What will be your "free market" business strategy?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

After the anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist revolution, what's gonna be your business plan or investment strategy? The state would be abolished, so there would be no more pesky government regulations or taxes, so you're essentially free to do whatever the fuck you want(if you have the money that is). Labor unions would be extremely weak, so that's definitely a plus for business, as well.

Here's what I plan to do:

Become a business owner and use child labor as employees, of course. That's a no-brainer.

Since crack would be legal, I could finally run my own lucrative crack business and since the demand for crack is pretty much inelastic, I think I'd be set. It's like businessperson extraordinaire and comedian Chris Rock once said, "crack sells itself". Not only that, but I'd direct my advertising campaign towards children. Get them hooked young.

Furthermore, I'd hire mercenaries to kill off my competitors. That's essential. Hey, I might be able to retire early.

What about the rest of you? Be creative.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

:lol:

Awesome.

[Zanthorus]

anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist revolution

:lol: In Capitalist America, Bourgeois pigs revolt against the oppressive proletariat.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If there ever was an anarcho capitalist revolution, everyone on this board who was affected and has at least minimal common decency would leave or start a commune.

[Havet]

After the anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist revolution, what's gonna be your business plan or investment strategy? The state would be abolished, so there would be no more pesky government regulations or taxes, so you're essentially free to do whatever the fuck you want(if you have the money that is). Labor unions would be extremely weak, so that's definitely a plus for business, as well.

Here's what I plan to do:

Become a business owner and use child labor as employees, of course. That's a no-brainer.

Since crack would be legal, I could finally run my own lucrative crack business and since the demand for crack is pretty much inelastic, I think I'd be set. It's like businessperson extraordinaire and comedian Chris Rock once said, "crack sells itself". Not only that, but I'd direct my advertising campaign towards children. Get them hooked young.

Furthermore, I'd hire mercenaries to kill off my competitors. That's essential. Hey, I might be able to retire early.

What about the rest of you? Be creative.

You certainly outdone yourself in strawman-creation

First of all

ancap=/=market anarchism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-iwhE4-fc)

I'd personally create a proudhonian mutualist bank (http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm), help around establishing a militia to protect my community (with free gun laws only a little regular training would be needed) , create a small business out of engineering/science innovation (without any IP laws) and use the profits (without any worker exploitation) to open up some cooperative schools or other institutions. This is, of course, if the community I was in tolerated sole proprietorship of my business. If not, i'd get together with some like-minded people and do it anyway, splitting the revenue.

Perhaps even start a post-rock band, but only as a hobby.

---

BTW, what's wrong with selling drugs?

What makes you think child labor would be acceptable, and that there wouldn't be any alternatives for children, like affordable or free school for instance?

How the fuck would you expect people to tolerate mercenaries in their own communities? "The forces that brought down the State and the capitalists would also prevent new States or capitalists from forming"

[Axle]

I would start a company, make it a huge success then sell it to the highest bidder. Then I would use that money to start another business and invest the rest in a powerful corporation. I would make my second busines an even bigger success and sell it to the highest bidder and buy up the majority stock in that one powerful corporation.

Then, since I'd be the biggest shareholder, I'd assassinate the board of directors and top executives and replace them with people loyal to me, and outsource as much of the work as I possibly could to increase profits and use the money I saved to buy up other companies and merge them all into a megacorporation.

Then I'd keep buying and buying other companies until I run an economy-wide monopoly and become the most powerful single person the world has ever seen. Upon doing this, I would assassinate the board of directors and executives again, before proclaiming that Capitalism doesn't work and releasing my economic stranglehold to the workers because I never stopped being a Communist in the first place.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

You certainly outdone yourself in strawman-creation

Wait, do you think that straw-man creating will be a lucrative business venture in a free market society?


BTW, what's wrong with selling drugs?

Did I say there was something wrong with it?


What makes you think child labor would be acceptable, and that there wouldn't be any alternatives for children, like affordable or free school for instance?

Why would children want to go to school when they could work for me at my crack dealership to recieve a decent wage AND crack?


How the fuck would you expect people to tolerate mercenaries in their own communities?

What's wrong with mercenaries? How dare you slander a legitimate business proffesion? You're starting to sound like a filthy statist pig.

Anyway the people don't have to know about my dealings with mercs. I'd do it privately.


"The forces that brought down the State and the capitalists would also prevent new States or capitalists from forming"

Who's quote is this? Voltaire? Woody Allen?

[Scary Monster]

You certainly outdone yourself in strawman-creation

First of all

ancap=/=market anarchism

I'd personally create a proudhonian mutualist bank, help around establishing a militia to protect my community (with free gun laws only a little regular training would be needed) , create a small business out of engineering/science innovation (without any IP laws) and use the profits (without any worker exploitation) to open up some cooperative schools or other institutions. This is, of course, if the community I was in tolerated sole proprietorship of my business. If not, i'd get together with some like-minded people and do it anyway, splitting the revenue.

Perhaps even start a post-rock band, but only as a hobby.

---

BTW, what's wrong with selling drugs?

What makes you think child labor would be acceptable, and that there wouldn't be any alternatives for children, like affordable or free school for instance?

How the fuck would you expect people to tolerate mercenaries in their own communities? "The forces that brought down the State and the capitalists would also prevent new States or capitalists from forming"

Hahah. This is why no one takes "anarcho capitalism" seriously. And you capitalists make the pseudo-scientific argument that its human nature for people to be greedy and evil, in order to justify capitalism. Yet here, youre saying that under AnCap, the cappies would take it upon themselves to create militias to protect communities and set up co-ops? :lol:
And the capitalists during the industrial revolution didnt seem to mind using child labor. and they dont seem to mind using it in their factories in third world countries in the present

[Ovi]

BTW, what's wrong with selling drugs?

Surely promoting drugs to children just to make lots of money is not a good thing.


What makes you think child labor would be acceptable, and that there wouldn't be any alternatives for children, like affordable or free school for instance?

Who says what's acceptable? If there are enough poor people that would let their children work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop, there isn't anything to prevent them. Of course you'll say that's a good thing.


How the fuck would you expect people to tolerate mercenaries in their own communities? "The forces that brought down the State and the capitalists would also prevent new States or capitalists from forming"
Not really. The state is not the only one who can spy on you. Malls and google do a pretty good job. The state is not the only one who can impose laws/rules. There are plenty of restaurants that forbid smoking despite it being legal.

So what is the difference between the state and a landlord for instance? I don't see any. The company that owns the house you pay rent for can create it's own rules, such as no drugs. You must agree if you moved there since it's a voluntary exchange right? It can charge a certain amount of the profits that other business make on its land, just like the state imposes taxes. It can impose racist rules such as no black people allowed, the same way the state could. In essence that company is a small state, just like the state is a company that has monopoly of force over a certain territory. If you don't agree with those laws you can move somewhere else, just like you can too move in another country. How free, right?

[Skooma Addict]

Hahah. This is why no one takes "anarcho capitalism" seriously. And you capitalists make the pseudo-scientific argument that its human nature for people to be greedy and evil, in order to justify capitalism. Yet here, youre saying that under AnCap, the cappies would take it upon themselves to create militias to protect communities and set up co-ops? :lol:
And the capitalists during the industrial revolution didnt seem to mind using child labor. and they dont seem to mind using it in their factories in third world countries in the present

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTFwAxfHgSA&feature=player_embedded%27

[Havet]

Wait, do you think that straw-man creating will be a lucrative business venture in a free market society?

Nah.


Did I say there was something wrong with it?

Not directly, but it seemed like it. I stand corrected if you implied otherwise.


Why would children want to go to school when they could work for me at my crack dealership to recieve a decent wage AND crack?

Because they could gain skills to demand the full product of their labor.


What's wrong with mercenaries? How dare you slander a legitimate business proffesion? You're starting to sound like a filthy statist pig.

It's not legitimate.


Anyway the people don't have to know about my dealings with mercs. I'd do it privately.

They'll find out anyway.


Who's quote is this? Voltaire? Woody Allen?

A communist from this board. But it has been too long for me to remmember who.

[Bud Struggle]

I'd start a business make plenty of money off the sweat of my workers get a big house and a Bentley.

BUT then I'd buy a crappy house with cheep furnature and a crappy car and invite my workers over to the crappy house for barbacues and Miller High Life. The workers would think they live better than me--feel sorry for me and work ever harder for me.

After the party was over I'd drive home to my real house.;) :D

[Havet]

Hahah. This is why no one takes "anarcho capitalism" seriously. And you capitalists make the pseudo-scientific argument that its human nature for people to be greedy and evil, in order to justify capitalism. Yet here, youre saying that under AnCap, the cappies would take it upon themselves to create militias to protect communities and set up co-ops? :lol:
And the capitalists during the industrial revolution didnt seem to mind using child labor. and they dont seem to mind using it in their factories in third world countries in the present

Boy has this been the most perfectly flawed strawman I HAVE EVER SEEN!

Where have I supported anarcho-capitalism in this thread?

Where have I endorsed capitalists?

Where have I made the the pseudo-scientific argument that its human nature for people to be greedy and evil? Where have I even stated that I LIKE CAPITALISM?

Please to not mistake market socialism/anarchism/mutualism with capitalism. And please stop with the strawman.

[Jazzratt]

It's not legitimate.

Why not? They are performing a service by protecting the business interests of LB's fine crack-pushing business and preventing anything as horrificly statist as his workers' demanding a living wage or a modicum of diginity in exchange for money. Clamping down on them is absolutely crontrolling the market. You statist you.

[bcbm]

i'd be a mercenary for lumpen bourgeois, as long as he keeps the rock comin.

[Havet]

Surely promoting drugs to children just to make lots of money is not a good thing.

Oh yeah. I was arguign about the general idea of (grown) people being free to consume them


Who says what's acceptable? If there are enough poor people that would let their children work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop, there isn't anything to prevent them. Of course you'll say that's a good thing.

But I don't expect enough poor people to exist in a market socialist/ market anarchist / mutualist free market.


Not really. The state is not the only one who can spy on you. Malls and google do a pretty good job. The state is not the only one who can impose laws/rules. There are plenty of restaurants that forbid smoking despite it being legal.

And there are plenty more resturants who forbid smoking because it is illegal.


So what is the difference between the state and a landlord for instance? I don't see any.

Me neither. Where have I said I supported landlords?


The company that owns the house you pay rent for can create it's own rules, such as no drugs.

Just as you create your own rules in your own house. There is a difference between private property and privacy. I don't support enforced private property, but I support privacy.


You must agree if you moved there since it's a voluntary exchange right? It can charge a certain amount of the profits that other business make on its land, just like the state imposes taxes. It can impose racist rules such as no black people allowed, the same way the state could. In essence that company is a small state, just like the state is a company that has monopoly of force over a certain territory. If you don't agree with those laws you can move somewhere else, just like you can too move in another country. How free, right?

