I don't get it. Why do people thing that capitalism is somehow equivelent to slavery/satism?
Schools are labour camps.
1. What is satism?
2. Some people think that selling your labor is like slavery.
Political Atheists Blog
supposedly the fact of choice is itself enslaving because it limits the powers of man. So for instance, if a poor guy has to choose between starving and working to get food, the very choice and its unpleasantness is counted as equal to the slavemaster's whip and the capitalist is the slavemaster. It seems that the people won't be satisfied that slavery is gone until they shackle human nature itself all the while proposing for the state to enslave as a means to this end! What this freedom=enslavement argument misses is that it can be easily applied to everyone who has to make a potentially upsetting choice and so there is no way that even they can escape from being slavemasters, in my opinion.
Because they've been brainwashed by the collectivist tosswads who appeal to jealousy.
I also don't know what satism is.
For the second part, I would say it is because some people think the evil greedy capitalist "forces" people to work for him and don't realize that these people work for him out of their free will.
Because the status quo IS slavery/statism, and what people generally mean by capitalism is "the status quo". The problem is that they dont generally have a comprehensive understanding of what specifically causes the status quo to be how it is, and hence their anti-capitalism often reduces to a confused hodge-podge of correct and incorrect positions in which they at least partially support some of the causes of the very problems that they are so concerned with and hence fail to see the role of the state in the matter.
yup, like connecting the outrage over the big 3's private jet excursion to DC to class warfare.
What do you think most people think whenever there's negative coverage on the big 3's CEO's behavior? What do they think the criticism about, exactly? What principle is being scathed?
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Knight_of_BAAWA: Because they've been brainwashed by the collectivist tosswads who appeal to jealousy.
I think there is more to it than that. Usually the "collectivist tosswads" are people who have a Liberal Arts degree of the variety where the state will have to pay for their (often unimpressive) income but for a relatively easy job. Their real job experience once they get their Gender Studies degree will be next to nothing and if they did have job while getting their degree it (would have been cashier or food service jobs.
So they look at people without degrees and state sponsorship and say "that sucks"...which anyone can tell you who has had one of those jobs is that it does indeed "suck" but it is a better alternative than having no job at all.
So here are these people who briefly experienced the low rungs of employment that we all must go through to gain a decent work history and hopefully better employment and they too were annoyed at the low pay, petty middle managment and other problems that arise from having that kind of work...and then they get job on some committee or organisation and that world is frozen to them...but they think they have experienced the life of the working class. Eventually they work their way up in the world of state employment to where some of them have power to set policy. People like them in the media have power to create opinion and news. Think Tanks and state Universities do studies and determine that low paid workers are unhappy (I could have told them that for the price of a cheeseburger in 1987) and that worker have no choice but to have a low paying job. To them, no choice is slavery. Plus they have the added benifit of creating more job security for themselves while placing regulations on employers.
On a weird note. Over 20 years ago I was on probation due to the fact I was caught in a petty crime (I stole Mountain Dew and Pepsi with some friends of mine so we could have a cheap source of caffeine for mid-terms). Part of that probation deal was that I had to be employed during the summer or spend the summer in jail. The only job available in the recession prone midwest was in a factory that paid $3.70 an hour and I hated the job, my co-workers, my bosses and everything about it like poison. But if I would have quit I would have gone to jail until classes started again. So I was essentially forced by the state to work at a job I hated or else I would have quit on my second day. (I also have not stolen anything in 22 years in case anyone cares).
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Twirlcan:Over 20 years ago I was on probation due to the fact I was caught in a petty crime (I stole Mountain Dew and Pepsi with some friends of mine so we could have a cheap source of caffeine for mid-terms). Part of that probation deal was that I had to be employed during the summer or spend the summer in jail. The only job available in the recession prone midwest was in a factory that paid $3.70 an hour and I hated the job, my co-workers, my bosses and everything about it like poison.
OMG, so it was either work at crappy job or get forced into jail for stealing some soda? The irony is that the punisher is the criminal.
Because bored college kids will believe anything.
eliotn: OMG, so it was either work at crappy job or get forced into jail for stealing some soda? The irony is that the punisher is the criminal.
To be fair it was more than just "some soda". It was 68 cases. I paid my share of the restitution to the owner and years later he and I became friends (small town). He said he only wanted to report the theft for insurance reasons and if he had known about the jail time and the long probations we got he would have never bothered. It was more the fact that my victim was a nice guy that "reformed" me than the legal system (not much reforming needed to be done anyway).
