance value the concert more than anyone would likely value a feces sculpture.
Why do I earn less than a doctor? Because there are less doctors people subjectively value their rare services higher.
Why do laborers earn what they earn? Because when they sell their labor it is subjectively valued at that price. Period. Who are you to impose your subjective valuation that they should earn more on the rest of the world?
@nerditarian
tbh I rather have your scuplture than watch listen to 2 hours of aerosmith.
If a worker agrees to work for $38 when the "full value" of what he is producing is $40, should the worker not be allowed to do so? If not, why not? Also, if a worker agrees to work for $38, however, the good he produces sells for $36, should the worker return the $2 to the capitalist since the worker didn't produce a good whose value was on par with his wage?
Eric: @nerditarian tbh I rather have your scuplture than watch listen to 2 hours of aerosmith.
A good objection but for the record it doesn't disprove the point. More people would prefer to see aerosmith than have my scupture. And those who like both value a concert higher than the sculpture. So my sculpture may have the market price of $7 whilst a ticket to any concert costs upwards of $50 for nose bleed seats.
Nerditarian: JimmyJazz:What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous.
Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible.
That said, I don't usually paint with a broad brush, so I really am assuming that most people on this site aren't monarchists.
Nerditarian:Not gonna even bother attacking marxian class theory and it's inconsistencies.
As I said before, I can recommend many good histories of labor struggles if you need them. Of course, I would imagine that you think these people, so perfectly rational as consumers, simply lost their minds when they decided to go on strike and engage in violent confrontations with those representing their employers' interests (this despite the fact that they were men with families).
Daniel: JimmyJazz:What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value? If a worker agrees to work for $38 when the "full value" of what he is producing is $40, should the worker not be allowed to do so? If not, why not? Also, if a worker agrees to work for $38, however, the good he produces sells for $36, should the worker return the $2 to the capitalist since the worker didn't produce a good whose value was on par with his wage?
I'm afraid that you and anyone else who replied to this missed the point of why I said it. My point was "let's not go down that road" of talking about what is "theft", because both sides can do it, and both sides reject the other side's attempt to do it, so it's not going to go anywhere.
JimmyJazz: Daniel: JimmyJazz:What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value? If a worker agrees to work for $38 when the "full value" of what he is producing is $40, should the worker not be allowed to do so? If not, why not? Also, if a worker agrees to work for $38, however, the good he produces sells for $36, should the worker return the $2 to the capitalist since the worker didn't produce a good whose value was on par with his wage? I'm afraid that you and anyone else who replied to this missed the point of why I said it. My point was "let's not go down that road" of talking about what is "theft", because both sides can do it, and both sides reject the other side's attempt to do it, so it's not going to go anywhere.
You were making a point? I thought it was a question. However, I think you're dodging the question, because I am assuming that "capitalists" "steal" "surplus value". It's a perfectly reasonable question. I didn't even question what theft was; I simply wanted clarification on this issue. If you don't want to answer these questions, please direct me to an article that does.
Daniel: JimmyJazz: Daniel: JimmyJazz:What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value? If a worker agrees to work for $38 when the "full value" of what he is producing is $40, should the worker not be allowed to do so? If not, why not? Also, if a worker agrees to work for $38, however, the good he produces sells for $36, should the worker return the $2 to the capitalist since the worker didn't produce a good whose value was on par with his wage? I'm afraid that you and anyone else who replied to this missed the point of why I said it. My point was "let's not go down that road" of talking about what is "theft", because both sides can do it, and both sides reject the other side's attempt to do it, so it's not going to go anywhere. You were making a point? I thought it was a question. However, I think you're dodging the question, because I am assuming that "capitalists" "steal" "surplus value". It's a perfectly reasonable question. I didn't even question what theft was; I simply wanted clarification on this issue. If you don't want to answer these questions, please direct me to an article that does.
If you thought it was a non-rhetorical question, that was because you didn't carefully read the context in which I said it. If you wish to stop being confused, I suppose I would suggest you go back and read that context now.
Of course, my questions had nothing to do with the context in which you said whatever it is you said. Nevertheless, please link me to articles (I am assuming you know where they are) where I can read answers to my questions. Thanks.
P.S. I was being sarcastic in the first two sentences of my previous post.
wombatron:Insofar as "corporations" (I assume that this means large limited liabilty joint stock companies integrated into the white market, in this context) don't have internal markets or internal prices, they are islands of calculational chaos. The only thing that then keeps them from being out-competed by alternative organizational forms is state violence, whether direct or indirect.
Do you say that corporations/large companies only exist, because there is state violence? What would be happening, if there is no state violence anymore.
JimmyJazz:Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible.
Daniel: Of course, my questions had nothing to do with the context in which you said whatever it is you said. Nevertheless, please link me to articles (I am assuming you know where they are) where I can read answers to my questions. Thanks. P.S. I was being sarcastic in the first two sentences of my previous post.
In that case, stop trying to derail every thread I post in with your own discussion agenda, please.
JimmyJazz: Daniel: Of course, my questions had nothing to do with the context in which you said whatever it is you said. Nevertheless, please link me to articles (I am assuming you know where they are) where I can read answers to my questions. Thanks. P.S. I was being sarcastic in the first two sentences of my previous post. In that case, stop trying to derail every thread I post in with your own discussion agenda, please.
It sure is easy for you to dodge questions.
Nerditarian: JimmyJazz:All of this is fine with me. So in your ideal socialist world people are absolutely free to choose to go live and trade with eachother? Couldn't they then basically recreate the market? If people are free to choose to return to market enclaves why not just pursue eliminating the State and then seeing what people really perfer?
Bingo. And the same applies in reverse. I find JimmyJazz's views on how anarchy would work hilarious, but he is our ally given that he is fine with our AnCap society and is for anarchy. The only disagreement we have is in how things will turn out and which society will be successful. That said, his Marxist views are based on fallacies that are easy enough to see, and he seems a rather smart fellow, so I reason that he will eventually be disabused of these notions. I only worry that when he drops his Marxist fallacies he may throw out anarchy as well, and then we would lose an ally. In that spirit...
JimmyJazz: My viewpoint is grounded in the labor theory of value
Wow. So you believe that voluntary exploitation is not an oxymoron? In other words, you believe that a contract entered into by a worker and employer on a fully voluntary basis can be exploitative?
And what of Nerditarian's fecal artwork? Do you believe we should all chip in to buy it based on the time he spent making it? I am trying to understand, and will interpret your responses with charity, so feel free to give even a skeletal response (or reference). I would just like to see how anyone could even possibly start to make a case for the LTV.
JimmyJazz:I believe that the modern state evolved out of the needs of a capitalist economy for centralization over a wide territory (read as: a large market), and that imperialism arose when even these territories proved too confining for the needs of the giant modern commodity producers.
Was the Roman Empire capitalistic? How would centralization help a capitalist economy? It seems by all accounts to hurt.
JimmyJazz: Within societies in which a great wealth disparity exists, there is a real, material conflict between rich and poor; this is especially true in those societies where the relationship between rich and poor takes the form of the former commanding the labor of the latter (I can recommend some excellent labor history books if you are interested). So, if a real, material basis for conflict exists, then a conflict or the immediate potential for conflict will always exist.
Sure, people will never be equal. As Hayek says [paraphrasing], equality of people and equality under the law are mutually exclusive. You are therefore opposed to equality under the law.
Besides that, by attempting to disallow wealth gain, you destroy the incentive for excellence. You reward mediocrity. Always. Forever. It can't but be so. Are you saying that's a reasonable price to pay (assuming everyone would be OK with this)?
JimmyJazz:You can't just wish this away because it happens to make your job of social analysis messier (for instance, you think capitalism perfectly serves people as consumers, and don't want to be bothered considering that as three-dimensional economic beings, humans also occupy a role as producers).
What is the significance of the bolded section? What do you mean to imply by it?
JimmyJazz:The only effective long term solution is the remove the material basis for social conflict, which is great disparities in wealth.
So your whole theory is based on "class" conflict? Sure poor people try to use the State to squeeze the rich (voting for welfare and progressive taxation), I agree. But that is hardly the main evil of the State. And say now that the State is gone. Why would violence toward the rich be much higher than it is now? I don't see the rich worrying much about being bumped off by blue collar workers. Crime statistics don't appear to agree with your idea that the poor tend to target the rich, at least not the very rich. Obviously the rich have the means to protect themselves. I don't see this class conflict as a big deal in a modern society where - thanks to capitalism - even people below the "poverty line" live better in many ways than the kings of old.
JimmyJazz:A matter of perspective, or even semantics. What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value? Too subjective a question to be seriously answered.
