Truthisnonexistent: When I criticize capitalism, I criticize the current economic system. There are many ways a capitalist may come about his capital, loans from a bank, loans from a friend, inheritance ect. The capitalist uses the large profit reaped from the workers and buys more machinery , the workers labor bought the machines they work on (the tools used to exploit them) so that the capitalist can hire more workers and make more profit. Workers management would not be favorable to anyone who benefits from a capitalist market. Why don't the works have the right to the good they produce? Their labor buys the machines they create it on and their labor covers any maintenance fees, the only thing is the owner has the deeds to the machine. Like I said, the contract is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, this is getting pointless.. really it is, I don't see you changing your view and I don't see me changing mine and I really don't feel like repeating the same things in every post. If you are asking that question, I am going to assume you are in favor of monopolies. So, what is just about a free market monopoly? The owner's capital is the worker's labor.
When I criticize capitalism, I criticize the current economic system. There are many ways a capitalist may come about his capital, loans from a bank, loans from a friend, inheritance ect. The capitalist uses the large profit reaped from the workers and buys more machinery , the workers labor bought the machines they work on (the tools used to exploit them) so that the capitalist can hire more workers and make more profit.
Workers management would not be favorable to anyone who benefits from a capitalist market. Why don't the works have the right to the good they produce? Their labor buys the machines they create it on and their labor covers any maintenance fees, the only thing is the owner has the deeds to the machine. Like I said, the contract is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, this is getting pointless.. really it is, I don't see you changing your view and I don't see me changing mine and I really don't feel like repeating the same things in every post.
If you are asking that question, I am going to assume you are in favor of monopolies. So, what is just about a free market monopoly? The owner's capital is the worker's labor.
Reading your posts, I am reminded what a sad relic of the 19th century marxism is. Your silly little theories about 'free markets = monopoly' have all been debunked by numerous authors, here and elsewhere.
Truthisnonexistent: Slaves probably had a chance to escape slavery, that is no justification for slavery.
Slaves probably had a chance to escape slavery, that is no justification for slavery.
I just want to repost this so everyone can see how rediculous your defense has become.
Truthisnonexistent:By saying I benefit from the market is just as obvious as saying the capitalists benefit from the market. Just because a lot of people "benefit" from the market doesn't make "Free exchange benefits everyone" true.
Truthisnonexistent:How is it not?
Truthisnonexistent:The capitalists, the upper class, the poltical class, call it what you want, benefit from the market and benefit from the state.
Truthisnonexistent:That is what all of you have been saying, "the capitalists manages capital".
Truthisnonexistent:I am not saying that production only comes from backbreaking labor
Truthisnonexistent:When I criticize capitalism, I criticize the current economic system.
Remember how your statements lead people to not take you seriously? You really need to work on knowing what you're talking about, especially with that nonsense regarding "free market monopolies" and "why don't the workers have the right to what they produce". Seriously: the economic equivalent of young-earth creationism is what you spew. It's that bad. It's Hovind-esque.
Taras Smereka: Yes someone makes the capital, the workers! The market cannot survive without labor. No one can survive without labor. If you dont labor, you just lie on the couch and starve to death. Labor isnt a magic deity, it is what it is. Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, historically have not been determined by the market. They have been won by collective struggle against the capitalist, against the market process. Free markets do not tend to monopolize. Wages and normal profits are a reflection of value added. I have gotten a 13% raise over two years since I started this job. I am not a member of a union, management has given me better wages because I have improved my productivity. The unionized store down the street has lower average worker productivity than the nonunionized store that I work at, and the union is actually making workers less productive and preventing their wages from rising. Regardless of what Karl Marx, Father of the People (I was born in the soviet union, and I drank the same Kool Aid), tells you, these claims are not true as there is no evidence for them. Marxism is a RELIGION not a thoery. Clearly you see the capitalist as more important than the worker. Seeing as the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that as justified. The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record. Again, I am saying that in a free market people are compensated according to their value added. You are pretending that there is a "class struggle" and I "see the capitalist as more important than the worker", which I do not. The capitalists arent out to "exploit" you, its all in your head. If you want to be worried, be worried about the government, criminals, and monopolists, they are the ones doing the exploitation.
Yes someone makes the capital, the workers! The market cannot survive without labor.