Twirlcan:To be fair it was more than just "some soda". It was 68 cases. I paid my share of the restitution to the owner and years later he and I became friends (small town). He said he only wanted to report the theft for insurance reasons and if he had known about the jail time and the long probations we got he would have never bothered. It was more the fact that my victim was a nice guy that "reformed" me than the legal system (not much reforming needed to be done anyway).
Well, that reminds me of a Chineese parable. A theif walked into a monk's house and demanded his money, or his life. The monk told him, without hesitation, where the money was, but told him to leave some that he would need to pay his taxes with. Effectively, he was giving his money to the theif. He requested some thanks, which the theif did, then the theif left the house. Later, he was caught and punished for his crimes (he stole from more than one house). The monk forgave him of stealing from his house, as it was a gift. After he served out his punishment for the other crimes, the former thief became the monk's disciple.
But still, it always seems like the current system uses a criminal's crimes as an excuse to commit crimes.
Just look at any fiction TV show to see how present society sees capitalism. The Simpsons is a perfect case: capitalists are always out there to destroy the world just because they are evil. Why this happened? It's hard to say but it goes back a long way. I won't delve into religious matters because I don't want to hurt people's feelings, but look back at the last three hundred years. Profit is bad, employing (willing) labor is bad, private property is bad, saving is bad... there is a subtle irony in the fact that today most of the enemies of economic freedom and capitalism are in fact "wealthy" people while the last defenders are the ones who a century ago would have been called "proletarians": small shopowners, non-union workers and students, craftsmen etc. When I read about some big banker or immensely rich CEO talking about the evil of profits or how people should "share" the wealth I cannot but help smiling by thinking what Marx or Lenin would say if they came back to life right now.
Well considering that neither of them were proles either...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Kakugo:The Simpsons is a perfect case: capitalists are always out there to destroy the world just because they are evil.
And yet the evil capitalists are the only people who would employ a dangerous and retarded incompetent like Homer, for a premium wage that allows Marge to perpetually raise their baby that never grows up.
Marge sounds like the state.
Two reasons:
1. People can immediately see those that benefit from for force and can not see those hurt by it.
2. People want to keep their power and position and know that the ever changing capitalism will eventually pass them by so they will risk their very lives trying to stop it.
eliotn: I don't get it. Why do people thing that capitalism is somehow equivelent to slavery/satism?
BP already touched on this, but it is because "capitalism" means the currently-existing system (corporatism with a mild flavoring of state-socialism) to most people. And as far as that goes, they are right.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: eliotn: I don't get it. Why do people thing that capitalism is somehow equivelent to slavery/satism? BP already touched on this, but it is because "capitalism" means the currently-existing system (corporatism with a mild flavoring of state-socialism) to most people. And as far as that goes, they are right.
Actually, it means that because people perpetuate it, and libertarians are too busy slashing their own throats and attacking one another (see Carson's Misoids) to stand up for anything, particularly their own vernacular.
Basically, libertarians are horrible at sacrificing for future goals and promoting their ideas. So much so, idiots like "anti-capitalists" can crop up in our midst and be revered as heroes, when they are undermining our very foundations.
liberty student:Actually, it means that because people perpetuate it, and libertarians are too busy slashing their own throats and attacking one another (see Carson's Misoids) to stand up for anything, particularly their own vernacular.
Misoid, leftard, Randroid, vulgartarian, Marxist, vandarchist, cosmotard, leftoid, etc. It goes both ways. Besides, we're descended from the left; we can't help attacking each other
liberty student:Basically, libertarians are horrible at sacrificing for future goals and promoting their ideas. So much so, idiots like "anti-capitalists" can crop up in our midst and be revered as heroes, when they are undermining our very foundations.
Carson, in particlular, has been very careful in explaining that by "capitalism", he means the historical system of plutocracy and state privelege that continues today. That is what he means by "anti-capitalism"; nothing more, and nothing less. He definitely doesn't mean that he is opposed to the "free exchange of goods of services". By that definition, he is a capitalist. He has gone out of his way to say that he has little argument with many anarcho-capitalists, as long as they are careful to define what they mean by "capitalism". Many aren't. Hence, vulgar libertarianism and this entire debate.
What is this "that definition" crap? We all know what capitalism is. Carson and his ilk play semantic word games to suck up to the socialist left.
The very fact he perpetuates two conflicting definitions indicts him. Anarcho-capitalists don't have a conflict. That's a manufactured schism by the anti-capitalists. Just like you throwing out "vulgar libertarianism", more manufactured schism by Carson.