"Stealing" power over others is not stealing property - this is a dodge. Just mentioning semantics doesn't give you a free pass to fudge them yourself. Theft is defined as taking another's property without consent. Do you mean that a capitalist takes surplus value without the workers' consent? They do have an work agreement, after all, entered into voluntarily. Where is the lack of consent? If I decide to voluntarily give you a $5 pen for $1, will you have stolen $4 from me? Please clarify, and don't say this is not your main point - you were asked about taxes but you said whether it's stealing is subjective. How is it subjective? How can something freely exchanged be said to be stolen? How is that ever a matter of perspective, or any normal definition of theft?
JimmyJazz:However, I would ask you to remember what it is, exactly, that I am proposing the working class "steal". It is not money, through taxes; it is productive capital. And of course when I advocate "stealing" it, I don't advocate transferring its ownership as private property of person X to private property of person Y, but rather that it should pass from private into collective ownership (=/= state ownership) and management.
So you would leave the rich people with their wealth, but just take their factories, tools, and raw materials? Seriously?
And how is collective ownership managed? Who decides who will administer it? Would it be, by chance, democratically decided? Seems your back to square one, dangerously close to statehood from the very beginning.
JimmyJazz: Nerditarian: JimmyJazz:What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous. Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible.
Kings were weak, and apparently democracy has been much more oppressive in general if you look at the history. But yes, we are definitely not for monarchy. Are you for democracy?
JimmyJazz:As I said before, I can recommend many good histories of labor struggles if you need them. Of course, I would imagine that you think these people, so perfectly rational as consumers, simply lost their minds when they decided to go on strike and engage in violent confrontations with those representing their employers' interests (this despite the fact that they were men with families).
Ever heard of a union? Ever heard of the Wagner Act? You really need to listen to Tom Woods talk about labor history. On a more practical level, if you'll suspend the putative history you've read for a moment, why would a worker get violent when he or she could just go to a different company? If you say that there is no different company, do you believe that that is not because of government intervention keeping out competitors?
JimmyJazz:I'm afraid that you and anyone else who replied to this missed the point of why I said it. My point was "let's not go down that road" of talking about what is "theft", because both sides can do it, and both sides reject the other side's attempt to do it, so it's not going to go anywhere.
What do you mean by the bolded section? Who are the sides, and how do they steal?
Why anarchy fails
JimmyJazz:My viewpoint is grounded in the labor theory of value, and the consequent entitlement which I believe that the producing class(es) have to whatever value they create (which is all value).
seems that some people are hardly aware that they are 'flat earthers'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
It doesn't bother me that you ignored some of my questions. However this does:
JimmyJazz: Nerditarian: JimmyJazz:What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous. Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible. That said, I don't usually paint with a broad brush, so I really am assuming that most people on this site aren't monarchists.
I am not a monarchist. All I said was that nothing justified "the people" stealing the monarchs powers and creating mob rule democracy. Strawman much?
JimmyJazz: As I said before, I can recommend many good histories of labor struggles if you need them. Of course, I would imagine that you think these people, so perfectly rational as consumers, simply lost their minds when they decided to go on strike and engage in violent confrontations with those representing their employers' interests (this despite the fact that they were men with families).
You are equivocating on the meaning of rational. Also, because individuals went on strike to obtain higher renumeration does not at all prove the existence of monolithic Marxian class interests. Hasty generalizations for $400, Alex.
Jimmy, This was an excellent neutrally well thought out post and I thank you for it. I do have a couple of comments and questions for you if you get a second. A) Labour Theory of value. As others have stated just because you make something it does not necessarily render into a value among others. How do you reconcile this? B) Not really a question but more of an difference of opinion I'd like to point out. You stated here. JimmyJaz: I don't have any kind of practical idea as to how to decentralize the power of the nation-state to such a degree, however, while capitalism still exists. I believe that the modern state evolved out of the needs of a capitalist economy for centralization over a wide territory (read as: a large market), and that imperialism arose when even these territories proved too confining for the needs of the giant modern commodity producers. (See Michael Tigar's book, Law and the Rise of Capitalism.) So, while the material basis for large nation-states still exists, large nation-states will still exist; I don't see any way around this. Most of us here believe that the state is not a natural consequence to capitalism. In fact many here believe in the opposite, that the state is just a natural causation to socialist or collectivist ideals. The common slogan of "We're all in this together" to promote things like socialized health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, ect.... My opinions differ from some however. I believe the state IS expanded by men with expletive motives, whether they are capitalists or not. The world is filled with evil men, it just so happens that the state offers then a legal avenue to work in an unjust manner. They known very well that the easiest way to exploit people is through force and the only way to force something without ruining your image is through the state. Thus lobbying is practice. My point on this fact though is that it is evil men who exploit people via the state, not capitalists. Even if capitalism was gone and we followed your philosophical and economic view points I don't think you would disagree with me that evil men would magically cease to exist. My argument to you on this would be that those evil men would have to find a different way to exploit people. In the absence of the state though it makes that job much harder and encourages them to compete on fair grounds with everyone else. So I stand firm in the belief that capitalism doesn't breed greed or evil. You will always have these men. Since the dawn of time we have had these men. You have to remember that many misesians believe that the state is the greatest thief of them all and the largest distorter of the free market. Their agenda is purely collectivist in our opinions and completely opposite of what we argue the Free-Market should be. JimmyJaz: A matter of perspective, or even semantics. What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value? I have to agree with the previous poster that surplus value isn't any form of exploitation at all but a mechanism for keeping business's afloat. Surplus value signifies an object is being created or serviced that is in great demand. This sends signals to investors and other entrepreneurs to invest in that object or industry. This grows that specific company and industry allows for greater employment. Ultimately as investment enters that industry the object over time will become cheaper and cheaper to manufacture until it is in the homes of every family across the world. This exploitation of technology with capitalism is how economies grow more wealthy. This is how people become more wealthy, by having access to many cheap quality goods. I'd also like to make a point about exploitation. I believe we live in a free society. If an employer is exploiting or taking advantage of his employee's it is not only in the employee's best interest to seek employment else where but he should feel obligated to do so. The employee works at that job voluntarily. He cast a ballot when he chose to work at that company that he perceived the company to be worthwhile. If many people work there and remain there it sends a signal to everyone that this is a good place to work. Meanwhile, even if the employer isn't necessarily taking advantage of his employee's but is just plain abusive or too hard to work for than Employee's are still encouraged to consider employment elsewhere. Once the abusive employer realizes that labor has become scarce for him he will hopefully learn that being cruel and abusive does not equate to business prosperity. If he does not learn than his company's success is likely to suffer. Comments are appreciated. Agreeing to disagree is fine as well. I don't want to waste your time in getting bogged down on stuff we will clearly disagree with. Thanks for your time and respect Jimmy.
Jimmy,
This was an excellent neutrally well thought out post and I thank you for it. I do have a couple of comments and questions for you if you get a second.
A) Labour Theory of value. As others have stated just because you make something it does not necessarily render into a value among others. How do you reconcile this?
B) Not really a question but more of an difference of opinion I'd like to point out. You stated here.
JimmyJaz: I don't have any kind of practical idea as to how to decentralize the power of the nation-state to such a degree, however, while capitalism still exists. I believe that the modern state evolved out of the needs of a capitalist economy for centralization over a wide territory (read as: a large market), and that imperialism arose when even these territories proved too confining for the needs of the giant modern commodity producers. (See Michael Tigar's book, Law and the Rise of Capitalism.) So, while the material basis for large nation-states still exists, large nation-states will still exist; I don't see any way around this.
Most of us here believe that the state is not a natural consequence to capitalism. In fact many here believe in the opposite, that the state is just a natural causation to socialist or collectivist ideals. The common slogan of "We're all in this together" to promote things like socialized health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, ect.... My opinions differ from some however. I believe the state IS expanded by men with expletive motives, whether they are capitalists or not. The world is filled with evil men, it just so happens that the state offers then a legal avenue to work in an unjust manner. They known very well that the easiest way to exploit people is through force and the only way to force something without ruining your image is through the state. Thus lobbying is practice. My point on this fact though is that it is evil men who exploit people via the state, not capitalists. Even if capitalism was gone and we followed your philosophical and economic view points I don't think you would disagree with me that evil men would magically cease to exist. My argument to you on this would be that those evil men would have to find a different way to exploit people. In the absence of the state though it makes that job much harder and encourages them to compete on fair grounds with everyone else.
So I stand firm in the belief that capitalism doesn't breed greed or evil. You will always have these men. Since the dawn of time we have had these men. You have to remember that many misesians believe that the state is the greatest thief of them all and the largest distorter of the free market. Their agenda is purely collectivist in our opinions and completely opposite of what we argue the Free-Market should be.
JimmyJaz: A matter of perspective, or even semantics. What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? What justifies a capitalist's ongoing "theft" of surplus value?
