Intense Mises.org Debates

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I've recently had a bit of free time on my hands. Being the determined solider of revolution that I am, I decided to check out what was going down on Mises.org.

I found...this..http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21850.aspx?PageIndex=1

A debate over the morality of Mr. Burns, from the simpsons, various actions, which according to morally weak statists, might be seen as wrong..These actions being... Drilling the oil beneath the school , Blocking out the sun and attempting to steal candy from a baby.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would of thought attempting to block out the sun resulting in everyone dying was a pretty seriously bad thing...but this is a major point of contention in the "political theory" section at mises.org.

Any more Mises bangers are encouraged to be posted.

[Red Commissar]

Well, they got that and we got the revolutionary potential of forklifts.

[HEAD ICE]

This isn't from Mises.org, but a Austrian Mises-head destroying me on Facebook


Id have to disagree fully with you, Stagger Lee. I highly suggest the book that Jacob recommended, Socialism, by Mises. Communism, or the public ownership of all goods, is an infeasible system because of what was mentioned. It is impossible to calculate prices for economic transactions because there is a single owner of those goods. Let's refer to socialism because it is much easier to diagnose. The economic conditions under socialism would be identical under communism; it is merely that private property would be abolished all together under communism. Taken to it's logical conclusion, no one would own their own bodies and would, thus, be unable to resist organ harvesting or undesirable sexual advances. For instance, if some large fat girl came up to you and ordered you to have sex with her, you would be completely helpless to resist and would likely be arrested for resisting. As no person owns any private property, including their own body, you would be unable to refuse sex with anyone, including men. Your body is "communal" property.
Regardless, under socialism, the "public" owns the means of production. This means that it would be illegal for anyone to own any shovels, tools, screwdrivers, printing presses, bulldozers, etc privately. All capital goods would be owned publicly. As a result, there would be no exchange occurring and there would be no way to calculate prices. Prices comes about from the buying and selling of commodities in the hands of private individuals; if there is no exchange occurring, then there can be no catallactics, or the formation of prices.... See More
As a result, there would be no way to objectively determine the value of different goods. Should we pave the street with gold? Should we build trains from titanium? Should we allocate more labor towards building tractors or harvesting fields? Should we build larger houses or smaller ones? Should we invest in bathtubs, or do we have enough resources to do so?
Under communism/socialism, there can be no prices and therefore no rational way of allocating resources. All answers to the questions above would necessarily be arbitrary and meaningless. It would be like walking through life with a blindfold on, unable to determine how much to allocate where and being blind to the number of resources available for production/consumption.
Communism and socialism result in complete economic chaos, in addition to the immorality of and problems that come about through the concept of public property.

[Dimentio]

Such pseudo-threads tend to exist here as well. But not in the same extent, which is hardly surprising.

[JazzRemington]

This isn't from Mises.org, but a Austrian Mises-head destroying me on Facebook

Silly Austrians, self-ownership is based on linguistic confusion! As is the rest of their nonsensical ideas.

[Zanthorus]

I don't think self-ownership is a 'linguistic confusion', it's half of Marx's formulation for what makes a labourer a proletarian. In order to be a proletarian you need to be able to sell your labour-power as a commodity, and in order to do this you must not be owned as a slave, but your labour-power must be at your own disposal to buy and sell as a commodity. It's perfectly appropriate for them to turn 'self-ownership' into the basis of a theory about the moral superiority of capitalism.

[SamV]

Of course if you are an anarcho-communist like me its not like you really want any currency to start with, so the whole economic calculations argument is pretty hilarious.

[Obs]

This isn't from Mises.org, but a Austrian Mises-head destroying me on Facebook
This actually made me exclaim "what the fuck" out loud in class as I read it.

[Dimentio]

This actually made me exclaim "what the fuck" out loud in class as I read it.

Read what they have written on Somalia then.

[Robocommie]

"Do we make ice cream out of sawdust? Do we make hats out of copper wire? Do we print books on mud? HOW WILL WE KNOW?"

[JazzRemington]

I don't think self-ownership is a 'linguistic confusion', it's half of Marx's formulation for what makes a labourer a proletarian. In order to be a proletarian you need to be able to sell your labour-power as a commodity, and in order to do this you must not be owned as a slave, but your labour-power must be at your own disposal to buy and sell as a commodity. It's perfectly appropriate for them to turn 'self-ownership' into the basis of a theory about the moral superiority of capitalism.

What happens is that Austrians, or whoever supports this crap, see that no one is "owned" by others in a capitalist society so that they logically must "own" themselves (you know how everything is supposed to be privately owned in a capitalist society?). What they do is deliberately conflate different meanings of "to own" into one and it becomes an ideological weapon. For instance, if you can "own" yourself, then that means you cannot be exploited because you aren't forced to work for the bourgeoisie (no one "owns" you, thus you aren't property of someone,t thus they cannot make use of you as they will, etc.).

