Discussion about Co-ops reveals Right-Libertarian thinking....

[RadioRaheem84]

More info in the Economics section about the discussion.

It seems like the argument boiled down to some philosophical spat about private property and the use of force (i.e. the state). This canard is tiresome and irritating to keep going in circles around each time some idiot right-libertarian spills his guts about the wonders of capitalism.

I am beginning to suspect that their whole ideology is based on a serious misconception of socialism and they have absolutely NO understanding of what socialism really means.

I can understand how they can conflate a private co-op and with a private capitalist enterprise but how can they not see them as a response people have taken to capitalism? They seem to see them as another example of the "changing face of capitalism"? How do they ignore the social relations and the hierarchy within a capitalist enterprise and then transfer that same definition of a capitalist enterprise to fit one that is democratically run by workers?

Some capitalists see these enterprises as the progression of capitalist thought becoming more "democratic", i.e. he changing face of capitalism, what Marx, according to capitalists, "forgot to account for". I just don't get how they can attribute such actions taken by workers as a credit to capitalism? It reminds me about how Milton Friedman said that the crazy neo-liberal experiment in Chile worked because it brought about democratic change in Chile! So according to him, exploiting the hell out of your workers leads to a democratic struggle for fair wages and thus proves capitalism's superiority! Are the cappies really this backwards in their thinking?

[Zanthorus]

The problem with "capitalism" is that no one person theorised a system of heirarchical control, private property etc gave it the name "capitalism" and then had his followers go out campaigning for it, it arose as a term to describe the current system. So almost every ideology redefines it in terms of whatever they see as essential to the current system (In the case of right-libertarians, that's private property and free enterprise).

Just point out that at no point in history has any system called "capitalism" ever reached their idealist vision of "pure" capitalism.

And on co-ops point out that the founder of the co-operative movement was the utopian socialist Robert Owen.

[Wolf Larson]

They are all ignorant and have filled their minds with any and all rhetoric meant to excuse, transform and perpetuate capitalism or the private ownership of the means of production.These agorists and anarcho capitalists are blind to reality. They base their views in subjective historical/economic revisionism and debating them or getting them to realize the folly of their ways is almost always fruitless. They want to hold onto capitalism as frightened boy would his blanket in the night. Like a life preserver in a raging ocean. They fear social control of the means of production.

[RadioRaheem84]

One person told me that he didn't subscribe to th idea of class warfare so that meant that it wasn't true. :rolleyes:

So just because he didn't subscribe to it, it meant that he wasn't engaged in it? Next he told me that an economy wouldn't thrive without a rich class and that classes were necessary. So apparently there are classes and these classes have similar interests and were not in competition with each other. :laugh:

[Dimentio]

One person told me that he didn't subscribe to th idea of class warfare so that meant that it wasn't true. :rolleyes:

So just because he didn't subscribe to it, it meant that he wasn't engaged in it? Next he told me that an economy wouldn't thrive without a rich class and that classes were necessary. So apparently there are classes and these classes have similar interests and were not in competition with each other. :laugh:

I think there was one Roman senator who held a speech to the starving people of Rome during the early decades of the Republic, where he claimed that the senate was the stomach of society, and without a full stomach, the limbs and mind would be weakened...

[RadioRaheem84]

One the main problems that I am having with libertarians is that they cannot escape this state/private dichotomy. Its as though they think that any state owned enterprise is socialist and thus reflects socialism as a whole. They'll sit there and rant to us about the ills of standing in line at the post office and how of socialism were implemented we'd all be *gasp* be living in a state where everything was run like the post office!

[Zanthorus]

When they do that I usually throw a few quotes at them from "Socialism and Nationalisation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1882/06/socnat.htm)" by Paul Lafargue. If you mention that he was Marx's son-in-law it usually shuts them up pretty quickly:


In capitalist society, the transformation of certain industries into municipal or national services is the last form of capitalist exploitation. It is because that form presents multiple and incontestable advantages for the bourgeoisie that in every capitalist country the same industries are becoming nationalised (Army, Police, Post Office, Telegraphs, the Mint, etc.).

....only a 'possibilist' professor, ignorant of social conditions and steeped in bourgeois prejudices, could offer the nationalisation of public services as the Socialist ideal.

[Robocommie]

One the main problems that I am having with libertarians is that they cannot escape this state/private dichotomy. Its as though they think that any state owned enterprise is socialist and thus reflects socialism as a whole. They'll sit there and rant to us about the ills of standing in line at the post office and how of socialism were implemented we'd all be *gasp* be living in a state where everything was run like the post office!