I have to agree with the previous poster that surplus value isn't any form of exploitation at all but a mechanism for keeping business's afloat. Surplus value signifies an object is being created or serviced that is in great demand. This sends signals to investors and other entrepreneurs to invest in that object or industry. This grows that specific company and industry allows for greater employment. Ultimately as investment enters that industry the object over time will become cheaper and cheaper to manufacture until it is in the homes of every family across the world. This exploitation of technology with capitalism is how economies grow more wealthy. This is how people become more wealthy, by having access to many cheap quality goods.
I'd also like to make a point about exploitation. I believe we live in a free society. If an employer is exploiting or taking advantage of his employee's it is not only in the employee's best interest to seek employment else where but he should feel obligated to do so. The employee works at that job voluntarily. He cast a ballot when he chose to work at that company that he perceived the company to be worthwhile. If many people work there and remain there it sends a signal to everyone that this is a good place to work.
Meanwhile, even if the employer isn't necessarily taking advantage of his employee's but is just plain abusive or too hard to work for than Employee's are still encouraged to consider employment elsewhere. Once the abusive employer realizes that labor has become scarce for him he will hopefully learn that being cruel and abusive does not equate to business prosperity. If he does not learn than his company's success is likely to suffer.
Comments are appreciated. Agreeing to disagree is fine as well. I don't want to waste your time in getting bogged down on stuff we will clearly disagree with. Thanks for your time and respect Jimmy.
Nerditarian:Why is it OK then for a single entity to have a monoply of power on a small teritory like a city?
I'm not an anarchist, I just like decentralization. As a non-anarchist, I belong to the vast majority of humanity, and I'd say that the burden proof is on you to show why I should be an anarchist. I am, however, open to your arguments.
Nerditarian:So in your ideal socialist world people are absolutely free to choose to go live and trade with eachother? Couldn't they then basically recreate the market? If people are free to choose to return to market enclaves why not just pursue eliminating the State and then seeing what people really perfer?
I would favor a relatively limited state, whose role is to enforce certain socially worked-out norms of collective property rights, just as I imagine that you (or at least many people on this site) would favor a relatively limited state whose role it is to enforce private property rights.
I have no problem with free trade (why would anyone?), rather, I believe that the subjugation of the labor of many to the control of a propertied minority is the source of many social ills and much inequality. So the main thing for me would be to create a society in which no one (neither capitalist nor bureaucrat) commands the labor of anyone else, but where people work together toward cooperative, productive ends. What about producing things on your own and selling them? No, I can't imagine a situation in which that could possible infringe on the rights of anyone else. But in my ideal society, people would have agreed that you are not able to hire the labor time of others to produce commodities for a market. I would like to see a society in which you may only trade that which you yourself produced, and anything that requires the labor of more than one person, or the division of labor (which is most things in modern society), would be done cooperatively.
I would not advocate forcing such a society on people. I would advocate convincing people to accept and strive for such a society. However, I realize that there are some people who, because of their social and economic position, are not likely to ever be convinced (there is a conflict of interest when the person in question is personally enriched by commanding the labor of others). So I would consider it sufficient to convince the working class.
Nerditarian:[quote user="JimmyJazz"I don't have any kind of practical idea as to how to decentralize the power of the nation-state to such a degree, however, while capitalism still exists. I believe that the modern state evolved out of the needs of a capitalist economy for centralization over a wide territory (read as: a wide market), and that imperialism arose when even these territories proved too confining for the needs of the giant modern commodity producers. (See Michael Tigar's book, Law and the Rise of Capitalism.) So, while the material basis for large nation-states still exists, large nation-states will still exist; I don't see any way around this.
I think this constitutes equivocation on what capitalism is. Capitalism=the free market.[/quote]
I disagree. Capitalism is what it's name implies. From wiki: "Capitalism is an economic and social system in which trade and industry are privately controlled (instead of state-controlled) for profit. The means of production (also known as capital), are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits by private individuals, either singly or jointly."
To call capitalism "free trade" is a gross simplification. In fact, even the definition provide above is not specific enough to be truly accurate in my opinion; the means of production are not "capital" until they are used to employ the labor of at least one person other than their owner. So if I made crafts and sell them at the local fair, I may have used a sewing machine (means of production), but that wouldn't make me a capitalist.
From what I have read, the word "capitalism" was coined and popularized by the system's critics, so I feel somewhat comfortable imposing what may seem to be a "left-wing" definition of the word. I've actually always found it a bit odd that capitalism's defenders chose to take up the word; they could have (and imo should have) chosen a more flattering alternative (like "the free market system"). Yet the most hardcore ideological capitalists typically use the word proudly.
This was a bit of a rant on my part, let's not get caught up on definitions. It will only take a few extra words for each of us to expressexactly what we mean when we otherwise might have just said "capitalism".
AJ:Was the Roman Empire capitalistic?
I don't know enough about the Roman Empire to say what form the utilization of human labor power took. I know that there was some slave labor. I doubt that there was widespread mass commodity production for a market at any point. The factory system in England is the genesis of what I would truly consider "capitalism" (see my earlier remarks about the definition).
Nerditarian:Mercantilism/Corporatism=some extent of government intervention on behalf of large corporations. By contrast the free market and by extention capitalism is the complete absence of government or collective itnervention in market processes. Large businesses do not need the government. Some do. Halliburton needs the government, whatever you think of them they rely on it. GM needs the government, whatever you think of them. However, Wal-Mart (whatever you think of them) satisfies consumer demands well and doesn't need government intervention.
I think you should ask your fellow Austrians about this. I've heard much more stringent criticisms of the present American system from a capitalist/free market perspective; and I agreed with them. (But I don't feel like reproducing them!).
You might check out a book called Conservative Nanny State by economist Dean Baker.
I have heard more than one libertarian say that "America is not capitalist". That is a pretty strong assertion compared with what you're saying here, and I don't think you nearly appreciate the extent of government interference on behalf of the ownership classes.
Interference which, I would argue (from common sense), is inevitable in any system that starts out with a "free" market and private ownership of capital.
AJ:How would centralization help a capitalist economy? It seems by all accounts to hurt.
No, actually that's only by the libertarian account. By the account of history, by the account of actual capitalists themselves (who scramble for all kinds of government handouts and regulatory decrees), it would seem to help, indeed it would seem to be almost a necessity.
AJ:Sure, people will never be equal. As Hayek says [paraphrasing], equality of people and equality under the law are mutually exclusive. You are therefore opposed to equality under the law
Speaking of equality under the law, this might be a good time to ask your position on immigration, and whether you think that propertyless laborers should be stopped from crossing the same national borders which those rich enough to bring a factory with them are ever-more free (under things like NAFTA, GAFTA, etc) to cross.
AJ:Besides that, by attempting to disallow wealth gain, you destroy the incentive for excellence. You reward mediocrity. Always. Forever. It can't but be so[/quote} Make sweeping generalizations much? There is some truth to what you say, of course, but it's not a statement worth arguing over in its present form. It would seem that under capitalism, wage workers will frequently work quite hard to increase productivity (this is indeed cited by libertarians as one of the main benefits of capitalism, is it not? that under any alternative everyeone would become lazy?), despite the fact that wages are rerely tied to productivity, and when they are, it is only because the employer chose to link them via some kind of work incentive program. But few of the hardest, most physical jobs have any such incentive program. So it is pretty clear that your statement,while containing some truth, is far from rising to the level of axiom. AJ:Are you saying that's a reasonable price to pay (assuming everyone would be OK with this) Of course. If you weren't citing the importance of excellent individual performance for its aggregate, social benefits, then why were you citing it at all? If it is a social benefit, then obviously people are free to weigh it against other benefits (like reducing the severity of whatever is prodding them towards this "excellence"). If it is an individual benefit, then why the hell should I be worried about "incentivizing" it? I'm not going to worry about incentivizing your individual achievements, if that's all they are! AJ: JimmyJazz:You can't just wish this away because it happens to make your job of social analysis messier (for instance, you think capitalism perfectly serves people as consumers, and don't want to be bothered considering that as three-dimensional economic beings, humans also occupy a role as producers). What is the significance of the bolded section? What do you mean to imply by it? I thought that was obvious, sorry. That people are laborers (producers) as well as consumers. That while they reap the social benefits of better aggregate performance/higher aggregate productivity by everyone, everyone must also endure the uncomfortable prodding of whatever it is that drives people in said society to perform well and be productive. Etc. AJ:So your whole theory is based on "class" conflict? Sure poor people try to use the State to squeeze the rich (voting for welfare and progressive taxation), I agree. You're arguing with a liberal strawman again. AJ:And say now that the State is gone. Why would violence toward the rich be much higher than it is now? I don't see the rich worrying much about being bumped off by blue collar workers. Crime statistics don't appear to agree with your idea that the poor tend to target the rich, at least not the very rich. Obviously the rich have the means to protect themselves. I don't see this class conflict as a big deal in a modern society where - thanks to capitalism - even people below the "poverty line" live better in many ways than the kings of old. Class struggle is obviously a thing in constant flux. And what is with the obsession that people on this site have with equating class struggle and violence? You've never heard of a strike? How bizarre. I could recommend some books on physical violence as a means of class struggle if you wanted, but then again, I don't really want to feed the apparent Austrian obsession with this (tiny, incidental) aspect of the larger phenomenon. That class struggle has significantly declined in the U.S. is indisputable. The first chapter of this book (sorry, I can't find equivalent info on the web) contains some impressive, and depressing, statistics in this regard. This has been happening since WWII, but especially since the 1970s. Real wages have also declined in this period. As for class struggle outside of America, I find this site to be a very good source for highlights from the labor struggles of the working class in other nations. The working class in other countries tends to be, not surprisingly, much more militant. AJ:And how is collective ownership managed? Who decides who will administer it? Would it be, by chance, democratically decided? Seems your back to square one, dangerously close to statehood from the very beginning. That's an emphatic "yes" to the bolded section. That there is a danger here is undeniable. If you are familiar with the history of labor unions (I'm guessing not...), you'll already be aware of the much-lamented trend within workers' organizations towards bureacratization and deradicalization. There are a few organizations in the U.S. that exist to promote union democracy. But so far they have made little progress in undoing many decades worth of ossification in the leadership of the labor movement. Generally speaking, the more radical the labor movement/organization has been in its approach towards confronting their bosses, the more democracy/consensus they have demanded from their leadership--in fact, the less they have relied on leadership at all. Some of the earliest union movements put three-month term limits on their leaders, who were really delegates (recallable at any time and for any reason),and who were not allowed to have an office (they met at the local pub). The recallability of representatives in national governments has been a common political demand of the radical labor movement throughtout its existence, a demand stemming directly from the experience of workers with the leadership of their own workers' organizations. AJ:Kings were weak, and apparently democracy has been much more oppressive in general if you look at the history. But yes, we are definitely not for monarchy. Nerditarian: JimmyJazz: Nerditarian:[quote user="JimmyJazz"]What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous. Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible. That said, I don't usually paint with a broad brush, so I really am assuming that most people on this site aren't monarchists. I am not a monarchist. All I said was that nothing justified "the people" stealing the monarchs powers and creating mob rule democracy.