No one can survive without labor. If you dont labor, you just lie on the couch and starve to death. Labor isnt a magic deity, it is what it is.
Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, historically have not been determined by the market. They have been won by collective struggle against the capitalist, against the market process.
Free markets do not tend to monopolize. Wages and normal profits are a reflection of value added. I have gotten a 13% raise over two years since I started this job. I am not a member of a union, management has given me better wages because I have improved my productivity. The unionized store down the street has lower average worker productivity than the nonunionized store that I work at, and the union is actually making workers less productive and preventing their wages from rising. Regardless of what Karl Marx, Father of the People (I was born in the soviet union, and I drank the same Kool Aid), tells you, these claims are not true as there is no evidence for them. Marxism is a RELIGION not a thoery.
Clearly you see the capitalist as more important than the worker. Seeing as the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that as justified. The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record.
Again, I am saying that in a free market people are compensated according to their value added. You are pretending that there is a "class struggle" and I "see the capitalist as more important than the worker", which I do not. The capitalists arent out to "exploit" you, its all in your head. If you want to be worried, be worried about the government, criminals, and monopolists, they are the ones doing the exploitation.
Labor is what it is, it is what keeps a market surviving. Wages are not a reflection of value added, if that was the case then there would be no need for labor movements. If a union wins the workers a higher wage but the product is still being sold for the same value, there is no differentiation in the value added by the worker but they are still paid a higher wage because there is a lot of breathing room, the wages can increase dramatically and the business can still function fine because the owner reaps so much profit.
Self-managed workplaces have increased productivity than capitalist businesses.
I'm not a Marxist but isn't anarcho-capitalism a religion as well? Religion is basically just a set of beliefs.
Maybe I was wording my accusation wrong. You see the capitalists contribution to society more important than the workers. Social classes are determined by capital, land ownership and relation to means of production primarily. If you see the worker and capitalist as equals, what are you judging upon? Because it is silly to judge a contributor to the market's value by anything other than capital because the system is a profit (capital) based system.
The capitalists are out to exploit the working class. The capitalists are out to make profit, through lowering their wages and the like.
filc: Truthisnonexistent: Slaves probably had a chance to escape slavery, that is no justification for slavery. I just want to repost this so everyone can see how rediculous your defense has become.
I'm contrasting. To justifiy a system because one has the chance to do something is silly.
Truthisnonexistent:I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate.. and I don't know what definition you are citing, please link a source.
It is as mature as one who presumes to speak for me without my consent....
Exploit
Traditionally it is the second definition that most use when speaking in terms of the worker's social experience
Truthisnonexistent:Yes you agree to the terms of your employment but there are no other fiscally non-exploitative, practical alternatives. Not everyone can be self-employed or be a business owner. The market isn't an all loving God.
Nope the market is not a God... It is a tool to exchange property...
There were plenty of alternatives, I chose the one that I wanted, and I am happy with my choice, that may change, but that will happen when it happens, and then I will pursue other alternatives...
I do not understand what you are getting at if you are not talking about the second definition, because if you think that you should be rewarded for being non-productive, the options are limited to union or government worker...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
So if I plant an apple tree in my back yard, then let my neigher pick all ten fruit for me and, in return, I give him five of the apples, am I still exploiting my neighbor? What I am trying to get at is that not all owners necessarilly violated the rights of their workers. But you fail to recognize that and, thus, cast all owners as violators of rights. Thus, your argument, so far, has been one hasty generalization. Not only that, but I was asking you about free-market capitalists while you refering to mercantilist capitalists. Thus, your remark about free-market monopoly doesn't follow.
You have conflated much and, thus, confused your argument. I have been trying to follow the logic in your confused argument. This is why I keep asking, what seems to you to be, the same questions.
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."
Truthisnonexistent: Wages are not a reflection of value added,
Wages are not a reflection of value added,
The last I checked they were. A laborer who produces a higher quality widget or produces more widget in the time alloted will likely earn a higher wage. Additional he may also earn added wage per widget created. This type of insentive compensation is very common and promoted by various business conosultants from around the world. You should read up on one of my favorites here
Thomas Gilbert
Truthisnonexistent: if that was the case then there would be no need for labor movements.
if that was the case then there would be no need for labor movements.
