I want to see if the "hype" is true.
Esuric: When someone is wrong they should be corrected. You were clearly wrong.
When someone is wrong they should be corrected. You were clearly wrong.
How was I wrong? You basically agreed with me, and then added a lot of superfluous information. You should read and understand what you critique, before you make the critique. I said:
Capitalism, in the purest theoretical sense, has probably never existed...
Bolding is mine. You said:
There has been, however, varying degrees of interventionism...
The only thing you were doing was splitting hairs, and missing the context in which the sentence was written in. My point that you can't call today's mercantilism capitalism still stands, which was the context in which that sentence was written. You have this obsession to prove everybody wrong, and by doing so you either split hairs or you draw a straw man. I'm sorry, it doesn't strengthen your argument, nor does it make you particularly approachable. In this case, you clearly misunderstood what I said.
Edit:
You said, to Leviathan:
Your own spurious definition of "capitalism" can mean whatever you want it to mean.
This was, to some degree or another, basically what I said (and you decided to take out of context, for I'm not sure what reason [to prove something, maybe?]).
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Capitalism, in the purest theoretical sense, has probably never existed...
This is incorrect. You're confusing "capitalism" with complete lassaiz-faire and/or anarcho-capitalism. Lassaiz-faire has existed, and exists today, but not "in the purest theoretical sense."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:You have this obsession to prove everybody wrong, and by doing so you either split hairs or you draw a straw man.
Don't be so sensitive. People come here to talk. If I wanted to hear "shut up" I would stay after school and debate my lunatic professors.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:[to prove something, maybe?]).
That's what it was! You're the modern day Mises! Here's the truth: it seems like you're needlessly conceding the point to leviathan, namely the "capitalism has never existed" nonsense.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: krazy kaju: If worker coops were as amazingly productive and efficient as you claim them to be, one would expect them to be the prevalent form of economic organization in this country. That's the real empirical evidence. They are. My family are farmers in Spain, and we use "cooperatives" for most of our production. The problem is the way that people believe they are set up. For all intents and purposes, they are private enterprises. I'll use our wine cooperative as an example. The cooperative is set up by a number of farmers willing to set up the firm. Other farmers can then become members, whereas they exclusively sell their grapes to that cooperative to make their wine. It is a private company.
krazy kaju: If worker coops were as amazingly productive and efficient as you claim them to be, one would expect them to be the prevalent form of economic organization in this country. That's the real empirical evidence.
If worker coops were as amazingly productive and efficient as you claim them to be, one would expect them to be the prevalent form of economic organization in this country. That's the real empirical evidence.
They are. My family are farmers in Spain, and we use "cooperatives" for most of our production. The problem is the way that people believe they are set up. For all intents and purposes, they are private enterprises. I'll use our wine cooperative as an example. The cooperative is set up by a number of farmers willing to set up the firm. Other farmers can then become members, whereas they exclusively sell their grapes to that cooperative to make their wine. It is a private company.
So this is a cooperative of capital owners? Are the farm laborers members of farming cooperatives?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Esuric: This is incorrect. You're confusing "capitalism" with complete lassaiz-faire and/or anarcho-capitalism. Lassaiz-faire has existed, and exists today, but not "in the purest theoretical sense."
Okay, so you agree with me then? To be honest, I have no idea what you're on about. Capitalism without interventionism has never existed, and to me capitalism in the "purest theoretical sense" exists without interventionism. I never said that Capitalism, in the sense of capital accumulation, trade and the division of labor within a governed society with interventionism never existed.
There you go again, Ensuric, trying to prove a point (although, I'm not sure what point). I am not conceding any point to Leviathan (although, I prefer to approach him with respect, given that if I outright deny his opinions [which would be incorrect of me to do so from an intellectual stand point, in any case] then he is less willing to listen to what I have to say; I, of course, expect the same vice versa, and so far he has. It's a debate tactic; you make minor concessions to give them an incentive to continue reading what you have to say); capitalism, in the sense that Rothbard or anarcho-capitalists describe it, has never existed for the simple fact that there has always been interventionism. Nobody denied that capital accumulation is not the source of wealth. That wasn't even mentioned; it was some superfluous argument that you added to your original response to me, for God knows what reason (as if I didn't know what the source of wealth creation was, given all that I've written on these forums, and on my blog, on the topic).
You were splitting hairs, and ignoring the context in which the sentence was written.
Esuric: It's extremely satisfying to see that Mises and Hayek's arguments from the late 20s has forced pseudo-socialists into this very curious position. There is no economic doctrine supporting your claims, and you're forced to retreat from Marx, Sraffa et al. It's wonderful really.
It's extremely satisfying to see that Mises and Hayek's arguments from the late 20s has forced pseudo-socialists into this very curious position. There is no economic doctrine supporting your claims, and you're forced to retreat from Marx, Sraffa et al. It's wonderful really.