But this "self-ownership" makes no sense because when you normally use the word "to own" you're referring to something "outside" you ("the bourgeoisie own the means of production"), something that's a product of some intellectual labor ("that was his idea"), or the part of a whole ("the book's spine was broken"), amongst others. When one gives examples of things that are supposed to show "self-ownership," they usually give examples of mundane things, like being able to walk down to the store, or doing this or that. The question, then, becomes why do these things justify their use of "to own"? They confuse you being able to do things (for any reason) with "ownership" over one's self.

It's basically like an extension of capitalist property relations all the way down to the very individual's person, so that everyone "owns" some property. This is clearest example of this is John Locke, who I guess originally developed the idea, said "every man has a Property in his own Person."

[Obs]

Read what they have written on Somalia then.
Their search feature doesn't work, could you put up a link?

[ZeroNowhere]

If one is able to sell one's activity, then yes, one does own oneself. Then one alienates oneself in the transaction.

[JazzRemington]

If one is able to sell one's activity, then yes, one does own oneself. Then one alienates oneself in the transaction.

But of what does this "selling one's activity" consist? The fact that it's possible to speak of the proletariat as "owning" their labor power is based on specific historical conditions that resulted in everything being treated as property that can be owned, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to speak as such. And besides, we don't even know what they mean by "the self!" So, how can we meaningfully speak of "owning the self" without knowing what "the self" means?

[ZeroNowhere]

The fact that it's possible to speak of the proletariat as "owning" their labor power is based on specific historical conditions that resulted in everything being treated as property that can be owned, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to speak as such.Rather, it made it so that they did own their labour-power, because that's what one does with commodities. Whether it made sense to speak as such independent of labour-power being a commodity is not relevant. A King in chess does not rule over anything.

In either case, in slavery other people own you and can sell you as a slave and worker. I have no objection to establishing a contrast on this matter between such systems and capitalism.

[Zanthorus]

What happens is that Austrians, or whoever supports this crap, see that no one is "owned" by others in a capitalist society so that they logically must "own" themselves (you know how everything is supposed to be privately owned in a capitalist society?). What they do is deliberately conflate different meanings of "to own" into one and it becomes an ideological weapon. For instance, if you can "own" yourself, then that means you cannot be exploited because you aren't forced to work for the bourgeoisie (no one "owns" you, thus you aren't property of someone,t thus they cannot make use of you as they will, etc.).

The Austrian argument for the existence of self-ownership as you describe it is admittedly confused, but again, self-ownership does exist and is a key feature of capitalism, otherwise there would be no labour markets, no surplus-value, and the system would come to a grinding halt. I don't see how this could be an ideological weapon of any kind. It does not follow from the fact that workers' own and alienate their labour-power that they are not exploited, in fact self-ownership is the basis for their domination by capital (So actually I suppose it is an ideological weapon, for us).

[JazzRemington]

Rather, it made it so that they did own their labour-power, because that's what one does with commodities. Whether it made sense to speak as such independent of labour-power being a commodity is not relevant. A King in chess does not rule over anything.

In either case, in slavery other people own you and can sell you as a slave and worker. I have no objection to establishing a contrast on this matter between such systems and capitalism.

Well, when I say something like "A owns B," that is normally taken to mean A is able to do as he or she pleases with B. But regardless, it's usually taken to involve at two or more people (groups, things, etc.) in a direct relationship.

But when someone says "A owns A," it is usually taken to mean that A is able to do this or that (even if it is with something called "the self"). There is no relationship (unless we count being in a relationship with oneself), so whatever obligations inherent with said ownership rests on a single person instead of everyone involved, to whatever extent. One can pass laws forbidding another to leave the house, but that is not necessarily the same thing as owning another.

If "A owns A" is synonymous with "A is able to do X," then why is it always "A is able to do X" instead of "A owns A"? The only people who developed that concept were supporters of the ruling class, who would benefit greatly from it.

This doesn't necessarily undermine the concept of labor-power, because having it is the same thing as owning it. You technically don't have to use the word "to own" at all when describing labor-power.

[Zanthorus]

You technically don't have to use the word "to own" at all when describing labor-power.

Except if you don't own labour-power in what sense are you able to sell labour-power? You seem intent on turning this into a philosophical issue so you can dismiss it as wordplay, but that the the ability of workers' to sell their labour-power as a commodity is a feature which distuinguishes capitalism from both feudal and slave societies in which the worker was owned by their employer and from socialism in which the immediate producers excercise collective control and ownership over the social production process is an issue of social theory. In fact, the idea that work under capitalism is specifically marked out as 'free labour' is a key point in Marx's critique of political economy.

[JazzRemington]

The Austrian argument for the existence of self-ownership as you describe it is admittedly confused, but again, self-ownership does exist and is a key feature of capitalism, otherwise there would be no labour markets, no surplus-value, and the system would come to a grinding halt.