The company will only become a State if it has acquired ownership by not using the prevalent intersubjective criteria for acquiring ownership in the relevant area (aka community).

In other words, if it forces its rules upon the people around them without them agreeing on them.

[Havet]

Why not? They are performing a service by protecting the business interests of LB's fine crack-pushing business and preventing anything as horrificly statist as his workers' demanding a living wage or a modicum of diginity in exchange for money. Clamping down on them is absolutely crontrolling the market. You statist you.

The market cannot be free if some are preventing others from freely exchanging goods and services.

[Jazzratt]

That was part of the point I was making, you're preventing the mercenaries from exchange their services for goods. Their services, also, are ultimately in the interests of the free market as they strongarm workers into not putting themselves above the holy market.

[Havet]

That was part of the point I was making, you're preventing the mercenaries from exchange their services for goods. Their services, also, are ultimately in the interests of the free market as they strongarm workers into not putting themselves above the holy market.

But their exchange of goods and services will deprive others from freely exchanging goods and services (by murdering competitors). This is why their services are not in the interests of a free market.

[Ovi]

But I don't expect enough poor people to exist in a market socialist/ market anarchist / mutualist free market.

But they do now. And it won't change over night as the government is abolished.


And there are plenty more resturants who forbid smoking because it is illegal.


All I'm saying is that it doesn't take what you call a state to impose rules.



Me neither. Where have I said I supported landlords?

No one. I'm talking about stateless capitalism and the idea that no state will ever rise once it's gone.


Just as you create your own rules in your own house. There is a difference between private property and privacy. I don't support enforced private property, but I support privacy.


But private property is enforced by definition.



The company will only become a State if it has acquired ownership by not using the prevalent intersubjective criteria for acquiring ownership in the relevant area (aka community).

In other words, if it forces its rules upon the people around them without them agreeing on them.
Of course it does. That's the whole idea of private property.

[Ovi]

But their exchange of goods and services will deprive others from freely exchanging goods and services (by murdering competitors). This is why their services are not in the interests of a free market.
If it is in the interest of the company then it's worth doing. That's what free market is all about.

[RHIZOMES]

You certainly outdone yourself in strawman-creation

First of all

ancap=/=market anarchism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-iwhE4-fc)

I'd personally create a proudhonian mutualist bank (http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm), help around establishing a militia to protect my community (with free gun laws only a little regular training would be needed) , create a small business out of engineering/science innovation (without any IP laws) and use the profits (without any worker exploitation) to open up some cooperative schools or other institutions. This is, of course, if the community I was in tolerated sole proprietorship of my business. If not, i'd get together with some like-minded people and do it anyway, splitting the revenue.

Perhaps even start a post-rock band, but only as a hobby.

---

BTW, what's wrong with selling drugs?

What makes you think child labor would be acceptable, and that there wouldn't be any alternatives for children, like affordable or free school for instance?

How the fuck would you expect people to tolerate mercenaries in their own communities? "The forces that brought down the State and the capitalists would also prevent new States or capitalists from forming"

Can I join you in fairytale land I've always wanted to meet Gandalf and fight dragons.

[Dejavu]

Hayen, I can't believe you got sucked into this. :rolleyes:

This thread was simply meant to provoke. They are going to debate their preconceived and often vulgar assumptions about you and your market supporting philosophy instead of showing any genuine curiosity in the depth of your actual arguments.

Better to exhaust your intellect on people that can really understand you or give you an actual real argument. I'll PM you a list of people here that I think are worth having real debates/discussions with.

[Dejavu]

Clarification

Stateless society

The absence of the state in social organization. A society which has emerged which no longer believes the state , and the violent mechanisms it uses , is needed to deal with complex social issues.

I don't think any rational thinking person would expect all people in a stateless society to be of 'one collective mind.' The majority would agree that a state is a barrier to freedom but individuals and groups would still have differing notions on how to organize economies and communities.

Of course , that is the point. Not everyone need live in communes or market orientated communities. People would have the decision to integrate themselves into whatever communities fit their values. The state is an entity that prohibits such associations and uses force to implement a monocentric hierarchical society.

A consistent and ethical theory of statelessness would thus involve one that promotes and/or allows for polycentricism.

Drugs

Naturally, in a stateless society ,there would be no legislated laws against the use and trade of drugs and no violent institution to physically enforce those laws. This goes for all drugs. There also would not be any statutory laws involving age requirements for drugs. Sorry, If you support a stateless society of any kind then you have to make peace with this.

However, just because there is no state to regulate drug traffic does not mean that there cannot be other non-violent alternatives. Most of us have an aversion to drugs , particularly the heavier drugs such as crack , coke , meth , certain pharmaceutical drugs , etc, and I don't think this would change even if there was not a state. There is nothing contradictory with a consistent theory of statelessness that could not have communities develop non-violent counter incentives to drugs. We should all discuss non-violent methods to curb dangerous drugs if we not only support a stateless society , but also oppose state violence. If you believe that institutionalized legal violence is necessary to solve complex social issues then I don't see how you can also call yourself an anarchist in the same breath.

Drugs are more than just a consequence of a particular economic system. It is my opinion that when anyone proposes a socioeconomic system that is guaranteed to eliminate all drug use and addictions, that person is really just selling you a scheme. Drugs , particularly the heavier drugs , are often used for escapism. It is a very personal matter that involves families and psychology. I find it hard to believe such problems can be solved with simply having a different economic system. I can site studies showing that drug addiction and drug use is best addressed in family psychology rather than who owns the means of production.

Child Labor

Really? Are you guys serious? Last time I checked this wasn't the year 1880. Much has changed since then. Namely improvement on capital and productive capabilities which are not nearly as labor intensive as the old days. The quintessential dirty grimey factory has all but dissapeared in at least more developed nations. Along with it , the economic value of child labor. Machines and assembly lines take care of a lot of the tasks that children were previously given in the Industrial Revolution era.

Technology moves forward , always. It would seem children's greatest economic value is going through school and having at least a basic education. Simply observe how many young people , often still students in school , are really good with software applications.

Nobody likes to read the heart wrenching stories of the child labor in the Industrial revolution. The mere thought of children ( usually betwen 8-14) working in a sooty factory really tugs at the heart strings and makes us angry and we want someone to be accountable. However, if we can use our ability to reason and look beyond simple emotional response we can see the situation with much more clarity.

We see that the era of child labor was not one meant to last , even with the state supposedly 'saving our children' from the cruel fate of the factory. If it wasn't the government that put the final stamp on no child labor, then it would've been invention of the assembly line and superior productive methods. Ofc , this does not even begin to address the government's own fetish with hiring its own child labor but that's another issue. Its all about comparing before and afters. As bad as factory life was for children that first moved into the city , what prospects were open for children before they could work in the city? We're children regularly educated before then? Did they have good and prosperous lives? Did the city businesses kidnap children from this good life and force them to work, or did they hire the government to do it? If one looks deeper into the before/after picture of the lives of children during the industrial revolution then there is something to be said. The city life was no picnic but clearly their parents thought it was better than what they had before. It seems it was in most cases. The life of a pre-IR child , with poor mortality, wasn't much different than for a child that lived as a peasant in the middle ages. The city offered the prospect of rising above the traditional peasant. Industrialization back then was a rapid but difficult process since the technology didn't already exist to increase output.

Ofc today, its different, at least in more developed nations that most benefited from earlier industrialization. The notion of child labor in terms of working in a grimy factory doesn't make much sense especially when modern technology can more than compensate any productive value a kid can offer in a factory + its cheaper and less risky for the people that run the business. Modern children are evolving with technology and the skills they develope would be much better applied to computer science. Personally, I think it would be awesome if teenagers could get hired as computer programmers, especially since the state doesn't seem like it will be able to keep on giving out toxic debt loans for college. Its at least another option instead of going through college , *maybe* getting a job afterwords but then spend the next decades paying off interest and becoming a wage slave anyway.

Its unfortunate that some industrializing areas in SE Asia and South America are still in the business of child labor. It might be true that child labor in those countries isn't as intense as it was in the industrial revolution but it still should be recognized. Its frustrating knowing that those children have to not only go to school but also spend their days in those factories while their peers in developed countries can play X-box. When we make that comparison it really gets to us in terms of anger and frustration with the lack of equality in the world. But then , when we compare the Chinese child , who probably spends at least a 3rd of his week doing grimy work, to the African child in Zambia somewhere , we see that the Chinese child is much better off in comparison. Its clear that where he lives has much higher economic development. Which is why , industrialization is more rapid than ever today but its not exactly an easy thing, the baby steps are rough but it eventually pays off later on.

For some of these reasons above , I don't think a stateless society would immediately want to enslave the children, I really don't believe that. I think child abuse is a major issue , everywhere , but should be examined most rigorously in family psychology rather than economic theories. I also believe that those communities that are likely to be stateless are those which are already in advanced development.

[Scary Monster]

to olaf: just what part of what i said did not make any sense to you?

[Havet]

But they do now. And it won't change over night as the government is abolished.

But now we don't have a market socialist/ market anarchist / mutualist free market.

Though I agree. Just abolishing the government will not resolve everything. People have to act to make things better, not just expect them to appear by accident.


All I'm saying is that it doesn't take what you call a state to impose rules.

Anyone who imposes rules contrary to the common intersubjective criteria of rules of a community is a State by definition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1480146#post1480146).


No one. I'm talking about stateless capitalism and the idea that no state will ever rise once it's gone.

Depends how the State disappears. If it was by a revolution, then that force (the revolution) would prevent a new one from coming, unless that force itself would become the State.


But private property is enforced by definition.

Just as privacy is.


Of course it does. That's the whole idea of private property.

Which is why private property being forcefully imposed in a community where the people had no such concept, or had accepted another form of property arrangement, is wrong.

[Havet]

If it is in the interest of the company then it's worth doing. That's what free market is all about.

The free market is about free exchange of goods and services.

If one company acts to prevent that (the mercenaries who kill competition), then it is no longer a free exchange of goods and services because some people are being prevented of exchanging goods and services, or of organizing themselves the way they see fit.

It cannot get any clearer than this.

[Havet]

clarification

stateless society

the absence of the state in social organization. A society which has emerged which no longer believes the state , and the violent mechanisms it uses , is needed to deal with complex social issues.

I don't think any rational thinking person would expect all people in a stateless society to be of 'one collective mind.' the majority would agree that a state is a barrier to freedom but individuals and groups would still have differing notions on how to organize economies and communities.

Of course , that is the point. Not everyone need live in communes or market orientated communities. People would have the decision to integrate themselves into whatever communities fit their values. The state is an entity that prohibits such associations and uses force to implement a monocentric hierarchical society.

A consistent and ethical theory of statelessness would thus involve one that promotes and/or allows for polycentricism.

drugs

naturally, in a stateless society ,there would be no legislated laws against the use and trade of drugs and no violent institution to physically enforce those laws. This goes for all drugs. There also would not be any statutory laws involving age requirements for drugs. Sorry, if you support a stateless society of any kind then you have to make peace with this.