Make sweeping generalizations much?
There is some truth to what you say, of course, but it's not a statement worth arguing over in its present form.
It would seem that under capitalism, wage workers will frequently work quite hard to increase productivity (this is indeed cited by libertarians as one of the main benefits of capitalism, is it not? that under any alternative everyeone would become lazy?), despite the fact that wages are rerely tied to productivity, and when they are, it is only because the employer chose to link them via some kind of work incentive program. But few of the hardest, most physical jobs have any such incentive program. So it is pretty clear that your statement,while containing some truth, is far from rising to the level of axiom.
AJ:Are you saying that's a reasonable price to pay (assuming everyone would be OK with this)
Of course. If you weren't citing the importance of excellent individual performance for its aggregate, social benefits, then why were you citing it at all?
If it is a social benefit, then obviously people are free to weigh it against other benefits (like reducing the severity of whatever is prodding them towards this "excellence").
If it is an individual benefit, then why the hell should I be worried about "incentivizing" it? I'm not going to worry about incentivizing your individual achievements, if that's all they are!
AJ: JimmyJazz:You can't just wish this away because it happens to make your job of social analysis messier (for instance, you think capitalism perfectly serves people as consumers, and don't want to be bothered considering that as three-dimensional economic beings, humans also occupy a role as producers). What is the significance of the bolded section? What do you mean to imply by it?
I thought that was obvious, sorry.
That people are laborers (producers) as well as consumers. That while they reap the social benefits of better aggregate performance/higher aggregate productivity by everyone, everyone must also endure the uncomfortable prodding of whatever it is that drives people in said society to perform well and be productive. Etc.
AJ:So your whole theory is based on "class" conflict? Sure poor people try to use the State to squeeze the rich (voting for welfare and progressive taxation), I agree.
You're arguing with a liberal strawman again.
AJ:And say now that the State is gone. Why would violence toward the rich be much higher than it is now? I don't see the rich worrying much about being bumped off by blue collar workers. Crime statistics don't appear to agree with your idea that the poor tend to target the rich, at least not the very rich. Obviously the rich have the means to protect themselves. I don't see this class conflict as a big deal in a modern society where - thanks to capitalism - even people below the "poverty line" live better in many ways than the kings of old.
Class struggle is obviously a thing in constant flux. And what is with the obsession that people on this site have with equating class struggle and violence? You've never heard of a strike? How bizarre.
I could recommend some books on physical violence as a means of class struggle if you wanted, but then again, I don't really want to feed the apparent Austrian obsession with this (tiny, incidental) aspect of the larger phenomenon.
That class struggle has significantly declined in the U.S. is indisputable. The first chapter of this book (sorry, I can't find equivalent info on the web) contains some impressive, and depressing, statistics in this regard. This has been happening since WWII, but especially since the 1970s. Real wages have also declined in this period.
As for class struggle outside of America, I find this site to be a very good source for highlights from the labor struggles of the working class in other nations. The working class in other countries tends to be, not surprisingly, much more militant.
AJ:And how is collective ownership managed? Who decides who will administer it? Would it be, by chance, democratically decided? Seems your back to square one, dangerously close to statehood from the very beginning.
That's an emphatic "yes" to the bolded section.
That there is a danger here is undeniable. If you are familiar with the history of labor unions (I'm guessing not...), you'll already be aware of the much-lamented trend within workers' organizations towards bureacratization and deradicalization. There are a few organizations in the U.S. that exist to promote union democracy. But so far they have made little progress in undoing many decades worth of ossification in the leadership of the labor movement.
Generally speaking, the more radical the labor movement/organization has been in its approach towards confronting their bosses, the more democracy/consensus they have demanded from their leadership--in fact, the less they have relied on leadership at all.
Some of the earliest union movements put three-month term limits on their leaders, who were really delegates (recallable at any time and for any reason),and who were not allowed to have an office (they met at the local pub). The recallability of representatives in national governments has been a common political demand of the radical labor movement throughtout its existence, a demand stemming directly from the experience of workers with the leadership of their own workers' organizations.
AJ:Kings were weak, and apparently democracy has been much more oppressive in general if you look at the history. But yes, we are definitely not for monarchy.
Nerditarian: JimmyJazz: Nerditarian:[quote user="JimmyJazz"]What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous. Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible. That said, I don't usually paint with a broad brush, so I really am assuming that most people on this site aren't monarchists.
JimmyJazz: Nerditarian:[quote user="JimmyJazz"]What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous.
Nerditarian:[quote user="JimmyJazz"]What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch?
I am not a monarchist. All I said was that nothing justified "the people" stealing the monarchs powers and creating mob rule democracy.
Got it, you are not monarchists. Nerd, perhaps you could be less cryptic--I still don't have any idea what you could mean when you say that distributing a monarch's absolute power was not justified although you are not a monarchist. Would have have preferred that monarchists voluntarily abdicate?
We can certainly agree on the monstrous crimes of liberal "democracy" (two world wars, and so on).
The "mob rule" phrase, and conception, is obvious elitist bullshit. So much so that I don't feel much need to elaborate on that point. Who are you to deny people a say in how they want society and the economy run? Weren't you the one who said I was being authoritarian by mentioning the labor theory of value?
AJ:Ever heard of a union? Ever heard of the Wagner Act? You really need to listen to Tom Woods talk about labor history. On a more practical level, if you'll suspend the putative history you've read for a moment, why would a worker get violent when he or she could just go to a different company?
You have no idea what kind of history I read.
My primary source for Russian history has been Richard Pipes. Contrast that with you, who apparently gets it from "A libertarian gallop through history" on youtube! lol. I can honestly say I've never sat through anything like a 50-minute "socialist gallup through history", and the idea makes me laugh.
As for why a worker would "get violent" (your phrase, not mine, note that without any historical example or context you go from "engage in violent confrontations" to a phrase which puts the blame for initiation of violence on the worker: "gets violent), the question is not why he would but why so many did. I'm not concerned with hypotheticals, though I can understand why a libertarian would be, as your entire belief system is one giant hypothetical with no materialist or historical basis in reality. Just one big "ought".
And as for why employers would get violent, or would bring in the armed power of the state on their behalf, well that is once again not a question of why they would but of why they so frequently did. Couldn't they just get other workers?
I've no time for, nor interest in, ahistorical hypotheticals that don't tie back into reality at the end. Do you want me to venture a guess as to why workers have engaged in struggle rather than simply moving employer to employer? Maybe because they perceived that they were part of a class. Maybe because they had families (or didn't) and didn't want to submit to a life as a propertyless vagabond journeyman in search of someone willing to use them for work (how rational capitalism is really shines through in its inability to fully employ society's available labor!). Maybe because they recognized that there would be a general downward pressure on all wages and working conditions everywhere if they did not put up some resistance. But, these are just speculations as to why they did what they did, and why laborers still do it, all around the world, every day.