Most the time there isn't ever a need for labor movements.
Truthisnonexistent: If a union wins the workers a higher wage but the product is still being sold for the same value, there is no differentiation in the value added by the worker but they are still paid a higher wage because there is a lot of breathing room,
If a union wins the workers a higher wage but the product is still being sold for the same value, there is no differentiation in the value added by the worker but they are still paid a higher wage because there is a lot of breathing room,
So it's ok for the union to exploit and/or extort from the so called "Capitalist" but not ok if it's the other way around? No level of hipacracy whatsoever here? Also what is your basis for assuming the capitalist is earning more then the laborers? Your judgement cannot be in currency alone but must consider leisure time, mental strain, family condition, ect....
You seem to act like someone who feels that everyone should have the riches of the world without the effort. Ayn Rand has a great quote you should consider.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. -Ayn Rand The Fountain Head
Truthisnonexistent: the wages can increase dramatically and the business can still function fine because the owner reaps so much profit.
the wages can increase dramatically and the business can still function fine because the owner reaps so much profit.
Again another fantasy based dream of yours that all business owners reap such huge profits. Yet how do you explain how so many business owners open themselves and or suffer from huge financial loss? If your argument were true then business would never fold.
Truthisnonexistent: I'm not a Marxist but isn't anarcho-capitalism a religion as well? Religion is basically just a set of beliefs.
Look with your reasoning you could call anything a religion. I could say Intel before the Core2Duo followed the religion of clockspeed but that would sound silly.
Truthisnonexistent: Maybe I was wording my accusation wrong. You see the capitalists contribution to society more important than the workers. Social classes are determined by capital, land ownership and relation to means of production primarily. If you see the worker and capitalist as equals, what are you judging upon? Because it is silly to judge a contributor to the market's value by anything other than capital because the system is a profit (capital) based system. The capitalists are out to exploit the working class. The capitalists are out to make profit, through lowering their wages and the like.
Maybe you should consider learning a little vocab and use words as they are meant to be used. As otherds have pointed out your not taken seriously because you have this gross fixation in your head that all capitalists are business owners and all laborers are not. When actually many business owners are may not beleive in capitalism and many laborers do.
The difference between our system and the one you promote is fundamental. Our system allows you to create your system in an isolated location. Any one can voluntarily join you and your cult to create your own utopian business or state. Your system however is incapable of tolerating a voluntarily situation where people would be allowed to leave once blight kicked in.
Our system allows people to come and go as they please. Your system requires force to keep people where htey are are to continue acting the part of labor. Our system offers freedom, your system, unlike ours, offers real slavery.
filc:The last I checked they were. A laborer who produces a higher quality widget or produces more widget in the time alloted will likely earn a higher wage. Additional he may also earn added wage per widget created. This type of insentive compensation is very common and promoted by various business conosultants from around the world. You should read up on one of my favorites here
The problem is she prefers union shops that do not allow such practices...
filc:So it's ok for the union to exploit and/or extort from the so called "Capitalist" but not ok if it's the other way around?
Because the capiatlist does not toil he should not eat...
filc:Again another fantasy based dream of yours that all business owners reap such huge profits. Yet how do you explain how so many business owners open themselves and or suffer from huge financial loss? If your argument were true then business would never fold.
They self sabotage, to screw the workers and prover her wrong...
filc: The difference between our system and the one you promote is fundamental. Our system allows you to create your system in an isolated location. Any one can voluntarily join you and your cult to create your own utopian business or state. Your system however is incapable of tolerating a voluntarily situation where people would be allowed to leave once blight kicked in. Our system allows people to come and go as they please. Your system requires force to keep people where htey are are to continue acting the part of labor. Our system offers freedom, your system, unlike ours, offers real slavery.
Spot on Filc....
Truthisnonexistent:Capital, which isn't necessary to the markets survival.
Bzzt, wrong.
Capital is entirely necessary. Labor cannot be realized absent of capital. Try again.
Truthisnonexistent:Capital comes from labor.
Bzzt, wrong again.
Capital comes from savings. While labor is necessary in some way to it's creation (and with a division of labor market, it's not always by direct involvement). Savings is the antecedent to capital production, whithout which you will be unable to develop capital.
Truthisnonexistent:The capitalist wants the wages as low as possible, social struggle forces the capitalist to higher the wages.