However, just because there is no state to regulate drug traffic does not mean that there cannot be other non-violent alternatives. Most of us have an aversion to drugs , particularly the heavier drugs such as crack , coke , meth , certain pharmaceutical drugs , etc, and i don't think this would change even if there was not a state. There is nothing contradictory with a consistent theory of statelessness that could not have communities develop non-violent counter incentives to drugs. We should all discuss non-violent methods to curb dangerous drugs if we not only support a stateless society , but also oppose state violence. If you believe that institutionalized legal violence is necessary to solve complex social issues then i don't see how you can also call yourself an anarchist in the same breath.

Drugs are more than just a consequence of a particular economic system. It is my opinion that when anyone proposes a socioeconomic system that is guaranteed to eliminate all drug use and addictions, that person is really just selling you a scheme. Drugs , particularly the heavier drugs , are often used for escapism. It is a very personal matter that involves families and psychology. I find it hard to believe such problems can be solved with simply having a different economic system. I can site studies showing that drug addiction and drug use is best addressed in family psychology rather than who owns the means of production.

child labor

really? Are you guys serious? Last time i checked this wasn't the year 1880. much has changed since then. Namely improvement on capital and productive capabilities which are not nearly as labor intensive as the old days. The quintessential dirty grimey factory has all but dissapeared in at least more developed nations. Along with it , the economic value of child labor. Machines and assembly lines take care of a lot of the tasks that children were previously given in the industrial revolution era.

Technology moves forward , always. It would seem children's greatest economic value is going through school and having at least a basic education. Simply observe how many young people , often still students in school , are really good with software applications.

Nobody likes to read the heart wrenching stories of the child labor in the industrial revolution. The mere thought of children ( usually betwen 8-14) working in a sooty factory really tugs at the heart strings and makes us angry and we want someone to be accountable. However, if we can use our ability to reason and look beyond simple emotional response we can see the situation with much more clarity.

We see that the era of child labor was not one meant to last , even with the state supposedly 'saving our children' from the cruel fate of the factory. If it wasn't the government that put the final stamp on no child labor, then it would've been invention of the assembly line and superior productive methods. Ofc , this does not even begin to address the government's own fetish with hiring its own child labor but that's another issue. Its all about comparing before and afters. As bad as factory life was for children that first moved into the city , what prospects were open for children before they could work in the city? We're children regularly educated before then? Did they have good and prosperous lives? Did the city businesses kidnap children from this good life and force them to work, or did they hire the government to do it? If one looks deeper into the before/after picture of the lives of children during the industrial revolution then there is something to be said. The city life was no picnic but clearly their parents thought it was better than what they had before. It seems it was in most cases. The life of a pre-ir child , with poor mortality, wasn't much different than for a child that lived as a peasant in the middle ages. The city offered the prospect of rising above the traditional peasant. Industrialization back then was a rapid but difficult process since the technology didn't already exist to increase output.

Ofc today, its different, at least in more developed nations that most benefited from earlier industrialization. The notion of child labor in terms of working in a grimy factory doesn't make much sense especially when modern technology can more than compensate any productive value a kid can offer in a factory + its cheaper and less risky for the people that run the business. Modern children are evolving with technology and the skills they develope would be much better applied to computer science. Personally, i think it would be awesome if teenagers could get hired as computer programmers, especially since the state doesn't seem like it will be able to keep on giving out toxic debt loans for college. Its at least another option instead of going through college , *maybe* getting a job afterwords but then spend the next decades paying off interest and becoming a wage slave anyway.

Its unfortunate that some industrializing areas in se asia and south america are still in the business of child labor. It might be true that child labor in those countries isn't as intense as it was in the industrial revolution but it still should be recognized. Its frustrating knowing that those children have to not only go to school but also spend their days in those factories while their peers in developed countries can play x-box. When we make that comparison it really gets to us in terms of anger and frustration with the lack of equality in the world. But then , when we compare the chinese child , who probably spends at least a 3rd of his week doing grimy work, to the african child in zambia somewhere , we see that the chinese child is much better off in comparison. Its clear that where he lives has much higher economic development. Which is why , industrialization is more rapid than ever today but its not exactly an easy thing, the baby steps are rough but it eventually pays off later on.

For some of these reasons above , i don't think a stateless society would immediately want to enslave the children, i really don't believe that. I think child abuse is a major issue , everywhere , but should be examined most rigorously in family psychology rather than economic theories. I also believe that those communities that are likely to be stateless are those which are already in advanced development.

qft

[Havet]

Can I join you in fairytale land I've always wanted to meet Gandalf and fight dragons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTFwAxfHgSA

[Ovi]

But now we don't have a market socialist/ market anarchist / mutualist free market.

Though I agree. Just abolishing the government will not resolve everything. People have to act to make things better, not just expect them to appear by accident.



Anyone who imposes rules contrary to the common intersubjective criteria of rules of a community is a State by definition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1480146#post1480146).

Exactly. In that case any company is also a state because it imposes it's own rules to the workers, such as wearing silly clothes, banning loud music in the apartment that you pay rent for, and so on. What I'm saying is that The forces that brought down the State would also prevent new States from forming is meaningless in stateless capitalism.


Depends how the State disappears. If it was by a revolution, then that force (the revolution) would prevent a new one from coming, unless that force itself would become the State.


No stateless capitalist system would prevent big business and hence statist entities from forming.



Just as privacy is.


I don't get it. Owning a factory means you have certain right upon anyone who works there, and of course those right can be defended by force.




Which is why private property being forcefully imposed in a community where the people had no such concept, or had accepted another form of property arrangement, is wrong.
This is why private property is wrong no matter what.

The free market is about free exchange of goods and services.

If one company acts to prevent that (the mercenaries who kill competition), then it is no longer a free exchange of goods and services because some people are being prevented of exchanging goods and services, or of organizing themselves the way they see fit.

It cannot get any clearer than this.
I was talking about stateless capitalism and it's "free" market. Killing your opponents if you can means playing by the rules. Hiring children means the same thing. For instance Microsoft uses every tactic it can to keep it's monopoly, from software patents to Embrace, extend and extinguish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_extend_extinguish). And in this case it's the government that does something about it. Is monopoly against the free market? I believe not. Why would you restrict someone from having too many customers?

And by the same reason, you don't have to kill anyone to get them out of business. Is someone a threat to your company and you have enough resources? Pay the company who owns the roads towards your opponent to close them down. Are there 2 companies? Pay both of them. Is this against the rules of the capitalist market economy? I believe not. It's already happening.

[Zanthorus]

@hayenmill: I'm actually pretty sympathetic to free market 'anti-capitalism' but I think it's totally naive and utopian. If there is still private property then there will be private ownership of the means of production and even if this ownership is mostly manifested in worker co-ops there is still a pretty large possibility of capitalist business structures rearising. When that happens the owner is going to want to maximise profit and since they're going to be capitalist/bourgeois then they're not going to be playing by the rules (If you think this isn't so then you seriously need a history lesson), in a pretty short time you're going to get lots of capitalists again and they're going to be fighting out to maximise profits and in turn make shit hard for the workers and eventually they're going to implement another state in order to protect their interests.

The only real solution to the problems would be:

a) Eliminate property from the equation, except then of course there's really no point in having a market at all.

b) Eliminate Markets from the equation

I just don't see it working out.

[Scary Monster]

Boy has this been the most perfectly flawed strawman I HAVE EVER SEEN!

Where have I supported anarcho-capitalism in this thread?

Where have I endorsed capitalists?

Where have I made the the pseudo-scientific argument that its human nature for people to be greedy and evil? Where have I even stated that I LIKE CAPITALISM?

Please to not mistake market socialism/anarchism/mutualism with capitalism. And please stop with the strawman.

oh yeah, i had forgot that this was a "hypothetical" thread when i read your post. when i saw that you are restricted, i just automatically assumed you personally condoned ancap :D But of course i still stand by my argument i made earlier for any actual anarcho capitalists here hehe

[IcarusAngel]

Actually, life during the industrial revolution was actually worse for many children in England and the US than it was under feudalism:

"They moved to the industrial cities and lived in slums where “the loss of life from filth and bad ventilation are greater than the loss of life from death or wounds in which the country has been engaged in modern times.” People (including small children) worked 14 to 16 hours a day, in horrible, dangerous conditions for wages that were not enough to buy food. Life expectancy for all of England was 40, for the laborers it was no more than 18. Fifty-seven percent died before the age of five.
The defining achievement of the Industrial Revolution was the creation of a society in which people were reduced to a choice between wage labor and starvation."

http://ticokid.blogs.com/life_in_central_america/2004/07/the_effects_of_.html

Since the population was bombing probably millions of people died unnecessarily, at least if there had been proper health care for all, and they weren't being treated like slaves, they wouldn't have otherwise have died.

The industrial revolutions shows the vast inefficiency of capitaism - the people who make the rich rich cannot even take care of themselves.

We need a different approach to economics, one in which the public decides what to do with resources and the public must first take of one another, not make 'profits.'

[IcarusAngel]

As for minimum wage etc., keep in mind corporations have already calculated how to get the most output out of the fewest amount of workers. Raising the minimum wage is not going to cause them to just fire workers at whim - they need at least some workers. If they engage in price gouging - they should be subject to regulation (as they already are). That is why statistics show that states with a high minimum wage have not generally seen a drop in unemployment.

[Havet]

Exactly. In that case any company is also a state because it imposes it's own rules to the workers, such as wearing silly clothes, banning loud music in the apartment that you pay rent for, and so on. What I'm saying is that The forces that brought down the State would also prevent new States from forming is meaningless in stateless capitalism.

Yeah. But i'm not defending stateless capitalism. I'm defending market anarchy.


No stateless capitalist system would prevent big business and hence statist entities from forming.

I think i can agree


I don't get it. Owning a factory means you have certain right upon anyone who works there, and of course those right can be defended by force.

Privacy and ownership have some similarities, and some differences. The main difference is that usually private property is enforced on the majority of the population by an entity (a person or group of people) which is exempted from the rules the population finds desirable (aka the state).

If such entity starts imposing ownership, then you have private property. If the community itself had previously agreed on a property-conception such as possession or something else, any agency defending it would not be a State.

The most important thing, in all cases, is Equality of Opportunity. The current system is exploitative because workers are not free to compete against the owners, or free to live within the system unbound by their laws.


This is why private property is wrong no matter what.

Like I said above, we can theorize on a situation where private property would be legitimate, if people indeed preferred it. You cannot just conclude that just because private property is harmful now it means it will always be harmful, unless of course, you care to debate this more specifically?