You should read Socialism After Hayek its a trip! While accepting many of Hayek's arguments the author makes his Marxist ideals painfully clear. He never really counters Hayek's "Knowledge Problem." And with his solution of worker-owned democratically-controlled firms basically ignores all the problems associated with them (such as those put forth by Klein and Prychitko).
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: To be honest, I have no idea what you're on about.
Wonderful. My comments were extremely clear, and I explained why I chose to respond to you. If you think you can control what people say on this forum, or that you have the right to put in place some "don't speak unless spoken to" decree, then you're sadly mistaken.
Angurse:You should read Socialism After Hayek its a trip! While accepting many of Hayek's arguments the author makes his Marxist ideals painfully clear. He never really counters Hayek's "Knowledge Problem." And with his solution of worker-owned democratically-controlled firms basically ignores all the problems associated with them (such as those put forth by Klein and Prychitko).
Thanks, that sounds hysterical.
Stranger: So this is a cooperative of capital owners? Are the farm laborers members of farming cooperatives?
I can only speak from my own experience as a farmer in Castilla-La Mancha (well, my family are the farmers, but since I've lived there and helped them working on the land I have a decent idea of what is going on), and so I don't know if there are communal farming societies in Spain. The farmers, themselves, are private land owners, and we work for our own profit. Then, you have to sell your harvest to processing centers (i.e. wineries, oil presses, et cetera). There are cooperative and "private" processing centers.
The difference is not in the way that it's organized, just the way that it was founded. Let's say that at the beginning of time there was a private winery, and farmers thought that the owners took too much of a profit from the farmers' grapes. So, the farmers, lacking enough capital on an individual basis to build a winery of their own, decide to unite capital and distribute ownership between the providers of said capital. The result is a cooperative. Individual farmers who did not contribute capital can apply for membership, but it sometimes works the same with "private" companies (in the end, they are all private). The membership is pretty much like a Costco card; you get perks.
The difference might be that the cooperatives are subsidized (I am not completely sure), so what the cooperative can offer you is sometimes better than what a private processing center can. My family belongs to a wine cooperative, but until this year (I'm not sure if we switched; I moved out of Spain, so I am no longer up to speed) we sold our olives to a private olive press.
I guess there are "communal" incentives to form be a member in the cooperative. The wine is not the cooperative, but is "yours" (all contributing farmers can claim that the wine is theirs), and this wouldn't be true with a private firm. I guess that is a form of intellectual property (well, not really, but you get what I'm saying). But, at least our wine cooperative resembles more of a private enterprise, than anything communal.
Esuric: Wonderful. My comments were extremely clear, and I explained why I chose to respond to you. If you think you can control what people say on this forum, or that you have the right to put in place some "don't speak unless spoken to" decree, then you're sadly mistaken.
That's not what I said at all, Ensuric. Please, stop straw manning me.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Esuric: Wonderful. My comments were extremely clear, and I explained why I chose to respond to you. If you think you can control what people say on this forum, or that you have the right to put in place some "don't speak unless spoken to" decree, then you're sadly mistaken. That's not what I said at all, Ensuric. Please, stop straw manning me.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:What I said wasn't directed to you, or really had anything to do with what you said.
I said if.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I am not conceding any point to Leviathan
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: It's a debate tactic; you make minor concessions to give them an incentive to continue reading what you have to say)
You could go down this route. I don't see why you would, but okay. Again, this is why I responded to you, if you must know.
Esuric: I said if.
I'm not sure how you could misinterpret that post you quoted as an attempt on my part to tell you to "not speak unless spoken too", but that was not the intention at all. I was stating my position that what you quoted had nothing to do with what you said, and then later extended my position to include the fact that you were splitting hairs for no apparent purpose other than to discredit the post (and, I'm not sure for what reason).
What I said wasn't directed to you...
This had to be clarified, as the response was directed at Leviathan, and so was written within the context of Leviathan's post (which I quoted) and within the context of what I was trying to say to Leviathan.
You could go down this route. I don't see why you would, but okay.
Because, I have experience debating with people that disagree with me, and those people have told me that they close their minds when you question their intelligence, because they no longer perceive you as reasonable. And, given that I would feel the same way, I can sympathize. I'm sure a debate class would tell you the same thing.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Because, I have experience debating with people that disagree with me, and those people have told me that they close their minds when you question their intelligence, because they no longer perceive you as reasonable. And, given that I would feel the same way, I can sympathize. I'm sure a debate class would tell you the same thing.
Conflating terminology in order to concede a point to someone who's entirely confused cannot, in anyway, be considered "reasonable." But again, I don't want to get into a debate about debating. Also, no one has questioned his intelligence, just the validity of his arguments. I've answered all of your questions, can I go now?