I can't get down with Carson. I think he's an ass, and I think his approach and direction leads to violence, which I do not condone, and I do not think will work. At the end of every revolution, the state returns, and so-called leaders like Carson end up face down in a ditch, betrayed by the people they built up. Also known as "useful idiots".
We need something different. We need solutions, not ideologues who want to repeat the failures of the past, convinced that their own greatness of vision and message will provide a different result.
The whole left-libertarian paradigm is so much crap. You're either libertarian or you are not. People like Carson have to make distinctions, because that is the only way they can attract a following. Divvy up the herd, and look for a group of followers to build a base from. Petit tyrants, masquerading as populist heroes.
eliotn:I don't get it. Why do people thing that capitalism is somehow equivelent to slavery/satism?
Well, I can't speak for Communists or any other sort of statist as to the particulars of their resistance to Capitalism, but I can tell you my interpretation, as someone who leans heavily Mutualist, of anti-Capitalist reasoning.
Capital, in the case of factory-type capital, is not something that can be actually totally utilized by an individual, aka the Capitalist, that takes ownership of it. Instead, if they want to get full use out of its capacity, they pay a wage to workers to do it for them. The profits made thereby are the difference between the price the good is sold for and the costs of the labor, materials, and maintenance of the capital needed to produce it.
This can be seen in two ways. By those who support capitalism, it is seen as simply the Capitalist purchasing labor from workers. For the anti-Capitalist, this perspective ignores the true nature of the relationship. Rather than the Capitalist purchasing labor, it could be said that he is renting or loaning out the equipment for a portion of the product made therefrom. The Devil is in the details.
It is important to note, at this point, that the arguments raised by anti-capitalists apply mostly to factory-type production, the Capitalism of the industrial age. In many Western nations, we have moved (artificially and foolishly) away from actually producing anything of value, and the current situation is muddier. That being said, after some real pain from difficult changes, we will return to a more production-based (rather than merely finance- and service-based) economy, and these arguments will come back to the fore.
Continuing now with the infernal details, it turns out that, while Capitalists have never promised equality of outcome, they have mollified the masses with promises for equality of opportunity, or failing that at least some opportunity for everyone to improve their lot in life, and maybe even become wealthy. The truth of the situation is, alas, far less rosy. What has instead come about is the arising of a largely hereditary class system, seperated into the Capitalist Class and the Working Class, with definite and deliberate barriers in between.
The Capitalist Class tends to be better-educated, which helps cement their positions, but even so, the system is hardly meritocratic. It is simple fact that one who begins with wealth has a far easier time accumulating more wealth than one who begins with poverty. The members of the Capitalist Class, further, find it in many ways in their best interest to keep the wages they pay as close to subsistence level as possible. This has the immediate advantage of maximizing profits, but long-term it also prevents the worker from being able to accumulate enough to purchase their own equipment and become a competitor with their former employer.
Even this is not quite enough to condemn the system. If the great factories and division into classes are truly what result from a free market, AKA human interactions without coercion, it would be difficult to argue for altering this result. And indeed, this is just how many Anarcho-Capitalists, Objectivists, etc. see things coming about. It is this conception, claimed by many arch-Capitalists, which the anti-Capitalist looks at and therefore concludes that Capitalism is evil and ignorant.
This is because in a rational examination of the nature of industry and indeed ownership itself, we can see that Capitalism, in the sense of a system seperated into groups who make money by virtue of ownership and groups who make money by virtue of work, is unsustainable without the coercive arm of the state and enforced definitions of ownership derived therefrom.
It is easy enough to cover the difficulties the current system of centralized, massive production would face without socialized transportation (roads and rails built through eminent domain and funded through taxation), special trade deals with despots and tyrants for exclusive or semi-exclusive access to fuel and other raw materials, and massive government programs to absorb production overruns. Nor have massive corporations shown any ability to survive long-term without repeated bailouts from their governments, funded, of course, either through taxation or inflation.
This is because huge businesses are ponderous and inefficient things. The larger a business becomes, the more layers of bureaucracy (read: highly paid non-productive workers) are required, and its actions become less well-coordinated. Like a large state or empire, eventually a corporation grows so large that collapse is inevitable, its own bulk and clumsiness rendering all profits illusiory, a mere trick of bookeeping to satisfy blissfully ignorant shareholders. Of course, without the interference of the government, a business would fall to smaller, more efficient competitors long before it collapsed on its own.