The problem of property was philosophically studied by Proudhon:

Property is Theft! By "property," Proudhon referred to the Roman law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law) concept of the sovereign right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty) of property – the right of the proprietor to do with his property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed right of property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_right) with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty), equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality), and security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security).


I was talking about stateless capitalism and it's "free" market. Killing your opponents if you can means playing by the rules. Hiring children means the same thing. For instance Microsoft uses every tactic it can to keep it's monopoly, from software patents to Embrace, extend and extinguish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_extend_extinguish). And in this case it's the government that does something about it. Is monopoly against the free market? I believe not. Why would you restrict someone from having too many customers?

A natural monopoly is extremely rare in a TRUE free market and mildly harmful when it appears, though still it requires some attention to it.

Current artificial/state monopolies are common in these mixed economies and extremely harmful.

Even if the kind of monopolies we see today were possible in a free market, it would be necessary to abolish them. By the very definition of their privileges (legal entity, intellectual property rights, tax-payer subsidies to their transportation).

To quote my other (http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125) thread for greater understanding:

"Impossible! Have I not just shown you that the reason one man controls another's manner of living is because he controls the opportunities to produce? He does this through a special governmental privilege. Now, if this privilege is abolished, land becomes free, and ability to capitalize products removing interest, and one man is stronger or shrewder than another, he nevertheless can make no profit from that other's labor, because he cannot stop him from employing himself. The cause of subjection is removed."


And by the same reason, you don't have to kill anyone to get them out of business. Is someone a threat to your company and you have enough resources? Pay the company who owns the roads towards your opponent to close them down. Are there 2 companies? Pay both of them. Is this against the rules of the capitalist market economy? I believe not. It's already happening.

It is indeed a very common practice among contemporary capitalist economies. But this has nothing to do with a free market (I would once again advise you to read my thread on what the real free market would resemble)

I wrote a lengthy reply once in a website explaining exactly the kinds of problems current capitalists would face in a true free market when trying to employ such actions:


First, a small introduction: A natural monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) occurs when, due to the economies of scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale) of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production,_costs,_and_pricing) and distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_%28business%29) is realized through a single supplier.

We, smaller competitors are less efficient than the monopoly firm and hence unable to compete with it. Except where the market is very small (a small town grocery store for example), this is a rather uncommon situation. Even so, there are several ways to remove that monopoly.

Potential Competition

If a natural monopoly raises prices high enough, we smaller and less efficient firms can compete profitably, because customers will find the monopoly prices too much expensive.

If otherwise, the monopoly decides to keep prices low enough so that we cannot compete, well it depends on the actual competition. If they keep the prices low, but enough new firms still keep appearing, at some point they won't be able to keep placing the prices so low without losing large amounts of money, making it more profitable to stop trying to drive us out and thus losing its monopoly position. Thus a solution is to keep new firms appearing.

Indirect Competition

Imagine steel production were a natural monopoly. Even if the monopoly firm were enormously more efficient than potential competitors, its prices would be limited by the existence of substitutes of steel. As it drove prices higher and higher, people would use more aluminium, plastic, and wood for construction. Similarly a railroad, even if it is a monopoly, faces competition from canal barges, trucks and airplanes. So another way to dismantle a monopoly is by entering commerce in substitutes of the monopoly's products/services.

Example by David D. Friedman

"Suppose a monopoly is formed, as was U.S.Steel, by financers who succeed in buying up many of the existing firms. Assume further that there is no question of a natural monopoly; a firm much smaller than the new monster can produce as efficiently perhaps even more efficiently. It is commonly argued that the large firm will nonetheless be able to achieve and maintain complete control of the industry. This argument, like many others, depends on the false analogy of market competition to a battle in which the strongest must win.

Suppose the monopoly starts with 99% of the market and that the remaining 1% is held by a single competitor. To make things more dramatic, let me play the role of the competitor. It is argued, that the monopoly being bigger and more powerful, can easily drive me out.

In order to do so, the monopoly must cut its price to a level at which I am losing money. But since the monopoly is no more efficient than I am, it is losing just as much money per unit sold. Its resources may be 99 times as great as mine, but it is also losing money 99 times as fast as I am.
It is doing worse than that. In order to force me to keep my prices down, the monopoly must be willing to sell to everyone who wants to buy; otherwise unsupplied customers will buy from me at the old price. Since at the new old price customers will want to buy more than before, the monopolist must expand production, this losing even more money. If the good we produce can be easily stored, the anticipation of future prices rises, once our battle is over, will increase present demand still further.

Meanwhile, i have more attractive options. I can, if I wish, continue to produce at full capacity and sell at a loss, loing one dollar for every hundred or more lost by the monopoly. Or I may save money by laying off some of my workers, closing down part of my plant, an decreasing production until the monopoly gets tired of wasting money.

What about the situation where the monopoly engages in regional price cutting, taking a loss in the area i am operating and making it up in other parts of the country? If i am seriously worried about that prospect, I can take the precaution of opening outlets in all his major markets. Even if i do not, the high prices he charges in other areas to make up for his losses against me will make those areas very attractive to other new firms. Once they are established, he no longer has a market in which to make up his losses."

"Over-Agglomeration" tactic

So what if the monopolist tries to buy out competitors? After all, this is usually cheaper than spending a fortune trying to drive them out - at least, it is cheaper in the short run.

Well, to tell you truth, this problem is not new. It was once done by Rockefeller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller) in order to achieve monopoly. Using oil refineries as the example, I would recommend realizing that you can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to monopolist at a whopping profit. Repeat this action several times until the monpolist can no longer afford to have so many refineries.

For a real-life example of this, let's go back to Rockefeller's time. David.P.Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutie refineries to Rockefeller. There was a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitation in his later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.

[Havet]

@hayenmill: I'm actually pretty sympathetic to free market 'anti-capitalism' but I think it's totally naive and utopian. If there is still private property then there will be private ownership of the means of production and even if this ownership is mostly manifested in worker co-ops there is still a pretty large possibility of capitalist business structures rearising. When that happens the owner is going to want to maximise profit and since they're going to be capitalist/bourgeois then they're not going to be playing by the rules (If you think this isn't so then you seriously need a history lesson), in a pretty short time you're going to get lots of capitalists again and they're going to be fighting out to maximise profits and in turn make shit hard for the workers and eventually they're going to implement another state in order to protect their interests.

The only real solution to the problems would be:

a) Eliminate property from the equation, except then of course there's really no point in having a market at all.

b) Eliminate Markets from the equation

I just don't see it working out.

"Now, if this privilege is abolished, land becomes free, and ability to capitalize products removing interest, and one man is stronger or shrewder than another, he nevertheless can make no profit from that other's labor, because he cannot stop him from employing himself. The cause of subjection is removed."

If they start using force openly so as to stop one person to employ himself, I expect the workers to organize and defend themselves.

[Havet]

Actually, life during the industrial revolution was actually worse for many children in England and the US than it was under feudalism

I naturally disagree.


]"They moved to the industrial cities and lived in slums where “the loss of life from filth and bad ventilation are greater than the loss of life from death or wounds in which the country has been engaged in modern times.” People (including small children) worked 14 to 16 hours a day, in horrible, dangerous conditions for wages that were not enough to buy food. Life expectancy for all of England was 40, for the laborers it was no more than 18. Fifty-seven percent died before the age of five.
The defining achievement of the Industrial Revolution was the creation of a society in which people were reduced to a choice between wage labor and starvation."

Dude, no one denies these facts.

The defining achievement before the Industrial Revolution was a society in which people were reduced to a choice between starvation and starvation.

"Free labour" children were those who lived at home but worked during the days in factories at the insistence of their parents or guardians. British historian E. P. Thompson, though generally critical of the factory system, nonetheless quite properly conceded that "it is perfectly true that the parents not only needed their children's earnings, but expected them to work." (2)

The generally deplorable conditions extant for centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and the low levels of productivity which created them, caused families to embrace the new opportunities the factories represented:

It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchen and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them, in the strict sense of the term, from death by starvation. (3)

The mass exodus from the agrarian Continent to increasingly industrialized Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century strongly suggests that people did indeed find the industrial order an attractive alternative.

As for "parish apprentice" children, it turns out, they were under the direct authority and supervision not of their parents in a labor market, but of government officials. Most were orphans; a few were victims of negligent parents or parents whose health or lack of skills kept them from earning sufficient income to care for a family. All were in the custody of ""parish authorities." As the Hammonds themselves wrote,
. . . the first mills were placed on streams, and the necessary labour was provided by the importation of cartloads of pauper children from the workhouses of the big towns. London was an important source, for since the passing of Hanway's Act in 1767 the child population in the workhouse had enormously increased, and the parish authorities were anxious to find relief from the burden of their maintenance . . . . To the parish authorities, encumbered with great masses of unwanted children, the new cotton mills in Lancashire, Derby, and Notts were a godsend. (4)


Some actual sources you should check out:


William Cooke Taylor, The Factory System (London, 1844), pp. 23-24.


E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Random House, 1964), p. 339.


J. L. and Barbara Hammond, The Town Labourer (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967), p. 145.

Alfred Kydd, The History of the Factory Movement (New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.), pp. 21-22.

Philip Gaskell, Artisans and Machinery (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968), p. 141.

B. L. Hutchins and A. Harrison, A History of Factory Legislation (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966), p. 34.

Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1958), p. 192.

Here's my main point:

No one denies those were harsh times, and that there was active exploitation, but most alternatives for these children were divided between begging in the street, toiling the land (which belonged to landlords) or resorting to prostitution.

[Zanthorus]

"Now, if this privilege is abolished, land becomes free, and ability to capitalize products removing interest, and one man is stronger or shrewder than another, he nevertheless can make no profit from that other's labor, because he cannot stop him from employing himself. The cause of subjection is removed."

If they start using force openly so as to stop one person to employ himself, I expect the workers to organize and defend themselves.

That's all very nice but it takes more than land to start a business. It does take quite a lot of resources to build an industrial production line you know.


No one denies those were harsh times, and that there was active exploitation, but most alternatives for these children were divided between begging in the street, toiling the land (which belonged to landlords) or resorting to prostitution.

This is the same stupid argument that Miseians use when trying to defend sweatshops in africa. Yes it is the best thing they've got at the moment but it would be a hundered times better if they actually owned their own means of production and produced things of real use instead of cheap clothes for fat westerners.

[Havet]

As for minimum wage etc., keep in mind corporations have already calculated how to get the most output out of the fewest amount of workers. Raising the minimum wage is not going to cause them to just fire workers at whim - they need at least some workers. If they engage in price gouging - they should be subject to regulation (as they already are). That is why statistics show that states with a high minimum wage have not generally seen a drop in unemployment.

What statistics?

Minimum wage increases unemployment (http://www.anonym.to/?http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2006/11/when_the_minimu.html). It is empirically verifiable. Its not, however, a linear observation.

