Question for Marxists, Socialists, ect...

JimmyJazz:

So, what happened to natural rights?

This is the relentless incoherence of the Austrian position: shameless bouncing back and forth between justifying capitalism on the basis of either (1) purported "natural rights" which make capitalism something demanded by simple and eternal principles of justice, and (2) the social benefits of capitalism.

How does that statement contradict natural rights?

And you are angry that capitalism has more then one justification for its existence?

Because it claims the greater social welfare provided by capitalism as the source of capitalism's legitimacy.

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

Ahhh "private ownership of the means of production". Meaning private control right? As opposed to State control?

Emphatically no.  I'm not going to explain this too much; it's easy to find libertarian socialist stuff online.

I would consider voluntary collectives that some libertarian socialists believe in "private". That's where our agreement ends. Whereas the libertarian socialist believes that their form of organization will be the only one I'm open to all of them. 

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

If you made crafts and sold them why wouldn't you be a capitalist?

I would say no, but again, this is just a matter of definition.  (To anyone thinking of jumping in and arguing at this point: see earlier discussion before commenting).

So in your view are the only capitalists those who employ others?

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

Hogwash! Why is it at all inherent in the free market system that there won't be a free market? That makes no sense. 

Because of my previously stated arguments about how wealthy industrialists cannot realistically be prevented from using government for their own ends and privileges.

I agree that small government won't last because once there is some limitations on commerce, any at all, interests will seek to use the hammer of the state and enlargen it. However, that does not at all mean that anarchy would have to be without markets or that it is possible to argue that an organic institution like the one of mutually beneficial trade and private property would not have some place (how large is a matter of degree, really) in a truly liberated society. 

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

When all capitalists do this we move from capitalism to fascism.

Perhaps we could be a bit less melodramatic and say corporatism instead of 'fascism'.  (What we would lose in melodrama we would gain in accuracy).

What is corporatism but the economic "other half" of fascism? Historically they have been coemergent at all times.

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

Keep in mind that when one capitalist gets help from the State it hurts all other capitalists in his field and the other capitalists who have now a less efficient supplier or purchaser and therefore hurts capitalism as a whole.

OK.  But is this supposed to be some kind of reassurance that it won't happen?

A. It's an argument not to lump in supporters of capitalism with those of mercantilism.

B . Whether the problem is war, or monopoly or licensing mercantilism or the limitation of ones control of their body, the root of the problem is the State. To eliminate the State is to liberate ourselves from its murder, monopolies, cost raising and general tyranny.

JimmyJazz:

Obviously, the majority of people disagree with you that this "freedom of selection" is sufficient, or we would live in a society that is moving slowly towards anarcho-capitalism. 

Argumentum ad populum. Even if the majority would limit any minorities freedom it doesn't mean that this is just, for example.

JimmyJazz:

Instead, the larger historical trends have been towards greater intervention to shape market forces to planned social ends.

Huh? Fascism/Corporatism died. Commuism died. States have ebbed and flowed through time in their shaping of market forces. 

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

I don't think I said LTV was authorititarian qua LTV. Marxian conceptions of it and exploitation theories are.

I think the reason Austrians see red when they hear the word "exploitation" is because they think it had all the same connotations when Marx used it.  Of course, "exploit" merely means "to use", and is therefore synonymous with "employ", which is frequently used to describe the capitalist's relationship toward his hired labor force without any great objections from the Austrian camp.

If by exploit you meant the simple definition of to employ than what is wrong with that? What's wrong with employment qua employment?

 

JimmyJazz:

Because it claims the greater social welfare provided by capitalism as the source of capitalism's legitimacy.

Source?

Nerditarian:

JimmyJazz:

I think the reason Austrians see red when they hear the word "exploitation" is because they think it had all the same connotations when Marx used it.  Of course, "exploit" merely means "to use", and is therefore synonymous with "employ", which is frequently used to describe the capitalist's relationship toward his hired labor force without any great objections from the Austrian camp.

If by exploit you meant the simple definition of to employ than what is wrong with that? What's wrong with employment qua employment?

I will eagerly await the answer to this question.

JimmyJazz:

Because it claims the greater social welfare provided by capitalism as the source of capitalism's legitimacy

No in the first paragraph, Molinari is claiming that the goal of classical liberals and Socialists are similar in the sense they want abundance and justice.

' We are adversaries, and yet the goal which we both pursue is the same. What is the common goal of economists and socialists? Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible, and where the distribution of these same goods among those who have created them through their labour shall be as just as possible? May not our common ideal, apart from all distinction of schools, be summarised in these two words: abundance and justice?'