What a bunch of babies. The post office is amazing. You put a fucking stamp that costs about a quarter on an envelope, drop it in a box, and like magic, the thing gets to the other side of the country in about a day or two, with near perfect accuracy.

I wish everything WAS run like the post office.

[RadioRaheem84]

What a bunch of babies. The post office is amazing. You put a fucking stamp that costs about a quarter on an envelope, drop it in a box, and like magic, the thing gets to the other side of the country in about a day or two, with near perfect accuracy.

I wish everything WAS run like the post office.

They complain about the lines and the disgruntled employees.:lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

When they do that I usually throw a few quotes at them from "Socialism and Nationalisation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1882/06/socnat.htm)" by Paul Lafargue. If you mention that he was Marx's son-in-law it usually shuts them up pretty quickly:

Originally Posted by Lafargue, S&N
In capitalist society, the transformation of certain industries into municipal or national services is the last form of capitalist exploitation. It is because that form presents multiple and incontestable advantages for the bourgeoisie that in every capitalist country the same industries are becoming nationalised (Army, Police, Post Office, Telegraphs, the Mint, etc.).

....only a 'possibilist' professor, ignorant of social conditions and steeped in bourgeois prejudices, could offer the nationalisation of public services as the Socialist ideal.



ZING! :thumbup1: Thanks!

[The Red Next Door]

Capitalists and the libertarian right need a slap in the face from reality, you know they call us idealists, but i consider us to be the true realists because we do not live in a fairy tale world, where capitalism and the status quo make lives for the poor better and Pinochet was an angel send from heaven.

[Aesop]

Libertarianism is just a philosophical attempt to defend wealth and privilege by employing the rhetoric of how it will increase ‘freedom’ them for all. Basically, they don’t believe in people having the freedom ‘from’ illiteracy (Having state funded schools), absolute destitution (having some welfare provision), but they believe in the freedom ‘to’ be able to open a no blacks hotel and no Irish pubs. The funny thing is that you will find that quite a few libertarians who defend the British Empire, yet there main line of argument is that being of anti-state. This is a strong reflection in who they believe freedom should be extended too, and I can assure you it would not be for all.

Pretty much a joke, despite all the linguistic trickery they employ.

[RadioRaheem84]

So basically they believe that you have NO right except for what you can gain for yourself in the marketplace?

[Ligeia]

So basically they believe that you have NO right except for what you can gain for yourself in the marketplace?
Yes, they believe that the only right you have is the right to private property (or better private property rights) because of it being a neccessity of human nature (in their opinion) and a guarantee for freedom (but again, only applied to property) because with property you can pursue your own interests.
A real neccessity would be eating but that's no right in their eyes (rather than an interest that you have to pursue for yourself).
I guess it stems from the time this thoughts came about,....when there was the bourgeoisie emerging and wanting more privileges, more profit..etc. since they had capital they saw themselves affected by e.g. taxes but not by bad working conditions so they didn't give a thought about it other than saying that you could choose the work you wanted (as a worker).

[CartCollector]

I guess it stems from the time this thoughts came about,....when there was the bourgeoisie emerging and wanting more privileges, more profit..etc.

It also comes from the higher paid proletarians (what capitalists would call "middle class"), who have to pay high income taxes and yet don't have nearly as much political influence as does, say, a large corporation's board of directors. So they see their tax money going to welfare (which goes to who they see as worthless, lazy leeches) and the military (whose benefits aren't directly obvious) and yet they don't see any direct benefit from this extra money since it mostly goes to, as I said, welfare and the military, not them. Nor does this tax money get them any lobbyists. There's even a book that says this (Millionaire Republican) by Wayne Allyn Root, who was the vice presidential candidate for the US Libertarian Party in 2008. He wrote about how much of a paradise Nevada was because it lacked a state income tax and how he saw no difference between the conditions in Nevada and the state he previously lived in where there were more taxes.

The main focus of these liber-proletarians is on becoming bourgeois. One only needs to look at the self help best sellers to see that this is true. The success of Rich Dad Poor Dad and similar books shows that the American Dream of becoming rich off of others people's work through stocks, real estate, or business ownership is alive and well. Or at least it was until the financial crash. Now the liber-proletarians are scared that their dream won't come true because it's hard to move up economically in a recession. They also see the government running up debt spending money on banks and large corporations and not them, which they see as leading to higher taxes, both of which contribute to restricting their upward mobility.