In short, small efficient, localized production, largely by workers who were also owners of their small-scale capital, would outperform and outlast larger, bulkier competitors without the controls and aids put in place to encourage larger organizations to form. There would many different businesses, such that they would have to compete for what workers were available far more than the giant, centralized corporations of today do, and thus pay them far closer to the actual value of their production. Indeed, this process would eventually result in the end of profit, as any profits taken would make one less able to compete for workers. In the end, any business with employees would have to pay managers and workers the full value of their work, with only the costs of maintenance and materials excluded, and so would have no profits at all. The value of being a mere owner would disappear.
Even insofar as larger scales of production persisted, organized labor would end the profit system. While laws today force union recognition on companies, they also tie the hands of organized labor, converting it into a de facto apparatus of the Capitalist profit system. Laws force union recognition, but ban general strikes, disallow anyone labeled "manager" from joining, and prevent people in particularly sensitive industries from striking at all. In the office I work in, there are two "managers" who manage absolutely no one, and one "Director" (read: grand high muckety-muck) with a similar level of responsibility. It's a joke.
The general strike was once a devastating tool of organized labor that could bring the Capitalist profit system to its knees. One factory or one part of an industry going on strike can be compensated for with scabs, but when every step of production, not just the one factory but their supplier and their distributor, all go on strike at the same time, there is just no way to compensate. The Capitalist either has to sacrifice all or part of his profits to get production going, or close down, leaving the capital unused, and will probably have to sell it at a considerable loss. And the best part is, for such a strike to work requires no force at all, but only coordination and determination.
To sum up, the Capitalist system is seen as evil because inherent to it, according to its proponents, are aspects sustainable only through controlled markets, AKA force. I have tried to demonstrate here that profits via wage-earning labor is impossible without force and injustice. I imagine most of you will think I failed, if you have even bothered to read through this slightly scattered and quite long-winded rant o'mine, but I wanted to put it out there.
JC, great post. I'm not sure I agree (read it twice and still don't feel I am firmly grasping it).
In particular, these two closing statements ... Could you clarify?
JCFolsom:To sum up, the Capitalist system is seen as evil because inherent to it, according to its proponents, are aspects sustainable only through controlled markets, AKA force.
Who are we talking about? Corporatists or capitalists? I think you understand the definition of capitalism I normally employ, and thus the distinction from a corporatist.
JCFolsom:I have tried to demonstrate here that profits via wage-earning labor is impossible without force and injustice. I imagine most of you will think I failed, if you have even bothered to read through this slightly scattered and quite long-winded rant o'mine, but I wanted to put it out there.
I don't know that you have made the point in your first sentence, although I would like to understand it and the reasoning.
I find a lot of people who complain about capitalism, are not capitalists. Not corporatists, but people who have been unsuccessful at generating profit from activity, whether it is the organization of labour, planning, development or the deployment of capital goods.
The socialist/mutualist class tend to be artists, artisans students, and working stiffs. I don't know if this is a product of my own biased observation. I tend to believe that since there are very few business people (small business people) who are pro-union, pro-socialism, that these are class distinctions. But not capital vs. labour, but success vs. failure. And most small business people, have at last as much human capital, as they do property. They are usually skilled in the field they seek to profit from.
I say that because, I started with nothing. And now I feel like in the material sense, I have a lot of capital. And all of it purchased/accumulated by the sale of my labour, and the conservative management of my finances.
As an aside, I can't stand your new avatar JC. What is it?
liberty student:I say that because, I started with nothing. And now I feel like in the material sense, I have a lot of capital. And all of it purchased/accumulated by the sale of my labour, and the conservative management of my finances.
Right. I don't deny that this is the case. What I'm arguing is not, essentially, about the justice or injustice of your level of wealth, but against the idea that, merely by its ownership, that you would be able to generate a profit for yourself in a truly free market. It seems to me that profit by virtue of ownership of capital is essential to capitalism, and I'm saying that such profits are impossible, at least in the longer term, when markets are not controlled in one way or another.
liberty student:As an aside, I can't stand your new avatar JC. What is it?
It is ME, in my costume from this last Halloween. I'm quite proud of it. F-ing scary clown I make, eh?
JCFolsom:Indeed, this process would eventually result in the end of profit, as any profits taken would make one less able to compete for workers. In the end, any business with employees would have to pay managers and workers the full value of their work, with only the costs of maintenance and materials excluded, and so would have no profits at all. The value of being a mere owner would disappear.