You do have to explain how you get utilitarianism out of that statement.

Nerditarian:

Whereas the libertarian socialist believes that their form of organization will be the only one I'm open to all of them.

Some of them.  Others may consider it only necessary in a transition period or something like that.  Still others may simply call themselves libertarian socialists because they favor smaller/no government on the one hand, and cooperative/planned economic forms over competitive/market ones, in a very general way, on the other hand.  In other words, they may call themselves libertarian socialists in order to distinguish themselves from anarcho-capitalists, and not because they have a blueprint to impose on all of society.

Nerditarian:

So in your view are the only capitalists those who employ others?

Yes, I frequently use the word "capitalist" to denote those that employ the labor of others.

Nerditarian:

I agree that small government won't last because once there is some limitations on commerce, any at all, interests will seek to use the hammer of the state and enlargen it. However, that does not at all mean that anarchy would have to be without markets or that it is possible to argue that an organic institution like the one of mutually beneficial trade and private property would not have some place (how large is a matter of degree, really) in a truly liberated society. 

We might be able to agree on this point.  But this seems like a bit of a concession on your part (you're now saying that the market could have some role, not that it would have to play the entire role).  The idea that a purely market-based society could last without quickly degenerating into a system with a centralized power catering to the needs of all manner of special interests is still absurd to me.

Nerditarian:

What is corporatism but the economic "other half" of fascism? Historically they have been coemergent at all times.

As far as I'm concerned, Mussolini invented fascism.  Fascism is a cluster of features, one indispensable feature being the elaboration of a racial and/or national hierarchy.  That is the standard usage of the term.

Nerditarian:

A. It's an argument not to lump in supporters of capitalism with those of mercantilism.

B . Whether the problem is war, or monopoly or licensing mercantilism or the limitation of ones control of their body, the root of the problem is the State. To eliminate the State is to liberate ourselves from its murder, monopolies, cost raising and general tyranny.

A.  I never have done this, knowingly.

B.  It is not possible to permanently eliminate the state while the conditions that necessitated its creation continue to exist, and hence necessitate its continued existence.  (And around  and around we go...)

Nerditarian:

Huh? Fascism/Corporatism died. Commuism died. States have ebbed and flowed through time in their shaping of market forces.

You're right.  I was thinking of American and West European capitalist economies, as they became social democracies.

Nerditarian:

If by exploit you meant the simple definition of to employ than what is wrong with that? What's wrong with employment qua employment?

Nothing, that's my whole point.  There is no moral component to the Marxist use of the word "exploit".  In fact there is no moral component to Marxism, period (insofar as "Marxists" make a moral case against capitalism, they stray from orthodox Marxism).

Anarchist Cain:

You do have to explain how you get utilitarianism out of that statement.

this part:

What is the common goal of economists and socialists? Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible

Abundance is a social benefit.

The social benefits of capitalism are cited ad nauseum by market libertarians though, it's hardly like this is an isolated example.  Surely you agree that they are commonly cited?

JimmyJazz:

What happened to natural rights?

What about them?

 

JimmyJazz:

This is the relentless incoherence of the Austrian position: the shameless bouncing back and forth between justifying capitalism on the basis of either (1) purported "natural rights", which make capitalism something demanded by simple and eternal principles of justice, or (2) the social benefits of capitalism.

How is 1 with a side order of 2 incoherent? Please explain yourself, little one.

 

JimmyJazz:

The problem is, they aren't just different ways of justifying the same thing.  They are in conflict.

No, they are not. 2 follows from 1.  

 

JimmyJazz:

When the "natural rights" argument is being advanced, the person advancing it usually argues (emphatically) that the social benefits of capitalism do not matter, and that to even ask about the social benefits of capitalism is to betray a lack of understanding of what liberty is about.

No, the person usually does not do so. Perhaps you should learn to not construct strawmen.

 

For the original poster,

Unless all factors of production are owned in whole by a given firm, no central planning in terms of non-market functionality ever exists. For example: a bread making company that doesn't own all the wheat farms it buys wheat from, or all the water treatment plants that provide the water it needs for dough, or all the rolling pin makers (and they owning all the wood mills, forests, and etc), and other factors, then it cannot be said it plans centrally in terms of these given factors of production. In this case, so long as the factors of production are not wholly owned by the company, it will always have to contend with money prices to calculate. Thus, it will always be prey to market forces of other firms in tangental production processes.