Bzzt, three strikes, you're outta here!
Wages rise naturally as production allows savings, the creation of new capital, and economic growth, which in turn, decreases the costs of production.
I am, of course, speaking in terms of "real wages".
They also rise as a result of firms competing over more experienced and more productive workers through offering greater incentives for workers working at their firm than other firms.
banned: Truthisnonexistent:Capital, which isn't necessary to the markets survival. Bzzt, wrong. Capital is entirely necessary. Labor cannot be realized absent of capital. Try again. Truthisnonexistent:Capital comes from labor. Bzzt, wrong again. Capital comes from savings. While labor is necessary in some way to it'
Capital comes from savings. While labor is necessary in some way to it'
This may help...
Truthisnonexistent:"If the worker agrees to work for less than the "full value" of the good, how is that a violation of the worker's rights?"Because there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed.
You say that because, apparently, you believe all market interactions - all trade where one tries to maximize one's own benefit - are exploitative. Think about the implications of that.
Truthisnonexistent:Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.
They sure do, we agree on this. If you are against monopoly, you are our friend and ally (even if misguided about economics).
Truthisnonexistent:Markets do not meet the needs of society as a whole.
Truthisnonexistent:Wages are not a reflection of value added, if that was the case then there would be no need for labor movements.
You assume labor movement increase wages, but they do not - on average. They increase wages for some, but make others unable to be employed, thereby reducing their wages to zero. In the free market, labor unions are not necessary, let alone why they have done in the current system.
Truthisnonexistent:The capitalists are out to exploit the working class. The capitalists are out to make profit, through lowering their wages and the like.
Truthisnonexistent:The capitalist wants the wages as low as possible, social struggle forces the capitalist to higher the wages. Now, if the wages were made higher by a process separate from aspects of the market (to some extent) why did they raise the wages? If the workers are not that important to the business or market.
Wages rise when profits and/or productivity rise. There is logically no other way, because if there are no additional profits where are the increased wages going to come from? You may say the owner's cut will be reduced, but then the owner has less ability go start more businesses and help more people. You do realize that starting a new, successful business in, say, shirts makes shirts less expensive for everyone, don' t you? Not to mention offering them jobs.
If workers want to raise their wages, they shop around or increase their own ability to produce. They can only shop around to the extent that there's a free market and a lot of business activity.
Truthisnonexistent:The "voluntary" agreement is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives.
If you're dying of thirst in the desert and I offer you a gallon of water for $100, I am surely exploiting you, and surely there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, but the real question here is, have I helped you or hurt you? I have helped you, even to the point of saving your life. Furthermore, would you be able to get more or less water if there were more businesses selling water than just me? The more there are, the cheaper it becomes and the longer you can live. Of course, in reality I myself would give you my water if I could spare it, but what if I couldn't? What if giving you my water would leave me no water to sell for food to feed my family? You have money, I have water. We both have legitimate needs - you your life, me my family's life. We make a trade. How do you know that big capitalists are not making their profits because they think - ney, KNOW - that they are making everyone in the world better off through their profit-seeking. Just because there is a happy coincidence of interests doesn't mean there is anything bad happening. You simply cannot say that a trade is exploitative in any important way unless there is deception involved.
Truthisnonexistent:The current economic system practiced is not an ideal capitalist system but it is an ideal system for capitalists.
For SOME capitalists - the ones who don't participate in the free market, but use government instead. For all other capitalists, it's a pretty bad system. This is an argument against government, not against the free market.
Truthisnonexistent:Not all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world. To say everyone benefits from the market or that the market meets everyone's needs is purely utopianism.
Free exchange makes both parties better off. If I trade you apples for oranges, because you want apples more and I want oranges more, we are both better off. If I trade my labor for wages, both I and the employer are better off - or else we wouldn't have done the trade.
Truthisnonexistent:Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, historically have not been determined by the market.
Truthisnonexistent:They have been won by collective struggle against the capitalist, against the market process.
Truthisnonexistent:The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record.
Truthisnonexistent:The selling price of a product is determined by the laws of supply and demand (the market) while the wages of the worker are not.
Truthisnonexistent:When I speak of capitalists, I speak of the owners of the means of production.