Knight_of_BAAWA: JimmyJazz:My viewpoint is grounded in the labor theory of value, and the consequent entitlement which I believe that the producing class(es) have to whatever value they create (which is all value).You are aware that the marginal revolution and subjective theory of value have completely annihilated whatever semblance of legitimacy the labor theory of value may have, at some time, had, right? Just curious, since your entire view hinges upon something which has been refuted to death.
The subjective theory of value and the labor theory of value are not mutually exclusive. They are not signifying the same thing when they refer to "value". The subjective theory of value is referring to prices--there is no other thing by which value can be guaged according to this theory. So value = prices in that theory.
In Marxist terms, value refers to something different, and in no way is it meant to explain the fluctuating prices of goods. If some people have tried to use it for that purpose, that's interesting, but no concern of mine. Here is what "value" means in the Marxian sense, with a few preliminary terms to make sense of it:
Use-value (abstract): utility, usefulness
Use-value (concrete): any thing which possesses utility/usefulness/use-value (abstract)
Wealth: the sum total of all things which have use-value, whether they are naturally occurring OR whether they have human labor incorporated in them
"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power."--Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter 1
Value is that which is added to any naturally-occurring substance are article to give it greater utility than it naturally possesses. Hence, almost by definition, value is embodied labor time. Specifically, it is socially necessary labor time, or the amount of labor time required under the technological conditions (level of productivity) which generally prevail in society.
It's not just that the subjective theory of value has not disproven the Labor ToV, it's that it never could. They aren't trying to do the same thing.
If the supply and demand were in equilibrium, then I would imagine that prices could be calculated by the amount of socially necessary labor time in a commodity, at least in a consumable commodity. The labor theory of value is obviously no good for explaining the price of a Jackson Pollock painting, because only Jackson Pollock can produce one. But for all commodities which have no special constraints on their production besides the time required to make them (special constraints such as who must make them), then with supply and equilibrium in demand, the LTOV is quite a good theory for explaining value.
Bear in mind that I have never gotten very into the technical aspects of Marxist political economy (I have not worked up the inspiration to wade through his terminology), but I think I have some of these basics down. It's totally possible that someone hear will be able to nitpick at what I've written and provide more technically accurate definitions.
Let me quote a passage from Ernest Mandel:
Ernest Mandel: To conclude, we present three traditional proofs of the labor theory of value. The first of these is the analytical proof, which proceeds by breaking down the price of a commodity into its constituent elements and demonstrating that if the process is extended far enough, only labor will be found. The price of every commodity can be reduced to a certain number of components: the amortization of machinery and buildings, which we call the renewal of fixed capital; the price of raw materials and accessory products; wages; and finally, everything which is surplus value, such as profit, rent, taxes, etc. So far as the last two components are concerned, wages and surplus value, it has already been shown that they are labor pure and simple. With regard to raw materials, most of their price is largely reducible to labor; for example, more than 60 per cent of the mining cost of coal consists of wages. If we start by breaking down the average manufacturing cost of commodities into 40% for wages, 20% surplus value, 30% for raw materials and 10% in fixed capital; and if we assume that 60% of the cost of raw materials can be reduced to labor, then we already have 78% of the total cost reduced to labor. The rest of the cost of raw materials breaks down into the cost of other raw materials – reducible in turn to 60% labor – plus the cost of amortizing machinery. The price of machinery consists to a large degree of labor (for example, 40%) and raw materials (for example, 40% also). The share of labor in the average cost of all commodities thus passes successively to 83%, 87%, 89.5%, etc. It is obvious that the further this breakdown is carried, the more the entire cost tends to be reduced to labor, and to labor alone. The second proof is the logical proof, and is the one presented in the beginning of Marx’s Capital. It has perplexed quite a few readers, for it is certainly not the simplest pedagogical approach to the question. Marx poses the question in the following way. The number of commodities is very great. They are interchangeable, which means that they must have a common quality, because everything which is interchangeable is comparable and everything which is comparable must have at least one quality in common. Things which have no quality in common are, by definition, not comparable with each other. Let us inspect each of these commodities. What qualities do they possess? First of all, they have an infinite set of natural qualities: weight, length, density, color, size, molecular nature; in short, all their natural physical, chemical and other qualities. Is there any one of the physical qualities which can be the basis for comparing them as commodities, for serving as the common measure of their exchange value? Could it be weight? Obviously not, since a pound of butter does not have the same value as a pound of gold. Is it volume or length? Examples will immediately show that it is none of these. In short, all those things which make up the natural quality of a commodity, everything which is a physical or chemical quality of this commodity, certainly determines its use value, its relative usefulness, but not its exchange value. Exchange value must consequently be abstracted from everything that consists of a natural physical quality in the commodity. A common quality must be found in all of these commodities which is not physical. Marx’s conclusion is that the only common quality in these commodities which is not physical is their quality of being the products of human labor, of abstract human labor. Human labor can be thought of in two different ways. It can be considered as specific concrete labor, such as the labor of the baker, butcher, shoemaker, weaver, blacksmith, etc. But so long as it is thought of as specific concrete work, it is being viewed in its aspect of labor which produces only use values. Under these conditions we are concerning ourselves only with the physical qualities of commodities and these are precisely the qualities which are not comparable. The only thing which commodities have in common from the viewpoint of exchanging them is that they are all produced by abstract human labor, that is to say, by producers who are related to each other on a basis of equivalence as a result of the fact that they are all producing goods for exchange. The common quality of commodities, consequently, resides in the fact that they are the products of abstract human labor and it is this which supplies the measure of their exchange value, of their exchangeability. It is, consequently, the quality of socially necessary labor in the production of commodities which determines their exchange value. Let us immediately add that Marx’s reasoning here is both abstract and difficult and is at least subject to questioning, a point which many opponents of Marxism have seized upon and sought to use, without any marked success, however. Is the fact that all commodities are produced by abstract human labor really the only quality which they have in common, apart from their natural qualities? There are not a few writers who thought they had discovered others. In general, however, these have always been reducible either to physical qualities or to the fact that they are products of abstract labor. A third and final proof of the correctness of the labor theory of value is the proof by reduction to the absurd. It is, moreover, the most elegant and most “modern” of the proofs. Imagine for a moment a society in which living human labor has completely disappeared, that is to say, a society in which all production has been 100 per cent automated. Of course, so long as we remain in the current intermediate stage, in which some labor is already completely automated, that is to say, a stage in which plants employing no workers exist alongside others in which human labor is still utilized, there is no special theoretical problem, since it is merely a question of the transfer of surplus value from one enterprise to another. It is an illustration of the law of equalization of the profit rate, which will be explored later on. But let us imagine that this development has been pushed to its extreme and human labor has been completely eliminated from all forms of production and services. Can value continue to exist under these conditions? Can there be a society where nobody has an income but commodities continue to have a value and to be sold? Obviously such a situation would be absurd. A huge mass of products would be produced without this production creating any income, since no human being would be involved in this production. But someone would want to “sell” these products for which there were no longer any buyers! It is obvious that the distribution of products in such a society would no longer be effected in the form of a sale of commodities and as a matter of fact selling would become all the more absurd because of the abundance produced by general automation. Expressed another way, a society in which human labor would be totally eliminated from production, in the most general sense of the term, with services included, would be a society in which exchange value had also been eliminated. This proves the validity of the theory, for at the moment human labor disappears from production, value, too, disappears with it.
To conclude, we present three traditional proofs of the labor theory of value.
The first of these is the analytical proof, which proceeds by breaking down the price of a commodity into its constituent elements and demonstrating that if the process is extended far enough, only labor will be found.
The price of every commodity can be reduced to a certain number of components: the amortization of machinery and buildings, which we call the renewal of fixed capital; the price of raw materials and accessory products; wages; and finally, everything which is surplus value, such as profit, rent, taxes, etc.
So far as the last two components are concerned, wages and surplus value, it has already been shown that they are labor pure and simple. With regard to raw materials, most of their price is largely reducible to labor; for example, more than 60 per cent of the mining cost of coal consists of wages. If we start by breaking down the average manufacturing cost of commodities into 40% for wages, 20% surplus value, 30% for raw materials and 10% in fixed capital; and if we assume that 60% of the cost of raw materials can be reduced to labor, then we already have 78% of the total cost reduced to labor. The rest of the cost of raw materials breaks down into the cost of other raw materials – reducible in turn to 60% labor – plus the cost of amortizing machinery.
The price of machinery consists to a large degree of labor (for example, 40%) and raw materials (for example, 40% also). The share of labor in the average cost of all commodities thus passes successively to 83%, 87%, 89.5%, etc. It is obvious that the further this breakdown is carried, the more the entire cost tends to be reduced to labor, and to labor alone.