Here's some data for you to digest:

Unemployment in Switzerland (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Switzerland): 2.5%

Unemployment in Denmark (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Denmark): 2.8%

What do these two countries have in common? They have no state-enforced minimum wage.

[Havet]

That's all very nice but it takes more than land to start a business. It does take quite a lot of resources to build an industrial production line you know.

Of course. I'm aware of the effort. Do you think it takes less effort now?


This is the same stupid argument that Miseians use when trying to defend sweatshops in africa. Yes it is the best thing they've got at the moment but it would be a hundered times better if they actually owned their own means of production and produced things of real use instead of cheap clothes for fat westerners.

hey I agree with you. It would be a hundred times better if they actually owned their own means of production and produced things of real use instead of cheap clothes for fat westerners.

But removing the sweatshops before there are any real alternatives will be deadly for them. Why not act in order to create alternative institutions now so people actually have a choice, instead of forbidding sweatshops and hoping their governments will care about their people?

[Zanthorus]

Of course. I'm aware of the effort. Do you think it takes less effort now?

Huh? What I was trying to say is that even in a totally free market if a business owner decided to give his workers criminally low wages they still wouldn't have anywhere else to go since they'd be unable to afford all the machinery etc necessary to build a second business.


hey I agree with you. It would be a hundred times better if they actually owned their own means of production and produced things of real use instead of cheap clothes for fat westerners.

But removing the sweatshops before there are any real alternatives will be deadly for them. Why not act in order to create alternative institutions now so people actually have a choice, instead of forbidding sweatshops and hoping their governments will care about their people?

I think we're in agreement on this point.

[Dejavu]

Actually, life during the industrial revolution was actually worse for many children in England and the US than it was under feudalism:

"They moved to the industrial cities and lived in slums where “the loss of life from filth and bad ventilation are greater than the loss of life from death or wounds in which the country has been engaged in modern times.” People (including small children) worked 14 to 16 hours a day, in horrible, dangerous conditions for wages that were not enough to buy food. Life expectancy for all of England was 40, for the laborers it was no more than 18. Fifty-seven percent died before the age of five.
The defining achievement of the Industrial Revolution was the creation of a society in which people were reduced to a choice between wage labor and starvation."

http://ticokid.blogs.com/life_in_central_america/2004/07/the_effects_of_.html

Since the population was bombing probably millions of people died unnecessarily, at least if there had been proper health care for all, and they weren't being treated like slaves, they wouldn't have otherwise have died.

The industrial revolutions shows the vast inefficiency of capitaism - the people who make the rich rich cannot even take care of themselves.

We need a different approach to economics, one in which the public decides what to do with resources and the public must first take of one another, not make 'profits.'

The source you quote is from a Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale from his book Rebels Against the Future.

I would really question his sources since the trends of history strongly disagree with him. Nobody is saying life was not tough for the early laborers of the Industrial Revolution but Kirkpatrick's account is one that is definitely biased and we should question the validity of his statistics.

The population did not 'bomb' but grew tremendously to the point of being several times larger than before.

Simply observe any statistic of population growth and you will see an exponential chart and right around the heart of the Industrial Revolution, the population hits the "up swing" on the chart never to look back.

http://www.wirralgreenparty.org/images/PC_talk_07_Jun_Slide2.JPG
www.wirralgreenparty.org/peakoil.htm (http://www.wirralgreenparty.org/peakoil.htm)

http://www.felixsalmon.com/history.jpg
http://www.felixsalmon.com/000637.html

Here is one of England:

http://www.bl.uk/collections/early/victorian/images/prc1.gif
http://www.bl.uk/collections/early/victorian/pr_intro.html


Now, I don't think population growth is enough to show 'things are getting or going to get better.' What good is a large population with out the resource production to sustain the prosperity of said growing population? I have taken it upon myself to also provide graphs and sources for prosperity growth. You will notice that it resembles that of population growth.

http://www.bl.uk/collections/early/victorian/images/prc2.gif

One will notice ( below) the 'up swing' in terms of growth & prosperity around the period the IR really took off. ( late 1800s)

http://www.progressdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/worldpop.jpg
http://www.progressdaily.com/2006/03/page/2/


And a quote from a Univ. of Berkeley Economist/Historian who also cites Karl Marx:


Pre-Twentieth Century Growth: The twentieth century appears is unique in its pace of economic growth. Such rapid growth in standards of living has never been seen before, anywhere--save possibly in the generation that saw the discovery of fire.
The nineteenth century saw, according to Historical Statistics, perhaps a doubling of material standards of living in the United States--perhaps a tripling or quadrupling once proper account is taken of the impact of new technologies like the railroad and the telegraph, and the expanded range of technological capabilities. Nineteenth century growth was itself remarkably fast: people christened the nineteenth century the "industrial revolution" because it seemed a remarkable event relative to what had happened before. Before the nineteenth century growth was even slower. The standard of living in the Netherlands, probably the richest economy in the world at the end of the eighteenth century, might have been some fifty percent higher than it had been three centuries before, at the time of the Renaissance.
And before that?
Between the invention of agriculture and the commercial revolution that marked the end of the middle ages, wealth and technology developed slowly indeed. Medieval historians speak of centuries and half-millennia when they speak of the pace at which key inventions like the watermill, or the heavy plow, or the horse collar diffused across the landscape. And improvements in technology relatively quickly led to increases in population, until the human population once again reached a new Malthusian steady state in which births were held in checks by death. For most of human history before the industrial revolution, increases in technological capability led to increases in the population that could be supported on a given natural resource base, with little if any appearing as an improvement in the median standard of living.
So slow was the pace of change that people, or at least aristocratic intellectuals, could think of their predecessors of a thousand years before or more as effectively their contemporaries. And they were not far wrong. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman aristocrat and politician of the generation before the Emperor Augustus, might have felt more or less at home in the company of Virginia planter Thomas Jefferson. The slaves outside grew different crops. The plows were better in Jefferson's time. Sailing ships were much improved.
Printing technology would have struck Cicero as amazing and wonderful: for Cicero acquiring one copy of one book involved two months' worth of copying labor by a literate slave, an amount of labor that we would value at perhaps $4,000 dollars compared to the $10 price of a trade paperback book today; we today find the real price of books in terms of human labor to be 1/400 of what it was for Cicero, and even in Jefferson's day the real price of books had already fallen to perhaps 1/50 of what it had been at the beginning of the Roman Empire. But overall the differences in standards of living and in technologies used to manipulate the world were small.
Even the first century of the industrial revolution produced more "improvements"than "revolutions" in standards of living. With the railroad and the spinning and weaving of textiles as very important exceptions, most innovations during the first century or so of the industrial revolution proper were innovations in transportation, in how goods were produced, and in new kinds of capital but not consumer goods. Standards of living improved because of these innovations in production processes and capital goods. But styles of life remained much the same. Improvements in productivity in the first half of the nineteenth century at least were concentrated in a few relatively narrow sectors rather than spread throughout the economy.
So slow was the pace of improvement that literary intellectuals in the first half of the nineteenth century debated whether this industrial revolution was worthwhile. Was it an improvement or a degeneration in the standard of living? And opinions were genuinely divided.
The figure below shows--approximately--the relative pace of economic growth in productivity levels and living standards for the leading-edge economies of Europe (plus the European-settled North American economies) over the past ten centuries. The estimates are rough and approximate only. But the figure does not do violence to the qualitative picture as it tries to indicate the relative economic growth over each of the past ten centuries of the leading-edge economies.
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/gif_files/Millenium_growth.gif
In 1848, in the middle of the nineteenth century, before the industrial revolution proper had spread far from its original homes in Belgium and in the British midlands, a young German philosopher-turned-political activist marveled at the extraordinary pace of economic growth in his day. He saw it as a new historical epoch that was only a century old and yet was opening wide the door to utopia. He saw the epoch as equivalent to that of Prometheus, the mythological Greek demigod who defied the chief god Zeus, brought knowledge of fire to humanity, and transformed humanity's condition. He wrote that the economically ruling class--the capitalist class, the enterpreneurial class, the business class, the bourgeoisie--of this epoch was:
...the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades....
[It has], during its rule of scarce one hundred years...created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. The subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, the application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, the railways, electric telegraphs, the clearing of entire continents for cultivation, the canalization of rivers, the conjuring of entire populations out of the ground--what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?
Karl Marx was dumbfounded at the pace of the economic transition he saw around him. Yet compared to the pace of economic growth in the twentieth century, all other centuries--even the nineteenth century that so impressed Karl Marx--were standing still.
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_wealth2.html



Nobody said the IR was a picnic and those were certainly hard times. Transforming a society from a largely agrarian and primitive one to an mass producing industrial one is tedious and even unforgiving. The entrepreneurs and workers of the IR were pioneers because they did not benefit from the post-industrial benefits we enjoy today. Every step of progress was innovation and hardship. If we take a snap shot of some period in the early IR and look at the grimy factory and dirty workers, we are moved with sympathy. Compared to today's standards those conditions were near atrocious. New technology did make it easier on the workers in terms of less workers in a factory to spread sickness and heavy machinery would eventually take over the grueling tasks previously performed by manual labor. Its sort of like if we were building a mansion and we took a snap shot of the construction of that mansion just 1 month after construction began. Its likely that the mansion would not be completed , look sloppy compassed by scaffolds , not fully painted , and we would say ' Ew , who can actually live in that 'thing.' Well of course you don't see the final product yet nor is anyone reaping the benefits of the final product. We today, at least in the 1st and 2nd world , are reaping the benefits of the final products of the IR. There is no doubt about that. Almost all modern technology would not be possible without the pioneering and sweat of the IR's entrepreneurs and workers. A Luddite , such as the one Icarus quoted , rejects any real benefit from that and hence , they are Luddites , primitivists , that wish a return to agriarian society and are not apologetic about expressing a desire for a large chunk of the world's population to just 'die.'

[Dejavu]

a) Eliminate property from the equation, except then of course there's really no point in having a market at all.

b) Eliminate Markets from the equation

Wow , talk about utopian.

[Havet]

Huh? What I was trying to say is that even in a totally free market if a business owner decided to give his workers criminally low wages they still wouldn't have anywhere else to go since they'd be unable to afford all the machinery etc necessary to build a second business.

This is why the notion of mutual banks of the proudhonian variety is an important addition to the discussion.

To quote my other thread (sorry, but the arguments are so strikingly adequated!)

If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills. A dramatic increase in the number of businesses and employers would mean that workers would have a much larger number of potential employers to choose from in addition to greatly expanded opportunities for self-employment. This would in turn radically increase the bargaining power of workers in terms of their dealings with employers. The cost of wage labor would increase as the market for employees became drastically more competitive. Workers in large-scale industrial operations would have the option of demanding the right of self-management if they so desired and, given the expanded availability of credit and capital, workers would be able to buy out capitalists and essentially become their own employers. So the dominant forms of economic organization in an authentic free market would be worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons. Industries that remained nominally owned by outside shareholders would largely function on a co-determined basis, that is, as partnerships between shareholders and labor with labor having the upper hand.(8 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#8)) So the traditional anarcho-syndicalist ideal of an industrial system owned and operated by the workers could, for the most part, be achieved in the context of a stateless free market.