By no profits, do you mean that if I invested 1,000 ounces of gold into starting business, I would get back 1,000 ounces? Or would I get it at the equilibrium interest rate, for example, I invest 1,000 ounces of gold, the equilibrium interest rate is 5% per year, I get back 1,050 ounces in a year. This sounds like the ERE. Note that there is always uncertainty in the market, so there are still profit-making opportunities in the free market for the lucky entreprenuer.
eliotn:By no profits, do you mean that if I invested 1,000 ounces of gold into starting business, I would get back 1,000 ounces?
Yes, pretty much, if that's all you contributed. See, you have 1,000 ounces to invest in starting a business, but in a free business environment, we would have to assume that there would be others with equivalent capital to invest. You would be competing for limited labor resources with them. The person offering the highest compensation would win the most/best employees, and the upper limit on this offering is the value generated by their labor. Labor costs would be constantly pushed towards this amount.
It is not that capital will avail you nothing. If you own a sewing machine and actually sew with it, you keep the value of the sewing machine and gain the value of what you produce. In the case of your gold, if you make electrical connectors with it, you can get more for the gold than the value of the gold as a mere mineral. It is basically restating the labor theory of value with a free-market twist. You can make money from capital, but only the value you, yourself add to the capital before it or its product is sold. Any value you do not add yourself will have to be fully or almost fully paid to the one that did add it. This does not mean that wage labor will end. You may own something, but be unable to do all the work yourself to make a sellable product from it. In that case, you will pay your employees wage for what he/she produces, and your wage for what you produce, and keep the value of the capital.
Am I getting any more clear here?
JCFolsom: Yes, pretty much, if that's all you contributed. See, you have 1,000 ounces to invest in starting a business, but in a free business environment, we would have to assume that there would be others with equivalent capital to invest. You would be competing for limited labor resources with them. The person offering the highest compensation would win the most/best employees, and the upper limit on this offering is the value generated by their labor. Labor costs would be constantly pushed towards this amount. It is not that capital will avail you nothing. If you own a sewing machine and actually sew with it, you keep the value of the sewing machine and gain the value of what you produce. In the case of your gold, if you make electrical connectors with it, you can get more for the gold than the value of the gold as a mere mineral. It is basically restating the labor theory of value with a free-market twist. You can make money from capital, but only the value you, yourself add to the capital before it or its product is sold. Any value you do not add yourself will have to be fully or almost fully paid to the one that did add it. This does not mean that wage labor will end. You may own something, but be unable to do all the work yourself to make a sellable product from it. In that case, you will pay your employees wage for what he/she produces, and your wage for what you produce, and keep the value of the capital. Am I getting any more clear here?
Ok, so the main rent that people get is from labor, including the labor that the business owner puts into making the final product, and people keep the value of their capital, after it has been used to produce the final goods. You forgot to mention land, but I assume that the land will have rent in this society, and the landowner will recieve goods for selling his land, is this a good assumption?However, I feel this directly contradicts with Rothbard's conclusion about the hypothetical Evenly Rotating Economy that you describe, where there are no profits.
"Remains (
(
a) interest on capital invested (uniform in ERE) (
b) wages of management, when owner is self employed (set according to DMVP) (
employed (set according to DMVP)
c) rents of ownership-decision (set according to DMVP) Does not remain (
to DMVP)
Does not remain
d) entrepreneurial profit or loss"I would look at a.
JCFolsom: liberty student:As an aside, I can't stand your new avatar JC. What is it? It is ME, in my costume from this last Halloween. I'm quite proud of it. F-ing scary clown I make, eh?
Disturbing on a lot of levels.
JCFolsom:Right. I don't deny that this is the case. What I'm arguing is not, essentially, about the justice or injustice of your level of wealth, but against the idea that, merely by its ownership, that you would be able to generate a profit for yourself in a truly free market.
I still don't understand. Like, I believe these ideas need to function on all levels in order to be a principle. Like I own a couple laptops. Those are capital goods, they allow me to do mobile computing, which is higher order labour, and thus allows me to do more profitable labour.
Sure, there is nothing automatic about the profit, or the labour. But I can't do mobile computing without the appropriate capital goods (like I couldn't run an interstellar hotel without a space station).
JCFolsom:It seems to me that profit by virtue of ownership of capital is essential to capitalism, and I'm saying that such profits are impossible, at least in the longer term, when markets are not controlled in one way or another.