The second proof is the logical proof, and is the one presented in the beginning of Marx’s Capital. It has perplexed quite a few readers, for it is certainly not the simplest pedagogical approach to the question.
Marx poses the question in the following way. The number of commodities is very great. They are interchangeable, which means that they must have a common quality, because everything which is interchangeable is comparable and everything which is comparable must have at least one quality in common. Things which have no quality in common are, by definition, not comparable with each other.
Let us inspect each of these commodities. What qualities do they possess? First of all, they have an infinite set of natural qualities: weight, length, density, color, size, molecular nature; in short, all their natural physical, chemical and other qualities. Is there any one of the physical qualities which can be the basis for comparing them as commodities, for serving as the common measure of their exchange value? Could it be weight? Obviously not, since a pound of butter does not have the same value as a pound of gold. Is it volume or length? Examples will immediately show that it is none of these. In short, all those things which make up the natural quality of a commodity, everything which is a physical or chemical quality of this commodity, certainly determines its use value, its relative usefulness, but not its exchange value. Exchange value must consequently be abstracted from everything that consists of a natural physical quality in the commodity.
A common quality must be found in all of these commodities which is not physical. Marx’s conclusion is that the only common quality in these commodities which is not physical is their quality of being the products of human labor, of abstract human labor.
Human labor can be thought of in two different ways. It can be considered as specific concrete labor, such as the labor of the baker, butcher, shoemaker, weaver, blacksmith, etc. But so long as it is thought of as specific concrete work, it is being viewed in its aspect of labor which produces only use values.
Under these conditions we are concerning ourselves only with the physical qualities of commodities and these are precisely the qualities which are not comparable. The only thing which commodities have in common from the viewpoint of exchanging them is that they are all produced by abstract human labor, that is to say, by producers who are related to each other on a basis of equivalence as a result of the fact that they are all producing goods for exchange. The common quality of commodities, consequently, resides in the fact that they are the products of abstract human labor and it is this which supplies the measure of their exchange value, of their exchangeability. It is, consequently, the quality of socially necessary labor in the production of commodities which determines their exchange value.
Let us immediately add that Marx’s reasoning here is both abstract and difficult and is at least subject to questioning, a point which many opponents of Marxism have seized upon and sought to use, without any marked success, however.
Is the fact that all commodities are produced by abstract human labor really the only quality which they have in common, apart from their natural qualities? There are not a few writers who thought they had discovered others. In general, however, these have always been reducible either to physical qualities or to the fact that they are products of abstract labor.
A third and final proof of the correctness of the labor theory of value is the proof by reduction to the absurd. It is, moreover, the most elegant and most “modern” of the proofs.
Imagine for a moment a society in which living human labor has completely disappeared, that is to say, a society in which all production has been 100 per cent automated. Of course, so long as we remain in the current intermediate stage, in which some labor is already completely automated, that is to say, a stage in which plants employing no workers exist alongside others in which human labor is still utilized, there is no special theoretical problem, since it is merely a question of the transfer of surplus value from one enterprise to another. It is an illustration of the law of equalization of the profit rate, which will be explored later on.
But let us imagine that this development has been pushed to its extreme and human labor has been completely eliminated from all forms of production and services. Can value continue to exist under these conditions? Can there be a society where nobody has an income but commodities continue to have a value and to be sold? Obviously such a situation would be absurd. A huge mass of products would be produced without this production creating any income, since no human being would be involved in this production. But someone would want to “sell” these products for which there were no longer any buyers!
It is obvious that the distribution of products in such a society would no longer be effected in the form of a sale of commodities and as a matter of fact selling would become all the more absurd because of the abundance produced by general automation.
Expressed another way, a society in which human labor would be totally eliminated from production, in the most general sense of the term, with services included, would be a society in which exchange value had also been eliminated. This proves the validity of the theory, for at the moment human labor disappears from production, value, too, disappears with it.
filc:A) Labour Theory of value. As others have stated just because you make something it does not necessarily render into a value among others. How do you reconcile this?
A thing cannot have value when there is zero demand.
Do you suppose that any empirical theory can be summed up in a single sentence without any qualifying statements (such as, "a thing cannot have value when there is zero demand")? Your bar for scientific validity is just a tad high there, too high for any useful empirical theory to clear it (that includes the subjective theory of value).
filc:Most of us here believe that the state is not a natural consequence to capitalism. In fact many here believe in the opposite, that the state is just a natural causation to socialist or collectivist ideals. The common slogan of "We're all in this together" to promote things like socialized health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, ect.... My opinions differ from some however. I believe the state IS expanded by men with expletive motives, whether they are capitalists or not. The world is filled with evil men, it just so happens that the state offers then a legal avenue to work in an unjust manner. They known very well that the easiest way to exploit people is through force and the only way to force something without ruining your image is through the state. Thus lobbying is practice. My point on this fact though is that it is evil men who exploit people via the state, not capitalists. Even if capitalism was gone and we followed your philosophical and economic view points I don't think you would disagree with me that evil men would magically cease to exist.
A couple of points:
1. Lobbying requires money, does it not? Is that not in fact the whole engine of lobbying? Either individual wealth or collective wealth (an example of the later would be an anti-choice political group pooling small individual donations into one large sum), but lobbying requires wealth. I suppose you could try to blackmail a politician, or publicly smear him, or whatever, but generally it's money that gets things done when private interests lobby politicians to use public money for their ends.
2. I don't use words like "evil", and I'm not sure what meaning they could possible have in a secular context. That seems unbelievably idealist. Human nature is what it is, and there is no way to change human behavior but to constrain people's ability to do certain things (put them in jail if they murder or rape or steal, take away their money if they use it to lobby for unjust privileges). Really, I'm at a loss as to why you're saying this bit about human nature to me, since I am the one who proposed that lobbying and special interests will always prevail as long as the material conditions for it (great stores of personal wealth) exist, whereas you are the one proposing that lobbing is merely a result of moral flaws on the part of both the rich and the government men, and that apparently all we need to do is elect virtuous men who will "just say no" to a big fat wad of cash in exchange for their vote. If I am somehow missing how all of this could be your point and not mine, please explain how so.
3. We are in agreement that many government functions in a capitalist society exist, not simply because of lobbying by minority or majority interests, but for collectivist reasons (the two biggest ones being: (a) the so-called "national interests", and (b) to smooth over class conflict and ensure the social stability of the capitalist system). There are no purely socialistic functions of the capitalist state, but always a combination of working class demands and assent from far-sighted representatives of the capitalist class, who realize that to rescue the private property system from threats of social upheaval against it requires certain concessions. You and I are probably equally opposed to these concessions, albeit for different reasons (mine is that I would like the working class to remain independent of the capitalist state, not dependent upon it and seeing it as an ally).
filc:So I stand firm in the belief that capitalism doesn't breed greed or evil.
=D
This made me laugh. You have a caricature of the socialist critique of capitalism in your head.
I stand firmly with you in that belief.
I apologize, filc, that I did not reply to the rest of your post, but I am burned out on replying for now. Perhaps I'll reply to that last part of your post later.
Just so everyone knows, my future replies won't be this long. I'm just one man.
JimmyJazz:The subjective theory of value and the labor theory of value are not mutually exclusive.
JimmyJazz:They are not signifying the same thing when they refer to "value".
JimmyJazz:In Marxist terms, value refers to something different, and in no way is it meant to explain the fluctuating prices of goods. If some people have tried to use it for that purpose, that's interesting, but no concern of mine. Here is what "value" means in the Marxian sense, with a few preliminary terms to make sense of it: Use-value (abstract): utility, usefulness
JimmyJazz:"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power."--Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter 1
JimmyJazz:Value is that which is added to any naturally-occurring substance are article to give it greater utility than it naturally possesses. Hence, almost by definition, value is embodied labor time.
JimmyJazz:It's not just that the subjective theory of value has not disproven the Labor ToV, it's that it never could. They aren't trying to do the same thing.
JimmyJazz:If the supply and demand were in equilibrium, then I would imagine that prices could be calculated by the amount of socially necessary labor time in a commodity, at least in a consumable commodity. The labor theory of value is obviously no good for explaining the price of a Jackson Pollock painting, because only Jackson Pollock can produce one. But for all commodities which have no special constraints on their production besides the time required to make them (special constraints such as who must make them), then with supply and equilibrium in demand, the LTOV is quite a good theory for explaining value.
Both the STV/MUTV and the LTV purport to explain the origin/nature of a thing's value. Using the former, Austrians deduce price theory, and not the other way round. Prices are explained by way of the subjective theory of value, which itself does not even need to mention them. The STV deals with how an agent relates to a given good as a means of a satiation of one of their ordinally ranked, subjectively weighted wants.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:Both the STV/MUTV and the LTV purport to explain the origin/nature of a thing's value. Using the former, Austrians deduce price theory, and not the other way round.