[Zanthorus]

Wow , talk about utopian.

Not really, look this talk of free markets and proudhon is really nice and idealistic and all but you've forgot to add historical materialism, class conflict etc into the equation and looking around I can't find any historical examples of mutualism working in action. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

[Havet]

Not really, look this talk of free markets and proudhon is really nice and idealistic and all but you've forgot to add historical materialism, class conflict etc into the equation and looking around I can't find any historical examples of mutualism working in action. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

Well, there's the (http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1974011) internet (http://www.andfinally.com/controvertist/emut.pdf)


Not all Internet applications are co-operatively developed and owned: there are many
proprietary tools used on the Net. But the most important Internet tool, the
multimedia hypertext called the World Wide Web, is definitely a mutual undertaking.
The Web was invented in 1989 by a British physicist working at CERN, the European
particle accelerator23. Tim Berners-Lee wanted a way to cross-reference papers on
high energy physics which would allow researchers to discover connections between
their work and enable all those analysing one particular set of experimental results
quickly to find what else was know about the data they were working with.
His solution was to build a distributed hypertext system – the Web – where documents
were stored on ‘server’ computers anywhere on the Internet and read by ‘browser’
programs on a user’s computer. In order to design his system Berners-Lee did not have
to worry about the underlying network or connectivity: he used the Internet and the
technical standards it is based on. As such he was building ‘in the commons’.
The Web is two linked standards. One, the Hypertext Markup Language, is a way of
writing documents so that they incorporate instructions for Web browsers, telling the
browser what to display where and how a document is linked to other documents. The
other, the Hypertext Transport Protocol, is a way of moving HTML documents over the
Internet from server to browser.
Both HTML and HTTP were designed by Tim Berners-Lee and then placed in the hands
of the Internet community through the IETF24. Later, reflecting the growing size and
importance of the Web, a new group – the World Wide Web Consortium or W3C25 – was
created to drive the technical development of the Web. The W3C is an open,
independent body which does not even produce technical standards – it issues
‘recommendations’ which are then adopted or not by standards bodies and the Web
community.

[Boogie]

Well, there's there's the internet

I thought the internet was an example of communism?:confused:

check this for source (can't post links yet!) findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5084/is_199705/ai_n18469675/

[Havet]

I thought the internet was an example of communism?:confused:

check this for source (can't post links yet!) findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5084/is_199705/ai_n18469675/

Well, if you want to look at it that way.

I'm not denying the internet came out of public funds. Just saying the interaction between the users of the internet closely resembles a mutualist relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism)

BTW, did you take your avatar from my Gallery? Not that it matters, mind you...^^

[Boogie]

Well, if you want to look at it that way.

I'm not denying the internet came out of public funds. Just saying the interaction between the users of the internet closely resembles a mutualist relationship

MMmmmkay


BTW, did you take your avatar from my Gallery? Not that it matters, mind you...^^

Not really, just found it over at the internetz.

[Dejavu]

Not really, look this talk of free markets and proudhon is really nice and idealistic and all but you've forgot to add historical materialism, class conflict etc into the equation and looking around I can't find any historical examples of mutualism working in action. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

I don't really accept historical materialism so I'm glad I can clear that up.

I was pointing out that believing a modern society can prosper with the complete elimination of markets and property seems utopian to me. I recognize the problems with society as you do , I just don't think blaming freedom is the answer.

[Havet]

MMmmmkay



Not really, just found it over at the internetz.

Lol you really didn't last long

Why was he banned?

[Dejavu]

Nice sig

[Havet]

Nice sig

haha

perhaps we could convince some other members to focus on all the variables?

Like:

"But who will defend the country?"

"But who will protect the consumer?"

"But who will resolve disputes?"

You get the picture...

[Zanthorus]

I don't really accept historical materialism so I'm glad I can clear that up.

Well I do (Albeit only to a certain extent, see my sig), I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion on this point but I don't think it would yeild anything useful since we're both anarchists.


I was pointing out that believing a modern society can prosper with the complete elimination of markets and property seems utopian to me. I recognize the problems with society as you do , I just don't think blaming freedom is the answer.

I'm not blaming freedom I just don't think that Markets=freedom (Necessarily)

Anyway I don't have a real problem with Mutualists just as long as if/when the time comes you're standing on the right side of the barricades. K?

[IcarusAngel]

The defining achievement before the Industrial Revolution was a society in which people were reduced to a choice between starvation and starvation.

This is not true. The number who were dying pre-industrial revolution was far lower; not to mention that in feudalistic societies everybody was guaranteed at least some amount of land and the workers, craftsmen, etc. were often in charge of their own labor. Why do you think so many classical-liberals etc. also opposed capitalist worker relations?


Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1958), p. 192.

This is a questionable source considering that it was Engles himself who pointed this out:

"The death-rate is kept so high chiefly by the heavy mortality among young children in the working-class. The tender frame of a child is least able to withstand the unfavourable influences of an inferior lot in life; the neglect to which they are often subjected, when both parents work or one is dead, avenges itself promptly, and no one need wonder that in Manchester, according to the report last quoted, more than fifty-seven per cent of the children of the working-class perish before the fifth year, while but twenty per cent of the children of the higher classes, and not quite. thirty-two per cent of the children of all classes in the country die under five years of age. [/URL][11] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch07.htm#11) The article of the Artisan, already several times referred to, furnishes exacter information on this point, by comparing the city death-rate in single diseases of children with the country death-rate, thus demonstrating that, in general, epidemics in Manchester and Liverpool are three times more fatal than in country districts; that affections of the nervous system are quintupled, and stomach troubles trebled, while deaths from affections of the lungs in cities are to those in the country as 2 1/2 to 1. Fatal cases of small-pox, measles, scarlet fever, and whooping cough, among small children, are four times more frequent; those of water on the brain are trebled, and convulsions ten times more frequent. To quote another acknowledged authority, I append the following table. Out of 10,000 persons there die"


Anarcho-capitalists and other Libertarians on the internet are known for taking author's out of context. It makes sense that more children were dying since they were coming into contact with one another more often in the unsanitry slave factories and thus getting sick more frequently. I would also recommend reading the Sadler report, which shows many of them were simply worked to death.

Here is Engles again:

"
Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried on in the workingman's home. Wife and daughter spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not work it up himself. These weaver families lived in the country in the neighborhood of the towns, and could get on fairly well with their wages, because the home market was almost the only one and the crushing power of competition that came later, with the conquest of foreign markets and the extension of trade, did not yet press upon wages. There was, further, a constant increase in the demand for the home market, keeping pace with the slow increase in population and employing all the workers; and there was also the impossibility of vigorous competition of the workers among themselves, consequent upon the rural dispersion of their homes. So it was that the weaver was usually in a position to lay by something, and rent a little piece of land, that he cultivated in his leisure hours, of which he had as many as he chose to take, since he could weave whenever and as long as he pleased. True, he was a bad farmer and managed his land inefficiently, often obtaining but poor crops; nevertheless, he was no proletarian, he had a stake in the country, he was permanently settled, and stood one step higher in society than the English workman of today.
So the workers vegetated throughout a passably comfortable existence, leading a righteous and peaceful life in all piety and probity; and their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, and yet earned what they needed. They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbors, and all these games - bowling, cricket, football, etc., contributed to their physical health and vigor. They were, for the most part, strong, well-built people, in whose physique little or no difference from that of their peasant neighbors was discoverable. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and, if they could help their parents at work, it was only occasionally; while of eight or twelve hours work for them there was no question.
"

[URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch07.htm


Engles and Marx did not agree that the industrial revolution was all progress. In fact, in some of their most well known works they rant against it as having deprived men of their true labor and of weakening them mentally and physically and so on.



The source you quote is from a Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale from his book Rebels Against the Future.

And the source he's quoting is from Engles, who based it off a well known social science report. I just couldn't find the original Engles article, but now it has been posted.

This is ironic considering that Hayenmill used Engles as an example of a "real source" even though Engles himself pointed out that the death rate among working class childen was actually higher.

The industrial revolution basically proves capitalism was a failure.

This is a pointless debate - everybody knows living standards in the industrial revolution were horrible and, when the US deregulated prior to the great depression (just after the Gilded Age) the great depression also saw a decrease in living standards and not just for children.

[IcarusAngel]

What statistics?

Minimum wage increases unemployment (http://www.anonym.to/?http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2006/11/when_the_minimu.html). It is empirically verifiable. Its not, however, a linear observation.

Here's some data for you to digest:

Unemployment in Switzerland (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Switzerland): 2.5%

Unemployment in Denmark (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Denmark): 2.8%

What do these two countries have in common? They have no state-enforced minimum wage.


Yeah, and Chile had 25% unemployment and Latin America still continues to suffer from extremely high unemployment, many countries who have either no minimum wage or a minimum wage that is extremely low (that the state doesn't enforce). The US also had high unemployment when it had no minimum wage.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp178/
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp150

Minimum wage causing unemployment has been debunked by liberal economists.

The only thing eliminating minimum wage does is makes more employees susceptible to wage slavery and thus driving the economy towards the bottom line.

With a high wage, people earn enough to take care of their families, reducing the need to work for many. That means people can get an education etc.


I think we're in agreement on this point.


I would rethink your position.


The US has been using Latin America for its slave labor for centuries now. They have not improved and are still in the third world.

Since the free trade policies have opened up in the 70s and since NAFTA/WTO etc... millions of more people are in poverty than they were in the 1940s in Latin America, which is not a good thing and the amount of people who've died is between 6 to 20 million.

If free-trade lifts all boats, why is China still so oppressive? Capitalism flourishes there, freedom does not. Why are there millions of more people in poverty, more people in poverty than at any other time in history?

Why did half of India's population live in poverty after the became democratic capitalist? Why are they still are horrible third world country with millions of people in poverty?

The only country every able to build itself up post industrial revolution was really Russia, and they are back into the third world due to financial liberalization.

And what happens when the US collapses? The third world probably would suffer very badly at least for three or four decades.

Some mainstream economists like Sen even estimate that more people have died from capitalistic 'free-trade' than died during Stalin's great purges etc...

Basically, more people in history are in poverty now than ever, and you can attribute this to capitalist free trade. These statistics are widely available such as on UN world development reports.

(And why did the US and Britain get to build themselves up by restricting trade, and yet Latin American countries are sued if they try and control their own resources - or, worse, invaded by the US.)

[Skooma Addict]

Minimum wage causing unemployment has been debunked by liberal economists.