Any entrepreneur, the so-called petit bourgeoisie will tell you that capital, and opportunity, still aren't enough to profit. You also have to be smart, lucky, dedicated etc.
The notion that capital alone creates profit, isn't one held by business, but I can see how the people on the outside looking in, might develop that perception. Of course, for all of the failings of our modern society, people can still accumulate capital, and thrive based upon deploying it properly.
JCFolsom: eliotn:I don't get it. Why do people thing that capitalism is somehow equivelent to slavery/satism? Well, I can't speak for Communists or any other sort of statist as to the particulars of their resistance to Capitalism, but I can tell you my interpretation, as someone who leans heavily Mutualist, of anti-Capitalist reasoning. Capital, in the case of factory-type capital, is not something that can be actually totally utilized by an individual, aka the Capitalist, that takes ownership of it. Instead, if they want to get full use out of its capacity, they pay a wage to workers to do it for them. The profits made thereby are the difference between the price the good is sold for and the costs of the labor, materials, and maintenance of the capital needed to produce it. This can be seen in two ways. By those who support capitalism, it is seen as simply the Capitalist purchasing labor from workers. For the anti-Capitalist, this perspective ignores the true nature of the relationship. Rather than the Capitalist purchasing labor, it could be said that he is renting or loaning out the equipment for a portion of the product made therefrom. The Devil is in the details. It is important to note, at this point, that the arguments raised by anti-capitalists apply mostly to factory-type production, the Capitalism of the industrial age. In many Western nations, we have moved (artificially and foolishly) away from actually producing anything of value, and the current situation is muddier. That being said, after some real pain from difficult changes, we will return to a more production-based (rather than merely finance- and service-based) economy, and these arguments will come back to the fore. Continuing now with the infernal details, it turns out that, while Capitalists have never promised equality of outcome, they have mollified the masses with promises for equality of opportunity, or failing that at least some opportunity for everyone to improve their lot in life, and maybe even become wealthy. The truth of the situation is, alas, far less rosy. What has instead come about is the arising of a largely hereditary class system, seperated into the Capitalist Class and the Working Class, with definite and deliberate barriers in between. The Capitalist Class tends to be better-educated, which helps cement their positions, but even so, the system is hardly meritocratic. It is simple fact that one who begins with wealth has a far easier time accumulating more wealth than one who begins with poverty. The members of the Capitalist Class, further, find it in many ways in their best interest to keep the wages they pay as close to subsistence level as possible. This has the immediate advantage of maximizing profits, but long-term it also prevents the worker from being able to accumulate enough to purchase their own equipment and become a competitor with their former employer. Even this is not quite enough to condemn the system. If the great factories and division into classes are truly what result from a free market, AKA human interactions without coercion, it would be difficult to argue for altering this result. And indeed, this is just how many Anarcho-Capitalists, Objectivists, etc. see things coming about. It is this conception, claimed by many arch-Capitalists, which the anti-Capitalist looks at and therefore concludes that Capitalism is evil and ignorant. This is because in a rational examination of the nature of industry and indeed ownership itself, we can see that Capitalism, in the sense of a system seperated into groups who make money by virtue of ownership and groups who make money by virtue of work, is unsustainable without the coercive arm of the state and enforced definitions of ownership derived therefrom. It is easy enough to cover the difficulties the current system of centralized, massive production would face without socialized transportation (roads and rails built through eminent domain and funded through taxation), special trade deals with despots and tyrants for exclusive or semi-exclusive access to fuel and other raw materials, and massive government programs to absorb production overruns. Nor have massive corporations shown any ability to survive long-term without repeated bailouts from their governments, funded, of course, either through taxation or inflation. This is because huge businesses are ponderous and inefficient things. The larger a business becomes, the more layers of bureaucracy (read: highly paid non-productive workers) are required, and its actions become less well-coordinated. Like a large state or empire, eventually a corporation grows so large that collapse is inevitable, its own bulk and clumsiness rendering all profits illusiory, a mere trick of bookeeping to satisfy blissfully ignorant shareholders. Of course, without the interference of the government, a business would fall to smaller, more efficient competitors long before it collapsed on its own. In short, small efficient, localized production, largely by workers who were also owners of their small-scale capital, would outperform and outlast larger, bulkier competitors without the controls and aids put in place to encourage larger organizations to form. There would many different businesses, such that they would have to compete for what workers were available far more than the giant, centralized corporations of today do, and thus pay them far closer to the actual value of their production. Indeed, this process would eventually result in the end of profit, as