It should be noted that a lot of these liber-proletarians aren't really true, hard core libertarians. They might support the War in Iraq, strong border security, and the criminalization of drugs for example (see Glenn Beck), which stands in stark contrast to actual libertarian ideology on government. This is because they believe their voices weren't being heard in the Republican Party because of all the government expansion and expenditures during the Bush years. The Republicans didn't represent them, the Democrats didn't represent them, so that inevitably means all modern government is bad and "socialist" in their mind. Well, except for the law enforcement part, which they love.

tl;dr they want all the benefits of government without taxes.

[RadioRaheem84]

It also comes from the higher paid proletarians (what capitalists would call "middle class"), who have to pay high income taxes and yet don't have nearly as much political influence as does, say, a large corporation's board of directors. So they see their tax money going to welfare (which goes to who they see as worthless, lazy leeches) and the military (whose benefits aren't directly obvious) and yet they don't see any direct benefit from this extra money since it mostly goes to, as I said, welfare and the military, not them. Nor does this tax money get them any lobbyists. T.

The "middle class" thinks that they're in a righteous position all their own. They can be rather insufferable sometimes, thinking that the majority of the benefits should go to them in this society. Since, they complain correctly, that the majority of the tax burden falls on them, considering that the poor cannot pay high taxes and the rich dodge them all to hell, the petit-bourgeoisie believe they're in persecuted position.

Many people in the middle class believe themselves to be superior to the wealthy and the poor, even though they're much closer to the poorer working classes than the wealthy. Their refusal to admit to being working class has stubbornly placed them in a camp that totally promotes the interests of the wealthy, being a detriment to both their own class and the poorer classes.




There's even a book that says this (Millionaire Republican) by Wayne Allyn Root, who was the vice presidential candidate for the US Libertarian Party in 2008. He wrote about how much of a paradise Nevada was because it lacked a state income tax and how he saw no difference between the conditions in Nevada and the state he previously lived in where there were more taxes

Sometimes I think that States rip people off in their own way. I've lived in three major cities: Boston, NY, LA and neither of these cities are good for working class people to live even though they're liberal hotbeds. Houston,TX, where I live now, is a good place for workers to live especially young people considering its a major metropolitan area with as much to offer as any of the other top three cities at an affordable price tag. The liberal haven blue state cities are heavily segregated by class and race with little to no interaction between each other. The class lines are very evident, where as in places like TX, Nevada and some other red states,ironically not so much. Income disparity is rampant in the South though, many are without insurance, and living paycheck to paycheck. The only redeeming quality is that everything is ridiculously cheap in comparison to other major cities which balances out the utter inequalities. So these places are a libertarian's wet dream in that people are able to subsist and afford things and not complain that the rich get away with murder here.



The Republicans didn't represent them, the Democrats didn't represent them, so that inevitably means all modern government is bad and "socialist" in their mind. Well, except for the law enforcement part, which they love.

tl;dr they want all the benefits of government without taxes.

These people have both a disdain for the wealthy and much more rabid disdain for the poor. They're upset at a government that is always on the side of the rich and apparently, in their eyes, always on the side of the poor too. But they're the type of schmucks that get pissed off when regulations do not benefit their business and they're forbidden to use lead in their paint for their painting business, or a type of banned ingredient at their restaurant. I mean I understand their frustration as the big businesses get together and lobby for some of these regulations to keep competition to a minimum, but at least the major corporations are able to profit from public health while the petit-bourgeoisie have a total disregard for it and blame the concern over it on "tree huggers". I mean these people are vile and they operate on a mode of thinking that fucks over everyone else to sustain their middle class lifestyle.

[Ligeia]

It also comes from the higher paid proletarians (what capitalists would call "middle class"), who have to pay high income taxes and yet don't have nearly as much political influence as does.
I was talking about the time of Adam Smith...back in the days...not today.
The bourgeoisie was emerging and wanting to get rid of all taxation and claiming this to be ultimate freedom while probably not having experienced bad working conditions (ever) and thus not being concerned of other rights than property rights. E.g. after the french revolution the bourgoeisie gained power, whereas the peasants and working class did not, although they carried out the fights/revolution. The napoleonic code was all about property rights and on work it banned strikes....so this ideology probably came more out of taking advantage for themselves and praising the pursue of self interest through property the most.
(That was what I was trying to say)