Truthisnonexistent:Like I said, the contract is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, this is getting pointless..
Truthisnonexistent:The owner's capital is the worker's labor.
By using the term "owner's capital" you imply ownership (hence the apostrophe). The worker is not a slave. To say there are no viable alternatives to working is silly, because before capitalism there were even less alternatives. The worker is free to try to start his own business, or his own cooperative, or be self-employed, or beg from others if he thinks that will work. Throughout history, most people have been poor and starving, and it was only when capitalism came along that this started to change. Now it has changed in a big way, and we have entire countries where the poor people have TVs and cellphones, things the kings of old could scarcely imagine. They may not be living well, but without capitalism they would in all likelihood not be living better, they would be starving to death - as history shows. The only other chance is if there's a better system, but then why hasn't that system ever been tried or worked on a large scale? History is a natural vetting process for systems, and free markets are winning out as the most successful, regardless of the fact that we have yet to get totally free markets.
Truthisnonexistent:The owners of the means of production which receive beneficial treatment from the state. The CEO of company A which receives beneficial treatment from the state also benefits from the workers of his company. Large corporations produce the most jobs and large corporations receive the most beneficial state treatment.
http://home.earthlink.net/~schiffeconomics/01.htm
Or else we cannot continue our discussion. There would be no point, as you yet don't understand the dynamics of free exchange.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: You assume labor movements are helpful or rational on the part of workers. And of course, no, wages are ALWAYS a reflection of the value added, or else some other company would spring up to better reflect the value added, and the workers would change jobs. You sorely need to read this comic book, at least the first few pages: http://home.earthlink.net/~schiffeconomics/01.htm Or else we cannot continue our discussion. There would be no point, as you yet don't understand the dynamics of free exchange.
You assume labor movements are helpful or rational on the part of workers. And of course, no, wages are ALWAYS a reflection of the value added, or else some other company would spring up to better reflect the value added, and the workers would change jobs. You sorely need to read this comic book, at least the first few pages:
Man thats a great link, i've never seen it. I own a few of Irwins books. I consider it a personal attack for what the gov did to him. thanks!
Errm.. does anyone have this in PDF format? I'd like to send it to my Kindle.
http://freedom-school.com/money/ (first link at the top)
Truthisnonexistent: You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit.
You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit.
Why not? It's the same thing.
You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.
Which worker?
BarleyLegal: Truthisnonexistent: You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. Why not? It's the same thing.
Because she heard that somewhere.
you12: "National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp." I don't know whether to laugh or ask you for a joint?
"National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp."
I don't know whether to laugh or ask you for a joint?
Maybe National Capitalism would have been a far better name. Just imagine then the "Nazis" would have been called "Napis"
Anyway, If Communism is that great, why not simply practice it? Even in the theoretical construct of a libertarian society, people would be free to form communistic associations and practice communism there. Or am I wrong on this?
The mistake I see commieboppers like truthisnonexistant make time and time again is that they don't understand the concept of subjective value.In a market scenario, there are two exchanges happening:1) The worker exchanges, voluntarily, his labour for money with the entrepreneur because he values the money more than he values his labour.2) The entrepreneur exchanges, voluntarily, his product for money from a customer because the customer values the product more than he values the money.Every party is exploiting each other, so to speak. The worker exploits the entrepreneur, as he doesn't have to raise capital and try risky ventures which might fail - he can just turn up and exchange labour for money. The entrepreneur exploits the worker because he can possibly sell a product for more than the monetary value of the labour and raw material input. The customer exploits the entrepreneur because he can buy a product which would take vastly more time to make than the time taken to earn the money for the product.Each party values what he gives LESS than what he receives. This is the crux of the subjective theory of value.