This is why it is said on the news, that when a company like GM closes down several factories, it means that other companies in unrelated fields such as the textile industry or even glass making, these companies will accordingly have to shift their productions away from what was intended for GM in those now closed factories (whether by selling the resources at a loss to other competitors for GM or by simply making other things with the same resources). Equally, GM would be at the whim of change if those companies had to close some of their factories in kind, yielding similar results (finding other suppliers, modifying options on their car lines, and other such possible cases for change in production processes). Never can it be assumed that any production in a market economy can ever be said to be planned like that in a socialist commonwealth as for the prior examples illustrate the presence of economic calculation in their planning (as money prices).

Nerditarian:

A. It's an argument not to lump in supporters of capitalism with those of mercantilism.

B . Whether the problem is war, or monopoly or licensing mercantilism or the limitation of ones control of their body, the root of the problem is the State. To eliminate the State is to liberate ourselves from its murder, monopolies, cost raising and general tyranny.

JimmyJazz:

A.  I never have done this, knowingly.

But you have, since you have said that you use capitalism to denote the current system---a system which isn't capitalist, but rather mercantilist, fascist, welfare-state socialist, and other sundry crony interventionist manners.

 

JimmyJazz:

B.  It is not possible to permanently eliminate the state while the conditions that necessitated its creation continue to exist, and hence necessitate its continued existence.

Such as?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Nerditarian:

A. It's an argument not to lump in supporters of capitalism with those of mercantilism.

B . Whether the problem is war, or monopoly or licensing mercantilism or the limitation of ones control of their body, the root of the problem is the State. To eliminate the State is to liberate ourselves from its murder, monopolies, cost raising and general tyranny.

JimmyJazz:

A.  I never have done this, knowingly.

But you have, since you have said that you use capitalism to denote the current system---a system which isn't capitalist, but rather mercantilist, fascist, welfare-state socialist, and other sundry crony interventionist manners.

 

JimmyJazz:

B.  It is not possible to permanently eliminate the state while the conditions that necessitated its creation continue to exist, and hence necessitate its continued existence.

Such as?

I just want to add that the rise of capitalism did not necessitate the creation of the State. It was still a feudal State and then a mercantilist State, but it was, in fact, a State.

 

JimmyJazz:

Some of them.  Others may consider it only necessary in a transition period or something like that.  Still others may simply call themselves libertarian socialists because they favor smaller/no government on the one hand, and cooperative/planned economic forms over competitive/market ones, in a very general way, on the other hand.  In other words, they may call themselves libertarian socialists in order to distinguish themselves from anarcho-capitalists, and not because they have a blueprint to impose on all of society.

I have no blue print. I believe that a market will exist in a post state world because I believe it is a pre-State institution that will necessarily survive pro-State. Hypothetically, say I was wrong. Since I am ethically libertarian it really wouldn't bother me too much if anyone spontaneously decided to engage in socialism. If those who think that comunes would come into being  would be OK with the possible [i would say inevitable, but I digress] power of a market in a post-State society, we would have nearly identical positions.

JimmyJazz:

We might be able to agree on this point.  But this seems like a bit of a concession on your part (you're now saying that the market could have some role, not that it would have to play the entire role).  The idea that a purely market-based society could last without quickly degenerating into a system with a centralized power catering to the needs of all manner of special interests is still absurd to me.

It's not a real concession. I still maintain that the market will be chosen because it provides psychic profits in the ex ante sense to all involved. Which is more likely to be profitable than a collectivist commune unresponsive to subjective effective demands. However, I don't see why voluntary exchange in the absence of central authority necessarily leads to more authority. Keep in mind that in the previous experience with liberalization there was some State around for industrialists to use.

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

What is corporatism but the economic "other half" of fascism? Historically they have been coemergent at all times.

As far as I'm concerned, Mussolini invented fascism.  Fascism is a cluster of features, one indispensable feature being the elaboration of a racial and/or national hierarchy.  That is the standard usage of the term.

Right. When I speak of fascism in the economic sense I generally mean the coemergent economic philosophy of corporatism. However, this is schematics.

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

Huh? Fascism/Corporatism died. Commuism died. States have ebbed and flowed through time in their shaping of market forces.

You're right.  I was thinking of American and West European capitalist economies, as they became social democracies.

This is true. But they were never purely capitalist, even in the way minarchists use that term. In a way for the anti-statist in general and the capitalistic anti-statist in particular it is 'the best of times and the worst of times". The most egregious examples of both statism and socialism have died out, yet in my home country both trends are on the rise. I'm rambling but the point is history isn't linear. Never has been, never will be. So its silly to argue history's on someone's side and not another's, in my opinion.