any profits taken would make one less able to compete for workers. In the end, any business with employees would have to pay managers and workers the full value of their work, with only the costs of maintenance and materials excluded, and so would have no profits at all. The value of being a mere owner would disappear. Even insofar as larger scales of production persisted, organized labor would end the profit system. While laws today force union recognition on companies, they also tie the hands of organized labor, converting it into a de facto apparatus of the Capitalist profit system. Laws force union recognition, but ban general strikes, disallow anyone labeled "manager" from joining, and prevent people in particularly sensitive industries from striking at all. In the office I work in, there are two "managers" who manage absolutely no one, and one "Director" (read: grand high muckety-muck) with a similar level of responsibility. It's a joke. The general strike was once a devastating tool of organized labor that could bring the Capitalist profit system to its knees. One factory or one part of an industry going on strike can be compensated for with scabs, but when every step of production, not just the one factory but their supplier and their distributor, all go on strike at the same time, there is just no way to compensate. The Capitalist either has to sacrifice all or part of his profits to get production going, or close down, leaving the capital unused, and will probably have to sell it at a considerable loss. And the best part is, for such a strike to work requires no force at all, but only coordination and determination. To sum up, the Capitalist system is seen as evil because inherent to it, according to its proponents, are aspects sustainable only through controlled markets, AKA force. I have tried to demonstrate here that profits via wage-earning labor is impossible without force and injustice. I imagine most of you will think I failed, if you have even bothered to read through this slightly scattered and quite long-winded rant o'mine, but I wanted to put it out there.
Very good post. That's probably the best short explanation of the mutualist theory of economic structure that I have ever seen. On a side note, what do you think of automation and self-replicating machinery replacing the service economy, instead of a swing back to a production-based economy?
liberty student:What is this "that definition" crap? We all know what capitalism is. Carson and his ilk play semantic word games to suck up to the socialist left. The very fact he perpetuates two conflicting definitions indicts him. Anarcho-capitalists don't have a conflict. That's a manufactured schism by the anti-capitalists. Just like you throwing out "vulgar libertarianism", more manufactured schism by Carson.
He doesn't perpetuate 2 definitions. He uses one, the historical one, because it makes more sense. The use of capitalism to mean "free-market" is a neologism; it didn't emerge until Rand and then Rothbard used it in that sense.
And when you use "anti-captialists", do you mean opposition to the current system, or oppostition to free markets?
liberty student: I can't get down with Carson. I think he's an ass, and I think his approach and direction leads to violence, which I do not condone, and I do not think will work. At the end of every revolution, the state returns, and so-called leaders like Carson end up face down in a ditch, betrayed by the people they built up. Also known as "useful idiots". We need something different. We need solutions, not ideologues who want to repeat the failures of the past, convinced that their own greatness of vision and message will provide a different result.
Huh? You do realize that mutualists are "gradualists" (somewhat different meaning than that used in right-libertarianism) that advocate the building of alternative institutions instead of revolutionary violence. Have you actually read anything by Proudhon, Tucker, or Carson?
liberty student:The whole left-libertarian paradigm is so much crap. You're either libertarian or you are not.
Dualisms are very rare in real life.
liberty student:People like Carson have to make distinctions, because that is the only way they can attract a following. Divvy up the herd, and look for a group of followers to build a base from. Petit tyrants, masquerading as populist heroes.
I fail to see how any of that applies to Carson. Or to any left-libertarian, for that matter.
wombatron:And when you use "anti-captialists", do you mean opposition to the current system, or oppostition to free markets?
My point exactly.
wombatron:Huh? You do realize that mutualists are "gradualists" (somewhat different meaning than that used in right-libertarianism) that advocate the building of alternative institutions instead of revolutionary violence. Have you actually read anything by Proudhon, Tucker, or Carson?
Yeah, I have. Carson, and recently Long, have been very clever in not endorsing violence, without condemning it either. Anyone who understands rhetoric understands the game that is being played. Carson's notion that there is no difference between a fortune 500 company and the state is nonsense.
wombatron:I fail to see how any of that applies to Carson. Or to any left-libertarian, for that matter.
Of course you don't see it. If you could see it, you would reject it.
I wonder why the leftists don't put anarchism under the same scrutiny.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student:I still don't understand. Like, I believe these ideas need to function on all levels in order to be a principle. Like I own a couple laptops. Those are capital goods, they allow me to do mobile computing, which is higher order labour, and thus allows me to do more profitable labour. Sure, there is nothing automatic about the profit, or the labour. But I can't do mobile computing without the appropriate capital goods (like I couldn't run an interstellar hotel without a space station).