So given this, a worker can:
-Create products himself and sell directly to customers (i.e he is acting as entrepreneur AND worker, taking the full burden of capital risk), -Get together with other workers and form a co-operative to sell their products directly to customers (sharing capital risk), -Forgo the capital risk and sell his labour to an entrepreneur. All three scenarios described above are completely compatible with free markets.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Truthisnonexistent: Taras Smereka: Yes someone makes the capital, the workers! The market cannot survive without labor. No one can survive without labor. If you dont labor, you just lie on the couch and starve to death. Labor isnt a magic deity, it is what it is. Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, historically have not been determined by the market. They have been won by collective struggle against the capitalist, against the market process. Free markets do not tend to monopolize. Wages and normal profits are a reflection of value added. I have gotten a 13% raise over two years since I started this job. I am not a member of a union, management has given me better wages because I have improved my productivity. The unionized store down the street has lower average worker productivity than the nonunionized store that I work at, and the union is actually making workers less productive and preventing their wages from rising. Regardless of what Karl Marx, Father of the People (I was born in the soviet union, and I drank the same Kool Aid), tells you, these claims are not true as there is no evidence for them. Marxism is a RELIGION not a thoery. Clearly you see the capitalist as more important than the worker. Seeing as the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that as justified. The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record. Again, I am saying that in a free market people are compensated according to their value added. You are pretending that there is a "class struggle" and I "see the capitalist as more important than the worker", which I do not. The capitalists arent out to "exploit" you, its all in your head. If you want to be worried, be worried about the government, criminals, and monopolists, they are the ones doing the exploitation. Labor is what it is, it is what keeps a market surviving. Wages are not a reflection of value added, if that was the case then there would be no need for labor movements. If a union wins the workers a higher wage but the product is still being sold for the same value, there is no differentiation in the value added by the worker but they are still paid a higher wage because there is a lot of breathing room, the wages can increase dramatically and the business can still function fine because the owner reaps so much profit. Self-managed workplaces have increased productivity than capitalist businesses. I'm not a Marxist but isn't anarcho-capitalism a religion as well? Religion is basically just a set of beliefs. Maybe I was wording my accusation wrong. You see the capitalists contribution to society more important than the workers. Social classes are determined by capital, land ownership and relation to means of production primarily. If you see the worker and capitalist as equals, what are you judging upon? Because it is silly to judge a contributor to the market's value by anything other than capital because the system is a profit (capital) based system. The capitalists are out to exploit the working class. The capitalists are out to make profit, through lowering their wages and the like.
1) Social Class is determined by you and only you. You can freely judge and value people which ever way you want. If you want to divide it up by money fine, that's your perogative and value system. I think though that when people wish to enforce a value system unwillingly on others it tends to cause various degrees of tension
2) Labor is just a means to an end. Production is key. Labor for the sake of labor does nothing useful to society, hence why most people wouldn't naturally dig holes and fill them back up and expect something from society to give them something in return. I also think the very definition of the word "labor" has a bit of a negative conotation to it. We "labor" to get our desired end. Laboring is not something people want to do by the very definition of the word, it is there to achieve a desired end. Labor is not the ends it is the means.
What is the desired end? What ever motivates the labor. What motivates the labor? As far as interacting peacfully with other people is concerned, an outside demand. Who creates this outside demand? Anyone with a want or need.
Production is what is valued, focus on that. By it's very definition production is what people want. Take your division of "Worker" and "Capitalist" for example. The "worker" doesn't dig ditches for the giggles of it, he does it now because he has a valued end. He most likley gets money, hence he has now produced. Why did he produce? What caused him to produce? Why was this digging of the hole considerd production and not the hole I used in my previous example considerd production?
Likewise though, the "capitalist "labors as well, it is just a labor on your value set you consider improper. You are making arbitrary divisions, value is subjective. Even the "capitalist" who does nothing more than put his money (a symbol of past production accumulated somehow) in a business to invest in. The labor is the investment. But we don't care about his labor for the sake of his labor, we only care about the production.
And I suspect you don't care about labor, you care about hierarchies. And more specificaly put I bet you detest hierarchies done by private individuals, you value a majoritarian body deciding what is to be valued over individual transaction/goals, the "greater good", the "good cause", or "your greater good cause".
3) Self Managed workplaces: A free market welcomes any business model. If a certain business model is so vastly superior to another one, it most likley will be a triumph in the market if given a chance. The only thing that would could absolutly not allow a business model not to have a chance is government regulation, or some other form of force.
4) The consumer exploits the consumer. The bee exploits the flower, the flower exploits the bee. We can go on doing this for awhile, it doesn't really mean anything. Creating arbitrary divisions is easy. Anytime we interact with society with some purpose in mind, we are all trying to exploit some situation. If you think that is bad, fine, that is your value system.