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

If by exploit you meant the simple definition of to employ than what is wrong with that? What's wrong with employment qua employment?

Nothing, that's my whole point.  There is no moral component to the Marxist use of the word "exploit".  In fact there is no moral component to Marxism, period (insofar as "Marxists" make a moral case against capitalism, they stray from orthodox Marxism).

Then why shouldn't the employer exploit his employees? Why not capitalism sir?

 

 

JimmyJazz:

They resist having their livelihood depend utterly on the fluctuations of the market. They demand, at the very least, a level of security, a price guarnatee for their labor, which the price of most other commodities is not guaranteed.

Insofar as they obtain their livelihood through interactions with others, they have only two choices: voluntary exchange or force. If they reject violence, then they are left with voluntary exchange. So yes, in that way, they are at the mercy of the market. This, however, is just a basic fact of life.

To see that, return to a desert island scenario, an economy of only two people: Jim and Mary. Only Jim can make shirts, and only Mary can smoke fish for preservation. They both reject violence. Now, if Mary wants a shirt, and Jim will only trade a shirt for the service of having 10 fish smoked, Mary is indeed subject to that constraint. If it is hard for her to smoke 10 fish, she can beg Jim to give her a shirt anyway, but presumably Jim is hard up as well. Her livelihood is utterly dependent on the fluctuations of the market (Jim's need or desire for smoked fish), but that's hardly the market's fault. She can "demand" to be clothed, but that would just be begging again. Same with employees. It matters not what someone "demands," but what they are bringing to the table. If they attempt to enforce their demands with violence, they are aggressors (and the employers are not).

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

Hogwash! Why is it at all inherent in the free market system that there won't be a free market? That makes no sense. 

Because of my previously stated arguments about how wealthy industrialists cannot realistically be prevented from using government for their own ends and privileges.

That's an argument against government, not against the free market.

JimmyJazz:

Obviously, the majority of people disagree with you that this "freedom of selection" is sufficient, or we would live in a society that is moving slowly towards anarcho-capitalism.  Instead, the larger historical trends have been towards greater intervention to shape market forces to planned social ends.

Yes, the State tends to grow larger and larger while it can. Again, more of an argument against the State than anything else.

JimmyJazz:

I think the reason Austrians see red when they hear the word "exploitation" is because they think it had all the same connotations when Marx used it.  Of course, "exploit" merely means "to use", and is therefore synonymous with "employ", which is frequently used to describe the capitalist's relationship toward his hired labor force without any great objections from the Austrian camp.

So what are we disagreeing about? You have now made it clear that when you say "capitalist" you mean "employer," and when you say "exploitation" you mean "employment," moreover without any negative connotations. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Nerditarian:

JimmyJazz:

Nerditarian:

If by exploit you meant the simple definition of to employ than what is wrong with that? What's wrong with employment qua employment?

Nothing, that's my whole point.  There is no moral component to the Marxist use of the word "exploit".  In fact there is no moral component to Marxism, period (insofar as "Marxists" make a moral case against capitalism, they stray from orthodox Marxism).

Then why shouldn't the employer exploit his employees? Why not capitalism sir?

Because of self-interest.

I think you are still not appreciating that I do not approve, as Marx would not have approved, of a dictatorship of the Party over the working class.  Marxism is truly the negation of all the messianic "socialisms" that both preceded and followed him (those messianic socialist movements that followed often dishonestly did so in his name).

Marx was about convincing the working class not to simply bargain collectively for better terms in the sale of their labor power, but convincing them not to sell their labor power at all, rather to construct a new economy, one built entirely on horizontal associations.  You might say that the economy is already built on horizontal associations, but you would be wrong; voluntary != horizontal.

You may say that this vision is incredibly pie-in-the-sky, perhaps with some justification, but you cannot say that it is equivalent to forcing anything on anyone (as you might easily say that Castro did in Cuba, for example).

The vertical structure that businesses seem to take (I say seem to because the lower levels of the company structure can freely leave and create a new organization, and they only are "taking orders" from the top levels of the organization as far as they are willing to) is for a purpose, which is coordination of resources within the organization and the management of risk.

Lets say you have an organization of people who are working to create a computer program. Someone has to decide how the computer program is going to be made, who does what, etc. And someone has to pick what kind of capital (software, computers, the facility) will be used and how to manage it. This could be done by a group equityholders through management. Or it could be done by the workers meeting and coming to a concensus without any "management". Both of these situations have advantages or disadvantages, but its ridiculous to say that in the first scenario the workers are somehow being "exploited" by the management/stockholders.