Yeah, if I ever made it sound like the other way around then it was my poor wording.
The LTOV, however, has a significance in Marx totally unrelated to its ability to explain prices. In fact, in Marx it is not used (as far as I have ever seen) to try and explain prices.
Knight_of_BAAWA: JimmyJazz:Value is that which is added to any naturally-occurring substance are article to give it greater utility than it naturally possesses. Hence, almost by definition, value is embodied labor time.No it isn't. I can make a shit sandwich, but my labor doesn't impute any value to it.
This is the last time I'll respond to this particular objection unless someone states it in a somewhat original way. I'm not going to keep answering the same thing for people who don't even acknowledge, in their reply, the answer that I already gave (however inadequate they may find it). It's extremely rude.
Just as there are at a minimum certain "qualifying statements" necessary for any empirical theory worth its salt, there are probably some necessary for the labor theory of value.
The assumption of people as rational economic agents cannot explain, for instance, risk-aversity such as what Kahneman and Tversky studied. Lack of information is an even bigger issue--brand preference makes no sense for identical products, for instance. And so on. Yet this significant issues do not entirely invalidate neoclassical economics.
That you keep zeroing in on an example that shows the limits of the LTOV, rather than acknowledging the overwhelmingly larger number of cases in which is has explanatory value, in my opinion just betrays your ideological motivation. Note that I do not deny the usefulness of subjective utility theory for doing in many cases what it is supposed to do (explain prices).
No matter how many times you're going to say it, it's still not going to be true! I assume you are referring to profits. First of all, what about losses. If the capitalist steals the "surplus" from the worker, then who is to account for the losses? Should not the worker then compensate the capitalist for his losses?
I shall refer you to an essay by Ludwig von Mises: "Profit & Loss" - http://mises.org/story/2321
Ignoring the economic chaotic consequences of the elimination of profits, you clearly do not understand what determines value.
All labor is voluntarily exchanged on the free market as any other scarce goods and service. Labor is a service. Nothing is stolen. The value of the labor produced by the worker is sold to the entrepreneur. The value of the labor is not arbitrary, but is determined by the consumers. All prices on the market (wages are prices) are determined by the subjective valuations of the consumers. There are no intrinsic values to goods and services. Value of all commodities including labor is determined by supply and demand. This is why the market is so efficient. It utilized the scarce resources and produces what is most urgently demanded by the consumers, and not by some socialist dictator.
JimmyJazz:This is the last time I'll respond to this particular objection unless someone states it in a somewhat original way. I'm not going to keep answering the same thing for people who don't even acknowledge, in their reply, the answer that I already gave (however inadequate they may find it). It's extremely rude.
JimmyJazz:That you keep zeroing in on an example that shows the limits of the LTOV, rather than acknowledging the overwhelmingly larger number of cases in which is has explanatory value
JimmyJazz: Lack of information is an even bigger issue--brand preference makes no sense for identical products, for instance. And so on. Yet this significant issues do not entirely invalidate neoclassical economics.
Lack of information is an even bigger issue--brand preference makes no sense for identical products, for instance. And so on. Yet this significant issues do not entirely invalidate neoclassical economics.
Tell that to the consumers who prefer brand names. Diamond jewelery doesn't make any sense either? So what? Your moral judgments are irrelevant to the science of economics. Economics deals with producing the wealth the people are asking for, and not for the goods according to your own subjective moral code. This is precisely the difference between freedom and tyranny. You are free to express your opinion about brand names, as I am free to express my opinion about diamond jewelery, but I do not have the moral authority to compel everyone to live according to my moral code. The people who do seek such authority, are dictators.
And by the way, Austrian economics is NOT neoclassical economics.
JimmyJazz:I have no problem with free trade (why would anyone?), rather, I believe that the subjugation of the labor of many to the control of a propertied minority is the source of many social ills and much inequality.
This is the core of your confusion. What you are missing is that a worker trading his or her labor for wages is free trade.
To see this, imagine a man who buys shirts from a shirt factory, tie dyes them using his own secret process (all by his own hands), and then sells them back for a $1 profit on each shirt. The shirt company then sells those shirts for $10 more than the non-tie-dyed ones.
That is free trade, too!
Answer this directly, and I will answer the other stuff you wrote - if we cannot agree on this point, there is no point in my replying to the other stuff.
JimmyJazz: I apologize, filc, that I did not reply to the rest of your post, but I am burned out on replying for now. Perhaps I'll reply to that last part of your post later.
Np Jimmy. I appreciate your response and time. Thanks again
JimmyJazz: I'm not an anarchist, I just like decentralization. As a non-anarchist, I belong to the vast majority of humanity, and I'd say that the burden proof is on you to show why I should be an anarchist. I am, however, open to your arguments
I'm not an anarchist, I just like decentralization. As a non-anarchist, I belong to the vast majority of humanity, and I'd say that the burden proof is on you to show why I should be an anarchist. I am, however, open to your arguments
Let me ask it to you. What's wrong with nation states? What's wrong with one group having that kind of power? Why is it not OK to have power over a nation but OK to have power over a city?
JimmyJazz: I would favor a relatively limited state, whose role is to enforce certain socially worked-out norms of collective property rights, just as I imagine that you (or at least many people on this site) would favor a relatively limited state whose role it is to enforce private property rights.
I favor NO state. How are collective property rights legitimately obtained?
JimmyJazz:I have no problem with free trade (why would anyone?), rather, I believe that the subjugation of the labor of many to the control of a propertied minority is the source of many social ills and much inequality. So the main thing for me would be to create a society in which no one (neither capitalist nor bureaucrat) commands the labor of anyone else, but where people work together toward cooperative, productive ends. What about producing things on your own and selling them? No, I can't imagine a situation in which that could possible infringe on the rights of anyone else. But in my ideal society, people would have agreed that you are not able to hire the labor time of others to produce commodities for a market. I would like to see a society in which you may only trade that which you yourself produced, and anything that requires the labor of more than one person, or the division of labor (which is most things in modern society), would be done cooperatively.
Please read AJ's comments bellow.
JimmyJazz: I disagree. Capitalism is what it's name implies. From wiki: "Capitalism is an economic and social system in which trade and industry are privately controlled (instead of state-controlled) for profit. The means of production (also known as capital), are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits by private individuals, either singly or jointly." To call capitalism "free trade" is a gross simplification. In fact, even the definition provide above is not specific enough to be truly accurate in my opinion; the means of production are not "capital" until they are used to employ the labor of at least one person other than their owner. So if I made crafts and sell them at the local fair, I may have used a sewing machine (means of production), but that wouldn't make me a capitalist. From what I have read, the word "capitalism" was coined and popularized by the system's critics, so I feel somewhat comfortable imposing what may seem to be a "left-wing" definition of the word. I've actually always found it a bit odd that capitalism's defenders chose to take up the word; they could have (and imo should have) chosen a more flattering alternative (like "the free market system"). Yet the most hardcore ideological capitalists typically use the word proudly. This was a bit of a rant on my part, let's not get caught up on definitions. It will only take a few extra words for each of us to expressexactly what we mean when we otherwise might have just said "capitalism".
Ahhh "private ownership of the means of production". Meaning private control right? As opposed to State control? Well, then every action wherein the State regulates nonviolent private control is anti-capitalistic. This ranges from regulations and taxes to zoning codes and socialized roads. Considering the amount of anti-capitalistic interventions we can hardly call this a capitalist country.
If you made crafts and sold them why wouldn't you be a capitalist?
JimmyJazz:I think you should ask your fellow Austrians about this. I've heard much more stringent criticisms of the present American system from a capitalist/free market perspective; and I agreed with them. (But I don't feel like reproducing them!). You might check out a book called Conservative Nanny State by economist Dean Baker. I have heard more than one libertarian say that "America is not capitalist". That is a pretty strong assertion compared with what you're saying here, and I don't think you nearly appreciate the extent of government interference on behalf of the ownership classes.
I don't agree with the present system at all. I have had every president of the United States during my lifetime on a dartboard. See above. I can't right essays about the evils of how anti-capitalistic this country is right now, I'm taking some intense summer classes and I'm only checking this site once in awhile.
JimmyJazz:Interference which, I would argue (from common sense), is inevitable in any system that starts out with a "free" market and private ownership of capital.
JimmyJazz:No, actually that's only by the libertarian account. By the account of history, by the account of actual capitalists themselves (who scramble for all kinds of government handouts and regulatory decrees), it would seem to help, indeed it would seem to be almost a necessity.
Gov't giveways come with strings. At the point one accepts one they are no longer a capitalist but a glorified pensioner of the State. When all capitalists do this we move from capitalism to fascism. Keep in mind that when one capitalist gets help from the State it hurts all other capitalists in his field and the other capitalists who have now a less efficient supplier or purchaser and therefore hurts capitalism as a whole.