5) Anachro Capitalism as a Relgion: depends on the person
Truthisnonexistent:I'm not a Marxist but isn't anarcho-capitalism a religion as well? Religion is basically just a set of beliefs.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
There is no need for labor movements. People form unions to exploit other workers, they are monopolies. Thats why the unionized store down the street gets less productivity from its workers, and GM went bankrupt, the unions formed a monopoly (with government support) so they could raise prices while doing a shitty job.
What evidence do you base this off of? And in this case the worker is both a worker and a capitalist. The capitalist hasnt gone away, his role is merely absorbed by the worker (and there are costs and benefits that go with that)
'm not a Marxist but isn't anarcho-capitalism a religion as well? Religion is basically just a set of beliefs.
a religion is based on bullshit stories not evidence. Example would be crap like "Honor thy father and thy mother", "Money is the root of all evil", "Profits are exploitation" etc
Maybe I was wording my accusation wrong. You see the capitalists contribution to society more important than the workers. Social classes are determined by capital, land ownership and relation to means of production primarily. If you see the worker and capitalist as equals, what are you judging upon? Because it is silly to judge a contributor to the market's value by anything other than capital because the system is a profit (capital) based system. The capitalists are out to exploit the working class. The capitalists are out to make profit, through lowering their wages and the like.
There is no such thing as classes or a class struggle. My wage is going up but the company still makes a profit because it serves consumer demands. Markets arent about "exploitation" they are about servicing customers.
Truthisnonexistent:I say the workers are more important because a market cannot survive without labor.
Yet, labor without coordination and cooperation cannot yield anything close to the civilization that we both exist in. The PC you type on wasn't created by some raw grunt work, but by a complex series of exchanges, discoveries, and gambles. Whether it's one mining company selling raw silica to a refining company, or whether it's an engineer or physicist that figures out how to compact circuitry into an ever smaller space with lower power requirements, or even if it's some wise cracking entrepreneur that figures out that a given smaller, more compact circuitry design could yield amazing parallel processors for .h 264 decoding on your LCD TV. These have to happen both in parallel and in interdependent manners. Parallel in the sense that the same circuitry design can be used to make better ignition computers. Interdependent in that labor cannot yield the final product without the entrepreneur to gamble on the idea of the use of the circuitry in LCD TVs (and to convince investors that it's a good idea too).
It's a manner that the market is a living system or ecology, full of many different creatures (firms, consumers, entrepreneurs, inventors, and etc) which fulfill different ends or act as different means. But no where along the way can one prove that it is exploitation as that implies a single absolute moral standard for all social situations (this is clearly only a fool's conception as context always counts in all situations, social or otherwise). Thus to assert labor is ever exploited is to assume that all participants are not free to seek alternatives in their functions, ends, and intents (this applies to all social situations, outside of economies).
Truthisnonexistent:The capitalists are out to exploit the working class.
As if there is a difference between a capitalist and a worker.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Peter Schiff posted this on Tuesday. I found it a nice illustration of the fallacies aired in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30qMDVd8z0E#t=2m40s
in the long run this creates a loyal labour force desighned to serve the needs of the ruling class... hense the reason you are being expolited, you just choose not to care, out of intrest what do you do for a living?
Gregoravich:in the long run this creates a loyal labour force desighned to serve the needs of the ruling class...
Of course, the polar opposite was true under communism. Tell me, why was it that only politburo members had houses on the black sea?
You are agreeing to to the terms and condition of a communist class system society, with the false class conscience the communists have provided you. This false class conscience creates in your mind that you are not being exploited when the reality is you are, you just don't realize it.
In the long run in a capitalist society you create in your head who has a higher value than you and call them your ruler, hence you allow them to exploit you. In communism you choose not to create a hierarchy and choose not to care about the relative definition of exploitation.
i wouldnt know enough to tell you however i do know that communism is the only peaceful way forward in the world we live in today and capitalism had destroyed and trashed the planet we live in, look around, capitalism has broken so many countrys in Africa, South America, China, Cuba, Russia and more...
exploitation is the name of the game for capitalism and even if one person rules and keeps watch over an equal soiety below such as a communist one this is better than a huge divide in wealth due to exploitation is it not?