No. The vast majority of economists understand that the minimum wage causes unemployment. Neoclassical Economists (mainstreams) do believe that the minimum wage causes unemployment. If it has been debunked, mind telling me why a 100 dollar per hour minimum wage won't cause unemployment?


Some mainstream economists like Sen even estimate that more people have died from capitalistic 'free-trade' than died during Stalin's great purges etc...

Who believes this? I am sure there are people out there who do believe this, I just want to know who.

[Havet]

This is not true. The number who were dying pre-industrial revolution was far lower; not to mention that in feudalistic societies everybody was guaranteed at least some amount of land and the workers, craftsmen, etc. were often in charge of their own labor. Why do you think so many classical-liberals etc. also opposed capitalist worker relations?

Data or it didn't happen


This is a questionable source considering that it was Engles himself who pointed this out:

"The death-rate is kept so high chiefly by the heavy mortality among young children in the working-class. The tender frame of a child is least able to withstand the unfavourable influences of an inferior lot in life; the neglect to which they are often subjected, when both parents work or one is dead, avenges itself promptly, and no one need wonder that in Manchester, according to the report last quoted, more than fifty-seven per cent of the children of the working-class perish before the fifth year, while but twenty per cent of the children of the higher classes, and not quite. thirty-two per cent of the children of all classes in the country die under five years of age. [11] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch07.htm#11) The article of the Artisan, already several times referred to, furnishes exacter information on this point, by comparing the city death-rate in single diseases of children with the country death-rate, thus demonstrating that, in general, epidemics in Manchester and Liverpool are three times more fatal than in country districts; that affections of the nervous system are quintupled, and stomach troubles trebled, while deaths from affections of the lungs in cities are to those in the country as 2 1/2 to 1. Fatal cases of small-pox, measles, scarlet fever, and whooping cough, among small children, are four times more frequent; those of water on the brain are trebled, and convulsions ten times more frequent. To quote another acknowledged authority, I append the following table. Out of 10,000 persons there die"
It makes sense that more children were dying since they were coming into contact with one another more often in the unsanitry slave factories and thus getting sick more frequently.

Ok, so the data seems reliable that there were reasons that they died more frequently, or contracted more diseases.

What were the alternatives during that time?


Here is Engles again:

"
Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried on in the workingman's home. Wife and daughter spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not work it up himself. These weaver families lived in the country in the neighborhood of the towns, and could get on fairly well with their wages, because the home market was almost the only one and the crushing power of competition that came later, with the conquest of foreign markets and the extension of trade, did not yet press upon wages. There was, further, a constant increase in the demand for the home market, keeping pace with the slow increase in population and employing all the workers; and there was also the impossibility of vigorous competition of the workers among themselves, consequent upon the rural dispersion of their homes. So it was that the weaver was usually in a position to lay by something, and rent a little piece of land, that he cultivated in his leisure hours, of which he had as many as he chose to take, since he could weave whenever and as long as he pleased. True, he was a bad farmer and managed his land inefficiently, often obtaining but poor crops; nevertheless, he was no proletarian, he had a stake in the country, he was permanently settled, and stood one step higher in society than the English workman of today.
So the workers vegetated throughout a passably comfortable existence, leading a righteous and peaceful life in all piety and probity; and their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, and yet earned what they needed. They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbors, and all these games - bowling, cricket, football, etc., contributed to their physical health and vigor. They were, for the most part, strong, well-built people, in whose physique little or no difference from that of their peasant neighbors was discoverable. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and, if they could help their parents at work, it was only occasionally; while of eight or twelve hours work for them there was no question.
"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch07.htm


Perhaps it would be better if both of us (me included, obviously) found non-biased sources. Can we agree on wikipedia as a common ground?

The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase, but the chance of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the industrial revolution (although infant mortality rates were reduced markedly).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#cite_note-Buer-40)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#cite_note-41)

Sources:

^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#cite_ref-Buer_40-0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#cite_ref-Buer_40-1) Mabel C. Buer, Health, Wealth and Population in the Early Days of the Industrial Revolution, London: George Routledge & Sons, 1926, page 30 ISBN 0-415-38218-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415382181)

^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#cite_ref-41) "Demographic Transition and Industrial Revolution: A Macroeconomic Investigation (http://www.unc.edu/%7Eoksana/Paper1.pdf)" (PDF). 2007. http://www.unc.edu/~oksana/Paper1.pdf (http://www.unc.edu/%7Eoksana/Paper1.pdf). Retrieved 2007-11-05. "The decrease [in mortality] beginning in the second half of the 18th century was due mainly to declining adult mortality. Sustained decline of the mortality rates for the age groups 5-10, 10-15, and 15-25 began in the mid 19th century, while that for the age group 0-5 began three decades later" . Although the survival rates for infants and children were static over this period, the birth rate & overall life expectancy increased. Thus the population grew, but the average Briton was about as old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics) in 1850 as in 1750 (see figures 5 & 6, page 28). Population size statistics from mortality.org (http://www.mortality.org/) put the mean age at about 26.


The industrial revolution basically proves capitalism was a failure.

No one denies that. But you seem to ignore some major breakthroughs, though not a direct cause from capitalist, largely resulted from a greater freedom.


This is a pointless debate - everybody knows living standards in the industrial revolution were horrible and, when the US deregulated prior to the great depression (just after the Gilded Age) the great depression also saw a decrease in living standards and not just for children.

You still cannot deny that many breakthroughs were possible due to a larger freedom.

[Havet]

Yeah, and Chile had 25% unemployment and Latin America still continues to suffer from extremely high unemployment, many countries who have either no minimum wage or a minimum wage that is extremely low (that the state doesn't enforce). The US also had high unemployment when it had no minimum wage.

Nope, chile had a minimum wage

165,000 Chilean pesos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_peso) per month for workers aged 18–65; 123,176 pesos for workers younger than 18 and older than 65; and 106,435 pesos for 'non remunerative' purposes[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country#cite_note-11); 83% of the 18–65 minimum wage for domestic servants[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country#cite_note-12)

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country)




http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp178/
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp150

No wonder you've been misled. Those sources completely ignore the fact that businesses owners, having to pay more for workers, would have to lay-off some.


If the minimum wage were increased nationally to $7.25:
o 14.9 million workers would receive a raise



The only thing eliminating minimum wage does is makes more employees susceptible to wage slavery and thus driving the economy towards the bottom line.

This is why i never stated i only wanted to get rid of the minimum wage. I always said I also wanted to get rid of governmental privilege granted to capital.


With a high wage, people earn enough to take care of their families, reducing the need to work for many. That means people can get an education etc.

Nobody wants to forbid people from the benefits of naturally high wages. Preferably, though, people should not be restricted from receiving the full product of their labor.

[IcarusAngel]

Nope, chile had a minimum wage

165,000 Chilean pesos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_peso) per month for workers aged 18–65; 123,176 pesos for workers younger than 18 and older than 65; and 106,435 pesos for 'non remunerative' purposes[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country#cite_note-11); 83% of the 18–65 minimum wage for domestic servants[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country#cite_note-12)

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country)

Chile did not have a minimum wage during Pinochet's rule.
http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/chile061200-redirected

Many other Latin American countries do not have a minimum wage (or a low one) and are suffering high unemployment.

As Chomsky points out the free-market reforms led to over 20% unemployment, which is huge.

The growing income inequality gap, and the gap between rich and poor countries, is largely because the Western world treats the third world as places of cheap labor.

Who knows how many millions of people your ideology has killed under the guise of paying people what they're supposedly 'worth' (probably 10 million in Latin America alone if the figures are to be trusted).



No wonder you've been misled. Those sources completely ignore the fact that businesses owners, having to pay more for workers, would have to lay-off some.

You don't understand economics - business owners are not going to higher more people than they need. That is the basis of capitalist economics. If the capitalists find out a way to eliminate more workers, they will do it, regardless of if there is a minimum wage.

The sources above were based on extensive studies, not just the typical whitewash and logical errors prominent at many right-wing think tanks.

The minimum wage should be $14 in the US - and that's not even livable. For large corporations, it should be $20. If corporations attempt to price fix - implement regulations to block that.


This is why i never stated i only wanted to get rid of the minimum wage. I always said I also wanted to get rid of governmental privilege granted to capital.

I would prefer eliminating capital - as Proudhon said, capital IS government.

Workers' should run the resources democratically. However, that is a goal that is far off into the future and only possible, at present, in Western European countries.

America is really too far gone to even think about revolution, at least until another country starts one.


Nobody wants to forbid people from the benefits of naturally high wages. Preferably, though, people should not be restricted from receiving the full product of their labor.


I agree, but this entails eliminating capitalism.

[IcarusAngel]

"none; however, a majority of the voluntary collective bargaining agreements contain clauses on minimum compensation, ranging from 2,200 to 4,200 francs per month for unskilled workers and from 2,800 to 5,300 francs per month for skilled employees"


lol. No wonder Switzerland doesn't have a minimum wage, they have protections in place that are even MORE anti-capitalist, more beneficial to the workers. Here in the US there is no 'collective bargining.' Unions are worthless.

"nationally; instead, negotiated between unions and employer associations; 100.65 kroner, according to the terms of the country's largest collective bargaining agreement, negotiated in the spring of 2008 and covering almost the entire industrial sector"


Once again, hayenmill was completely disingenous with his sources.

Notice also that the weaker countries do not have this bargining power or a strong minimum wage.

[IcarusAngel]

Data or it didn't happen
Ok, so the data seems reliable that there were reasons that they died more frequently, or contracted more diseases.

The data shows it was from a combination of poor living stadnards, disease, poverty, lack of access to health care, etc.




The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase, but the chance of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the industrial revolution (although infant mortality rates were reduced markedly).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#cite_note-Buer-40)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#cite_note-41)

Yes, and since the population was rising it stands to reason there were more people dying as a result of a capitalism.



No one denies that. But you seem to ignore some major breakthroughs, though not a direct cause from capitalist, largely resulted from a greater freedom.

No, the 'breakthroughs' happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it. First of all the breakthroughs were due to the scientific revolution, which began far before capitalism. Second, many of these inventers were not employed by capitalists to invent but were working out of their own free will in the interests of advancing science and society together.

The reality is that the Einstein's, the Newton's, etc., succeeded by triumphing over the system of capitalism that keeps so many other people oppressed and held back. Had Tesla and Babbage and many other great inventors been given their chance to realize their full potential, they would have advance society as well. Capitalism has probably held back humanity by hundreds of years technology wise and continues to do so to this day. Capitalism is resistent to change, they don't like things that threaten their profits or their bottom line.

[Skooma Addict]

IcarusAngel, every time I ask you to clarity one of your assertions, you never respond. Why is that? So far we have...

When have free markets been forced upon the population, with no public services?

Can you prove to me that the reality we perceive with our senses is objective reality.

Do you think there will be unemployment if we have a 100 dollar per hour minimum wage?