JimmyJazz:Speaking of equality under the law, this might be a good time to ask your position on immigration, and whether you think that propertyless laborers should be stopped from crossing the same national borders which those rich enough to bring a factory with them are ever-more free (under things like NAFTA, GAFTA, etc) to cross.
Gonna let AJ et al. handle the rest for time's sake except your response to me.
JimmyJazz: Nerditarian: JimmyJazz: Nerditarian: JimmyJazz:What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous. Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible. That said, I don't usually paint with a broad brush, so I really am assuming that most people on this site aren't monarchists. I am not a monarchist. All I said was that nothing justified "the people" stealing the monarchs powers and creating mob rule democracy. Got it, you are not monarchists. Nerd, perhaps you could be less cryptic--I still don't have any idea what you could mean when you say that distributing a monarch's absolute power was not justified although you are not a monarchist. Would have have preferred that monarchists voluntarily abdicate? We can certainly agree on the monstrous crimes of liberal "democracy" (two world wars, and so on). The "mob rule" phrase, and conception, is obvious elitist bullshit. So much so that I don't feel much need to elaborate on that point. Who are you to deny people a say in how they want society and the economy run? Weren't you the one who said I was being authoritarian by mentioning the labor theory of value?
Nerditarian: JimmyJazz: Nerditarian: JimmyJazz:What justified people's "stealing" the power of a monarch? Nothing. The State was a mistake. Democracy is horrendous. Lol. It would help me to continue taking this site seriously if one or two of the regular posters were to come out right now and openly say that they find this "up with teh kingz!" perspective not only mistaken, and hilariously out of touch with the human race, but also morally reprehensible. That said, I don't usually paint with a broad brush, so I really am assuming that most people on this site aren't monarchists. I am not a monarchist. All I said was that nothing justified "the people" stealing the monarchs powers and creating mob rule democracy.
The monarch's absolute power was not justified. However, when the masses took this power and created modern democracies they were not justified either. Coercive powers of all sorts are unjustified. What would I have perferred? Monarchy replaced with anarcho-capitalism not democracy.
Glad we can agree on soemthing.
Mob rule as an expression is elitist? IDRC if that's how you think it sounds. What else would you call a system that allows the masses and their demagogues to trample the individual so much? You are the one who wants to deny people a say in how they want society and the economy run! It is capitalism and free trade that gives them the freedom of selection.
I don't think I said LTV was authorititarian qua LTV. Marxian conceptions of it and exploitation theories are.
JimmyJazz,
I wanted to thank you for fielding the questions on this thread. I know it isn't the most exciting use of your time...
That said, I posted on the "Hilarious Emotion..." thread after reading the RevLeft thread about A-Com/A-Cap coexistence, but before reading this thread. I hope that you can answer some questions from that post, quoted below:
Quoted from http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8534/230060.aspx
"Does a distinction between capitalism and communism boil down to property rights? Kwisatz Haderach's keeps bringing his arguments back to the "mix your labor", homestead principal:
Why does owned (labor, at least) + unowned (natural resources, at least) = owned?
I suppose this comes down to something like a religious conviction (upon which all other arguments are based), but Kwisatz Haderach's arguments still resort to ownership. He argues that a person can have the right to use a thing without the right to own the thing. Who is giving the person this right? It must be the thing's owner. It does not matter if the owner is a person or a group of people. In his example, a man may stay in a house which was built by the commune. If that man were to leave, another man may be given permission to live there. Just because the members of the community have entered into a social contract to share ownership of the house does not mean that this situation refutes "owned + unowned = owned". He is advocating ownership one degree removed from the individual. If another commune claimed that same house for one of its members, how can the original builders of the house claim it without "owned + unowned = owned"?
Am I missing something? Can someone explain another distinction between the anarchic-communists and anarchic-capitalists (and by some mathematical-proof-trickery, "anarchic" removed, communism and capitalism)? Also, is there any argument (other than "why/why not") against the "owned + unowned = owned" homestead principal?
It almost seems to me, right now, that all of political theory can be distilled down to this issue of property and ownership, and I wonder if it can be argued one way or the other at all.
(first post!)"
Knight_of_BAAWA:Sucks to be you.
It is awesome to be me.
AJ: What you are missing is that a worker trading his or her labor for wages is free trade. To see this, imagine a man who buys shirts from a shirt factory, tie dyes them using his own secret process (all by his own hands), and then sells them back for a $1 profit on each shirt. The shirt company then sells those shirts for $10 more than the non-tie-dyed ones. That is free trade, too! If you believe this is still exploitation, you contradict your statement above. If you believe it is not exploitation, you contradict your entire theory. If you define "free trade" in a way that makes the above example not "free trade," then state your definition explicitly. Answer this directly, and I will answer the other stuff you wrote - if we cannot agree on this point, there is no point in my replying to the other stuff.
What you are missing is that a worker trading his or her labor for wages is free trade.
Of course it is free trade. Labor is a commodity just like anything else in a capitalist economy. But what some people on this board seem to be at pains to deny, or at the very least ignore, is the fact that humans are the one commodity that resists being commodified. They resist having their livelihood depend utterly on the fluctuations of the market. They demand, at the very least, a level of security, a price guarnatee for their labor, which the price of most other commodities is not guaranteed. Hence organized class action (which is a fact of history and of the present).
Marx and other radicals have said that working people should demand more than this bare security. Of course, I will readily admit that Marx did not foresee (or did not publicly admit foreseeing) the possibility that workers could ever be guaranteed such security in a system which retained basically capitalist property relations. But that's another discussion altogether.
Nerditarian:Ahhh "private ownership of the means of production". Meaning private control right? As opposed to State control?
Emphatically no. I'm not going to explain this too much; it's easy to find libertarian socialist stuff online.
Nerditarian:If you made crafts and sold them why wouldn't you be a capitalist?
I would say no, but again, this is just a matter of definition. (To anyone thinking of jumping in and arguing at this point: see earlier discussion before commenting).
Nerditarian:I don't agree with the present system at all. I have had every president of the United States during my lifetime on a dartboard. See above. I can't right essays about the evils of how anti-capitalistic this country is right now, I'm taking some intense summer classes and I'm only checking this site once in awhile.
Understandable.
Nerditarian:Hogwash! Why is it at all inherent in the free market system that there won't be a free market? That makes no sense.
Because of my previously stated arguments about how wealthy industrialists cannot realistically be prevented from using government for their own ends and privileges.
Nerditarian:When all capitalists do this we move from capitalism to fascism.
Perhaps we could be a bit less melodramatic and say corporatism instead of 'fascism'. (What we would lose in melodrama we would gain in accuracy).
Nerditarian:Keep in mind that when one capitalist gets help from the State it hurts all other capitalists in his field and the other capitalists who have now a less efficient supplier or purchaser and therefore hurts capitalism as a whole.
OK. But is this supposed to be some kind of reassurance that it won't happen?
Nerditarian:You are the one who wants to deny people a say in how they want society and the economy run! It is capitalism and free trade that gives them the freedom of selection.
Obviously, the majority of people disagree with you that this "freedom of selection" is sufficient, or we would live in a society that is moving slowly towards anarcho-capitalism. Instead, the larger historical trends have been towards greater intervention to shape market forces to planned social ends.
Nerditarian:I don't think I said LTV was authorititarian qua LTV. Marxian conceptions of it and exploitation theories are.
I think the reason Austrians see red when they hear the word "exploitation" is because they think it had all the same connotations when Marx used it. Of course, "exploit" merely means "to use", and is therefore synonymous with "employ", which is frequently used to describe the capitalist's relationship toward his hired labor force without any great objections from the Austrian camp.
ursamajor: I'm sorry, I really don't know what Kwisatz meant.
I would ask you to present this writing to your Socialist brethren.
http://praxeology.net/GM-LTS-I.htm
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain:http://praxeology.net/GM-LTS-I.htm
We are adversaries, and yet the goal which we both pursue is the same. What is the common goal of economists and socialists? Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible, and where the distribution of these same goods among those who have created them through their labour shall be as just as possible? May not our common ideal, apart from all distinction of schools, be summarised in these two words: abundance and justice? Such, none among you can deny, is our common goal.
Such, none among you can deny, is our common goal.
What happened to natural rights?
This is the relentless incoherence of the Austrian position: the shameless bouncing back and forth between justifying capitalism on the basis of either (1) purported "natural rights", which make capitalism something demanded by simple and eternal principles of justice, or (2) the social benefits of capitalism.
The problem is, they aren't just different ways of justifying the same thing. They are in conflict. When the "natural rights" argument is being advanced, the person advancing it usually argues (emphatically) that the social benefits of capitalism do not matter, and that to even ask about the social benefits of capitalism is to betray a lack of understanding of what liberty is about.
Then someone else will come along--or the same person will do a 180-degree turn--and say that capitalism is justified because it causes economic growth, abundance, equitable distribution, efficient allocation, or a whole other range of social benefits.