Esuric: Conflating terminology in order to concede a point to someone entirely confused cannot, in anyway, be considered "reasonable."
Conflating terminology in order to concede a point to someone entirely confused cannot, in anyway, be considered "reasonable."
I didn't conflate any terminology. You just did not take what I wrote into the context of the post, and/or decide to split hairs. What I wrote was, within the context, correct, and in line with what you would eventually respond to Leviathan. Capitalism, in the purest sense (or capitalism without the distortions caused by intervention), has never existed within the time frame of written history. You may have misinterpreted it as something else, but that was through no fault of my own (and, I'm not sure why you would misinterpret it, or what motivation you had to misinterpret it).
But again, I don't want to get into a debate about debating.
Nobody is forcing you to.
I've answered all of your questions, can I go now?
What does this even mean? What do you hope to gain by posting sentences/questions such as these? Are you taking this as a lecture (which it is not)? If anything, it comes off as an attempt to belittle. If you really don't care for what I have to say, then why not say that? You responded to Leviathan that a productive debate had to have lucid language, but you are giving everything but lucid language.
Leviathan:An antidote to robbery, actually, since currently existing property distribution is based in theft. Since effectively all property in industrialized society was acquired by force, coercion, or fraud or created through the utilization of productive resources that were acquired through force, coercion, or fraud
How so? Are you blaming people that lives today for an alleged "coercion and fraud" that happened centuries ago?
Leviathan: E. R. Olovetto:Translation = robbery, correct? An antidote to robbery, actually, since currently existing property distribution is based in theft. Since effectively all property in industrialized society was acquired by force, coercion, or fraud or created through the utilization of productive resources that were acquired through force, coercion, or fraud, why do you have any interest in defending the present distribution of wealth and resources, stepchild of a phase of primitive accumulation that it is?
E. R. Olovetto:Translation = robbery, correct?
An antidote to robbery, actually, since currently existing property distribution is based in theft. Since effectively all property in industrialized society was acquired by force, coercion, or fraud or created through the utilization of productive resources that were acquired through force, coercion, or fraud, why do you have any interest in defending the present distribution of wealth and resources, stepchild of a phase of primitive accumulation that it is?
You didn't answer my question about what you actually advocate. Anarcho-communism? State socialism? Property = theft, in your opinion? If I want to run a business with privately held shares and not really make them available to the laborers I employ, do you advocate taking my things being a justifiable punishment for an evil capitalist? Most people normally call that robbery, not an antidote to it.
I think that we owe the good of the industrial and technological revolutions to actual capitalism, voluntary exchange, and the bad to state intervention. I have a problem with the distribution of wealth as well, but only from the factor of institutionalized violence and state coercion. We totally support setting that right. Voluntary association and free trade is not the problem.
Leviathan: E. R. Olovetto:Voluntarism allows people to form collectives all they want. It doesn't allow forced income redistribution and murdering scab workers. What is your objection to allowing people to form businesses or be a non-owner employee if they want? There aren't any. I simply share the common libertarian/anarchist belief that firm organization will not be inclined toward hierarchy due to the inefficiency and authoritarianism of that arrangement.
E. R. Olovetto:Voluntarism allows people to form collectives all they want. It doesn't allow forced income redistribution and murdering scab workers. What is your objection to allowing people to form businesses or be a non-owner employee if they want?
There aren't any. I simply share the common libertarian/anarchist belief that firm organization will not be inclined toward hierarchy due to the inefficiency and authoritarianism of that arrangement.
Libertarianism says nothing about economics. I've seen you try to hijack the word (don't respond about this as I could care less). I guess you are just conflating things again, like actual capitalism and mercantilism-"capitalism".
I don't suspect people would voluntarily give up the modern conveniences we owe to capitalism and return the primitive barter society that would be the result of anarcho-communism being followed completely.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
There is some truth to this. But worker co-operatives face many barriers. Workers do not have many assets, so they have to borrow. But they may not even have enough assets for collateral. If they do, they will likely face high interest rates. Burczak discusses this in Socialism after Hayek. I do not share Burczak's optimism about the desirability or feasibility of deviations from laissez-faire. But I am sympathetic to left-libertarians like Roderick Long who would like to see a greater variety of organisations and types of employment.
Consider this: If capitalism, or laissez-faire, the market economy, voluntarism, market anarchy etc. were as efficient as we Austrians think, one would expect them to be the prevalent form of economic organization in this country. Yet interventionism-corporatism-mercantilism appears to have proven its superiority. Of course, we don't believe this. There is an important distinction between an institution or economic system being able to break through existing arrangements, and being efficient enough to continue to exist. The former is usually much more difficult.