[Dejavu]

And the source he's quoting is from Engles, who based it off a well known social science report. I just couldn't find the original Engles article, but now it has been posted.

Hmm, I dunno. Sounds fishy and even if Engels did write something like that does not make his diagnosis correct. I assumed you read the book you cited and you could easily hook it up with a bibliography so I can look into it. I'm not saying you're wrong but all the empirical data I managed to pull up seems to fly in the face of some of your claims. But if you're not directly quoting your sources then I can't really look at that as hard evidence. I'm sure you understand.



This is ironic considering that Hayenmill used Engles as an example of a "real source" even though Engles himself pointed out that the death rate among working class childen was actually higher.

Again, we need some hard references, even from Engels. That is a significant claim and we should question how much is really factual ( did Engels base such 'exact numbers' on some kind of official census or was it a quasi-opinion ballpark estimate?) . I'm not saying its wrong I'm just saying that the empirical data suggests that England's prosperity and growth was still very significant during that period and it seems to me that if his estimates were dead on we'd see some pretty different results. I have not read the pro-Luddite book but I did take some time to look at some reviews , both positive and negative, and almost all of the reviews seem to come from fairly competent people and almost all suggest that the author did indeed take 'liberties' with some of his data sources since almost all agree that the book is rather biased. Its fine though , the author already made it known it would be biased (i.e. put Luddism in a positive light)


The industrial revolution basically proves capitalism was a failure.

I'm not sure what kind of capitalism you're talking about. If anything , capitalists would use the IR and post IR as their strongest 'proof' for the benefits 'capitalism' can produce, for the majority of people, collectively. Even the quote I cited earlier from Marx himself would substantiate this. The early IR didn't pay as much attention to saftey at the workplace, huddled too many people together in one factory ( causing sickness), and children went to work. Again, by today's standards we would really find these conditions both discusting and completely not necessary. We have benefited from far more advanced capital, modern technology, and more efficient workers due to a combination of capital/technology and better awareness about the world. The beginning of the IR lacked those things because they were still in the process of being built. Once they were , life was more abundent with resources.


This is a pointless debate - everybody knows living standards in the industrial revolution were horrible and, when the US deregulated prior to the great depression (just after the Gilded Age) the great depression also saw a decrease in living standards and not just for children.

Yes , horrible compared to today but what does that say about life before the IR if so many people were willing to work for the factory? Basic logic, no? We can even infer such prior conditions were probably less desirable than IR conditions. Again , both compared to today do not sound very appealing but that is not a fair comparison IMO. I presented some empirical data to make sure I was not making baseless claims. The amount of production/prosperity and population growth pre-IR compared to the late 1800s suggests that I am probably correct.

Well, more and more historians/economists are starting to rethink era of the 1920s and the following Great Depression. Modern day economic practices and government activity seem to question the classic account of free market practices being responsible for A) rabid inflation , B) large recessions and then prolonged depressions. It used to be only a handful of economists were critical of the state's role in the GD but rather shockingly , I'm seeing a noticible revision of history that is scrutinizing more deeply the state's role in the depression. Like one thing I never understood was the steady fall in prices prior to the 1920s which has been fairly constant ever since after the Civil War. Then in the 1920s , we get this 'price stabilization' rather quickly and I can't think of anything else to call it but rapid inflation. I can connect the dots with the creation of the central bank a decade earlier and two imperialist wars , one of them causing significant damage, but it seems a lot of the 'mainstream' or statist supporters want to deny the inflation and praise the 'price stabilization.' In fact ,I just sat in a lecture at RIT ( New York) regarding this very topic from a social-democratic inclined speaker that shocked me with his lecture about the GD period. I thought for sure I would hear FDR government praisal but I actually didn't. Was quite suprising. :thumbup1:

[Dejavu]

I'm not blaming freedom I just don't think that Markets=freedom (Necessarily)

Anyway I don't have a real problem with Mutualists just as long as if/when the time comes you're standing on the right side of the barricades. K?

I just don't think blaming concepts promoting peoples' ability to voluntarily trade and justly acquire belongings they can call 'theirs' is very fruitful. You probably don't mean to blame either because I am fairly certain you see market and property in different light. Again, it can easily become a misunderstanding based on semantics. Sometimes its better to express ideas rather than just words.

I am not a mutualist. I am sympathetic to some mutualist ideas though. Tbh , I'm not sure what I am nor do I particularly care. Wrapping oneself up in a label is limiting and only invites criticism that may not necessarily apply to what views you actually hold.

When/if the time for freedom comes , I won't be telling you how to live your life or how you should work. I'd tell you you can go where you want and freely associate with whoever you want. As long as you are not promoting the initiation of force against me to harm me in anyway , including stealing from me , I'm fine with whatever you propose. Fair enough?

[RHIZOMES]

zTFwAxfHgSA

And I take it your moralism against child labour and mercenaries while still supporting no government regulations of these things at all have raised our collective intelligence exponentially I presume?

[More Fire for the People]

I'd become a feudal lord. After all, that's the real objective of libertarianism / anarcho-capitalism.

[Dejavu]

Yes, and since the population was rising it stands to reason there were more people dying as a result of a capitalism.Maybe but then we are obligated to explain why the population during this period quadrupled ( U.S. statistic) :

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mjbmeister/SHybwVXcUyI/AAAAAAAAIW4/hF3EgOwexcE/s400/usa-population%20growth.png
http://www.angeredbrackets.com/2009/05/measuring-copyright-duration-in-man-years-the-only-way-it-really-matters/
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/uksince_1500.jpg




No, the 'breakthroughs' happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it. First of all the breakthroughs were due to the scientific revolution, which began far before capitalism. Second, many of these inventers were not employed by capitalists to invent but were working out of their own free will in the interests of advancing science and society together.

The reality is that the Einstein's, the Newton's, etc., succeeded by triumphing over the system of capitalism that keeps so many other people oppressed and held back. Had Tesla and Babbage and many other great inventors been given their chance to realize their full potential, they would have advance society as well. Capitalism has probably held back humanity by hundreds of years technology wise and continues to do so to this day. Capitalism is resistent to change, they don't like things that threaten their profits or their bottom line.Philosophically and mathematically the Scientific Revolution did start before the Industrial Revolution but it was only during the time of the IR that these brilliant scientific advances were able to bare fruit. Consider it the Engineering Revolution concurrent with the IR. In fact , you can use both terms interchangeably I think.

Consider Engineering the empirical application of scientific and mathematical principles.

Why was all this Engineering able to be achieved during the 'bourgeois era' as opposed to any other in terms of proportionality to any other period in time? Because the the productive resources were available for such venture. How and why were the productive resources available? Because this is the pretty much the first time in history where a non-nobleman can save and not worry about the state completely plundering his assets. He could safely invest in long term projects.


KARL MARX said :
[Bourgeois class was]...the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades....
[It has], during its rule of scarce one hundred years...created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. The subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, the application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, the railways, electric telegraphs, the clearing of entire continents for cultivation, the canalization of rivers, the conjuring of entire populations out of the ground--what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?I don't think there is much else to be said. Thanks Karl.

[Dejavu]

And I take it your moralism against child labour and mercenaries while still supporting no government regulations of these things at all have raised our collective intelligence exponentially I presume?

I presume he is against the initiation of the use of force/violence. This would be consistent with all the above.

[Havet]

Chile did not have a minimum wage during Pinochet's rule.
http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/chile061200-redirected
Many other Latin American countries do not have a minimum wage (or a low one) and are suffering high unemployment.

Ok well, after reading the article its fairly obvious to me why the no-minimum wage law was harmful:


...He also got rid the minimum wage and outlawed trade unions

In the cases I quoted above( denmark, switzerland), the no-minimum wage law is beneficial to workers because they can collectively bargain a better wage through trade unions.


As Chomsky points out the free-market reforms led to over 20% unemployment, which is huge.

The growing income inequality gap, and the gap between rich and poor countries, is largely because the Western world treats the third world as places of cheap labor.

I agree, free-market reforms are harmful. I never claimed one could achieve a free-market through reformism. In fact, I consistently opposed it (http://www.revleft.com/vb/naomi-klein-shock-t117114/index.html?t=117114).


Who knows how many millions of people your ideology has killed under the guise of paying people what they're supposedly 'worth' (probably 10 million in Latin America alone if the figures are to be trusted).

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3189/strawmans.jpg

You don't understand economics - business owners are not going to higher more people than they need. That is the basis of capitalist economics. If the capitalists find out a way to eliminate more workers, they will do it, regardless of if there is a minimum wage.

So? That's what I said. Listen, i'm not arguing for capitalists, i'm arguing for workers, and the truth is workers would be better off in a real free market environment (not the reformist free market you criticize, or neocon free market, or objectivist free market, or ancap free market).


The minimum wage should be $14 in the US - and that's not even livable. For large corporations, it should be $20. If corporations attempt to price fix - implement regulations to block that.

I still cannot understand how you can be a revolutionary leftist and a state apologetic at the same time, but ok...

Regulations were never meant to fix and solve those problems - they just became an easier, cheaper and more profitable way for corporations to get what they want, by directly bribing the regulator.


I would prefer eliminating capital - as Proudhon said, capital IS government.

Workers' should run the resources democratically. However, that is a goal that is far off into the future and only possible, at present, in Western European countries.

America is really too far gone to even think about revolution, at least until another country starts one.

Capital by itself is not the problem. The problem is the privilege some people are granted at the expense of others, by statist force.

Quote from thread:

"through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means."



I agree, but this entails eliminating capitalism.

Where have I opposed eliminating capitalism?

[Havet]

lol. No wonder Switzerland doesn't have a minimum wage, they have protections in place that are even MORE anti-capitalist, more beneficial to the workers. Here in the US there is no 'collective bargining.' Unions are worthless.

That was my point exactly. Only getting rid of the minimum wage laws is not enough for any actual beneficial effect to happen.



Once again, hayenmill was completely disingenous with his sources.

How?

Those "minimum wages" were a result of collective bargain, even though they managed to organize such collective action around all the industrial sector.


Notice also that the weaker countries do not have this bargining power or a strong minimum wage.

And what do you conclude from such fact?

Are you trying to imply that it is a result of freedom? It is not. At the very least you have to account for foreign exploitation, domestic exploitation (by their leaders and big businesses), and restrictions on the overall equality of opportunity and freedom of organization (freedom to organize unions, collective bargains, etc)

[Havet]

And I take it your moralism against child labour and mercenaries while still supporting no government regulations of these things at all have raised our collective intelligence exponentially I presume?

Since you like to provoke by making stupid metaphorical comparisons, can I not do the same by linking you to such video?

[Dejavu]

^ Who is the hot chick in your avatar?

[Havet]

^ Who is the hot chick in your avatar?

Lesley Gore
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_Gore)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWCMhL5qxlE

[Dejavu]

Lesley Gore
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_Gore)
uWCMhL5qxlE

Very nice.