Right. This is precisely the function capital would still serve in the free market: enabling the addition of value to raw materials through labor.
liberty student:Any entrepreneur, the so-called petit bourgeoisie will tell you that capital, and opportunity, still aren't enough to profit. You also have to be smart, lucky, dedicated etc. The notion that capital alone creates profit, isn't one held by business, but I can see how the people on the outside looking in, might develop that perception. Of course, for all of the failings of our modern society, people can still accumulate capital, and thrive based upon deploying it properly.
Capital may not be enough to profit if you don't get people laboring in them, that is certainly true. Your factory can't just sit there. But, the fact remains that if you own a factory, currently you can hire a manager and some laborers, then go home, sit back and sip some margaritas waiting for the checks to roll in. Some people don't work at all, they are able to live entirely off the profits from their capital investments. What I am saying is that this situation, in whole or part, would be impossible to sustain in a free market; in a free market, the only way to add to your wealth is by you personally adding value either to or through your capital. In other words, there would be no dividends in a free market. I don't know how to be any clearer.
liberty student:My point exactly.
Your point that you insist on using an ambiguous word?
liberty student:Yeah, I have. Carson, and recently Long, have been very clever in not endorsing violence, without condemning it either. Anyone who understands rhetoric understands the game that is being played.
And what game is this, given that neither puts out very much in the way of rhetoric.
liberty student:Carson's notion that there is no difference between a fortune 500 company and the state is nonsense.
It isn't nonsense if you realize that the Fortune 500 companies are in that postition because of direct or indirect state intervention.
wombatron:Your point that you insist on using an ambiguous word?
You mean like, anarchism?
wombatron:It isn't nonsense if you realize that the Fortune 500 companies are in that postition because of direct or indirect state intervention.
Like the poor, except, you're big fans of the poor.
It'd be wonderful if the leftists were consistant every now and then.
GilesStratton:Like the poor, except, you're big fans of the poor.
You are exactly right. The poor are in their current situation because of state intervention.
JCFolsom:Capital may not be enough to profit if you don't get people laboring in them, that is certainly true.
No. That was not what I wrote.
JCFolsom:Your factory can't just sit there. But, the fact remains that if you own a factory, currently you can hire a manager and some laborers, then go home, sit back and sip some margaritas waiting for the checks to roll in.
Do you really believe this? It is completely fallacious.
JCFolsom:Some people don't work at all, they are able to live entirely off the profits from their capital investments.
As long as they came by their capital and their investment profit honestly, what is the problem here?
JCFolsom:What I am saying is that this situation, in whole or part, would be impossible to sustain in a free market; in a free market, the only way to add to your wealth is by you personally adding value either to or through your capital.
How does that follow? In a free market I will have restraints on how I deploy my capital? That's news to me. Are you saying the competitive process will undermine any attempts to deploy my capital in an organized sense? If so, how, why?
You're making a claim, but not explaining why it is true.
JCFolsom:In other words, there would be no dividends in a free market.
Again, why? Are you saying in a free market, people will not pool their capital and divide profit based on ownership of that capital?
JCFolsom:I don't know how to be any clearer.
You are clear now. I was confused before because what you wrote before appeared to me to believe incorrect, and I didn't see you as someone holding false premises. But apparently (by my standard) you are holding false premises. So it is clear, and very wrong.
Either mutualists are really smart, or they really aren't. And consequentially, I am either really dumb, or not. So I am anxious to find out, who/what is full of crap? Me, or mutualist theory?
wombatron: liberty student:Carson's notion that there is no difference between a fortune 500 company and the state is nonsense. It isn't nonsense if you realize that the Fortune 500 companies are in that postition because of direct or indirect state intervention.
There is no proof of that. Only the assertions of Long and Carson. If you've read both sides of the argument, they make an interesting case. They just fail to make the case absolutely. Their critics make excellent counterpoints.
Just because people want to believe that big bad business is 100% pure evil, doesn't make it true. I'd like to believe we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard intellectually.
wombatron: GilesStratton:Like the poor, except, you're big fans of the poor. You are exactly right. The poor are in their current situation because of state intervention.
Then how do you explain class movement? Poor people can become rich and likewise.
Like the CEOs of big companies, who are worse off because of state invervention.
Of course, the poor bring it on themselves through the ballot box.
I wonder, any reason you didn't answer my point regarding anarchism?