OK, so capitalism = whatever you personally find distasteful. Let's call it statism and move on, k?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Gregoravich: i wouldnt know enough to tell you however i do know that communism is the only peaceful way forward in the world we live in today and capitalism had destroyed and trashed the planet we live in, look around, capitalism has broken so many countrys in Africa, South America, China, Cuba, Russia and more... exploitation is the name of the game for capitalism and even if one person rules and keeps watch over an equal soiety below such as a communist one this is better than a huge divide in wealth due to exploitation is it not?
These are all examples of state sponsored exploitation. Remove the state, remove the ability of capitalists to amass enough power/resources to exploit much of anything. Statist collectivism has failed, statist semi-collectivism is on it's way to failing, the common thread is the state. Remove that, everyone becomes much more able to excel based on individual merit. The playing field is leveled with anarchy, which is the best one can hope for, rather than holding the illusion that every individual is (or should be) equal.
wo wo wo, several things, firstly are you saying that equality is a bad thing? and secondly i would like to point out that those listed countrys have been expolited by our capitalist world, example being china, the country is way over populated and communism was ment to give them and equal playing field but the only way they could do this was excepting the world around them outside of china (capitalism). Because of this capitalist companys such as nike decide to go to these countrys and exploit the workers by making them work for bairley enough to live in just to make a profit... seems fair doesn't it...
Russia is also a good example, would anyone care to point out the main reason for russia failing ecenomicly and the event that caused this (technically there is 2 reasons though).
Equality is neither inherently 'good' nor 'bad'. Enslaving people in its name... well, you figure that one out. For the rest of the drivel, do tell where you're sourcing this (dis)information from?
Gregoravich:wo wo wo, several things, firstly are you saying that equality is a bad thing?
It's neither bad nor good. People are not born the same, they are not created equal. Egalitarianism undermines the fruits of the division of labor.
Gregoravich:firstly are you saying that equality is a bad thing?
No, I'm saying that treating individuals in a "one size fits all" way is a nonsensical thing.
Gregoravich:secondly i would like to point out that those listed countrys have been expolited by our capitalist world
And my contention is that the exploitation would not have occurred without state intervention.
Gregoravich:example being china, the country is way over populated
What does "over-populated" mean? Ever heard of Malthus?
Gregoravich:communism was ment to give them and equal playing field but the only way they could do this was excepting the world around them outside of china (capitalism).
Have you ever heard of the Great Leap Forward? Central planning in China completely failed, that's why markets were introduced.
Gregoravich:Because of this capitalist companys such as nike decide to go to these countrys and exploit the workers by making them work for bairley enough to live in just to make a profit... seems fair doesn't it...
They are only able to carry out these exploitative business practices due to state intervention.
Gregoravich:Russia is also a good example, would anyone care to point out the main reason for russia failing ecenomicly and the event that caused this (technically there is 2 reasons though).
Do you mean the USSR, or the Russian Republic?
i agree, people are not born equal, never have been and never can be in a capitalist society. Sorry btw i could not think of the exact word so "over-populated" is the only word i could think of, but i ment that the country has massive population that is ever growing and cannot afford to control or help.
Oww and i ment USSR sorry, i believe the date was 1948 three years after the war. any guess?
Btw my information comes from university and college teachers that have taught me politics, History and sociology so its fair to say that i have a large amount of information for my age thankyou.
Gregoravich:i agree, people are not born equal, never have been and never can be in a capitalist society.
But they can become equal in a collectivist society?
Gregoravich:but i ment that the country has massive population that is ever growing and cannot afford to control or help.
Control or help what?
Gregoravich:Oww and i ment USSR sorry, i believe the date was 1948 three years after the war. any guess?
The USSR didn't collapse until 1991.
Gregoravich:Btw my information comes from university and college teachers that have taught me politics, History and sociology so its fair to say that i have a large amount of information for my age thankyou.
LOL How old are you, twelve?
lol no i am not twelve thankyou verry much, however i do respect you intrest and knowledge in this field.. i wasn't talking about the colapse of the soviet union my friend i was talking about how and why it went so down hill and why so many lives were lost...
control or help the fact that massive amounts of the polulation are marginalised
Out of intrest where do you stand on the political spectrum?
Gregoravich, if I didn't want to be part of your commune what would you do to me?
depends what situation im in, are we talking committee in a communist country or what?