Well, I never said the concept didn't exist. But you think it's a bad thing that capitalism would come to a grinding halt?


I don't see how this could be an ideological weapon of any kind. It does not follow from the fact that workers' own and alienate their labour-power that they are not exploited, in fact self-ownership is the basis for their domination by capital (So actually I suppose it is an ideological weapon, for us).

Before Locke, there were no philosophies about "self-ownership." Certainly, there were people who weren't under legal compulsion to work, either as a slave, serf, or otherwise. But I think that no one talked of them as "owning themselves" but rather they talked of them as not being owned by others. This was true even of people who could be regarded as "early proletarians."

What's actually happening with terms like "labor power" is that it's a way of explaining something. It's like a theoretical construct. Even if "labor power" didn't exist as a concept, it wouldn't change what's actually happening. The words we use to describe things don't necessarily have any effect on the things being described. You can say you "have" labor power or "own" labor power, and these would mean the same thing. You are referring to a person's capacity to perform labor. Compare this to talking about, e.g., a battery's capacity to hold a charge.

[Zanthorus]

Well, I never said the concept didn't exist.

I didn't say that you denied the existence of the concept of self-ownership.


But you think it's a bad thing that capitalism would come to a grinding halt?

No, I was merely pointing out that it would come to a halt if 'self-ownership' ceased to exist. The point is that self-ownership is a key feature of capitalist societies.


Before Locke, there were no philosophies about "self-ownership."

Well, have you thought that perhaps it is not a coincidence that this concept emerged at the same time as capitalism was starting to find it's feet? (Note that declaring something to be merely a construct dreamt up by the ruling-classes to trick everyone means precisely that it was a coincidence as if you are trying to trick people you do not need to describe any real features of social reality)


You can say you "have" labor power or "own" labor power, and these would mean the same thing.

No they would not. It is a feature of human beings generally that they have the capacity to labour. In pre-capitalist societies they do not however have free disposal over their labour-power as a commodity, it is owned by slave-owners, feudal lords and so on. Similarly in communism no-one sells their labour-power as there are no markets. It is clear that it is a distinctive feature of capitalism that workers' own their own labour-power and are free to sell it as a commodity on the labour-market to the buyer of their choice. This is clearly the same relationship that the owner of any commodity would have to the good which they own, and I don't think there is any linguistic confusion involved in this concept of 'self-ownership'.

[JazzRemington]

[...] The point is that self-ownership is a key feature of capitalist societies.

Yes, as an ideology.


Well, have you thought that perhaps it is not a coincidence that this concept emerged at the same time as capitalism was starting to find it's feet?

I was trying to imply that it emerged around the same time the bourgeoisie came out victorious after the English Civil War. It's part of a broader philosophy of individualism that became dominate in England at the time, which is based on linguistic confusion as well. Like I said, it's not so much that others can own you, but that you own yourself.


(Note that declaring something to be merely a construct dreamt up by the ruling-classes to trick everyone means precisely that it was a coincidence as if you are trying to trick people you do not need to describe any real features of social reality)

I'm not sure what you're saying here.


No they would not. It is a feature of human beings generally that they have the capacity to labour. In pre-capitalist societies they do not however have free disposal over their labour-power as a commodity, it is owned by slave-owners, feudal lords and so on. Similarly in communism no-one sells their labour-power as there are no markets. It is clear that it is a distinctive feature of capitalism that workers' own their own labour-power and are free to sell it as a commodity on the labour-market to the buyer of their choice. This is clearly the same relationship that the owner of any commodity would have to the good which they own, and I don't think there is any linguistic confusion involved in this concept of 'self-ownership'.

Most pre-capitalist societies were based on owning people or communities, or arable land, not "labor power." Further more, it seems that labor-power is "inside" people:


By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.

But a commodity is a thing outside one's self. If I recall, Marx said something about how a thing can be treated as a commodity but not necessarily be a commodity.

However, as I've said, whether or not the philosophy of self-ownership makes sense has no bearing on the concept of "labor power." "Owning labor-power" does not have anything to do with "self-ownership."

[Zanthorus]

Most pre-capitalist societies were based on owning people or communities, or arable land, not "labor power."

And if you own people you own their labour-power.


Further more, it seems that labor-power is "inside" people:

But a commodity is a thing outside one's self.

No it isn't, a commodity is anything with both a use-value and an exchange-value, an object which is traded on the market. There are markets for labour in capitalist society, ergo labour is a commodity. The buying and selling of labour-power as a commodity is the basis of capitalist society. I don't understand how this is so difficult to grasp. Personally I think the only one with linguistic confusions here is you.


"Owning labor-power" does not have anything to do with "self-ownership."

Yes, it does. "But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which, result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person."

[Red Commissar]

http://www.jontanis.com/gallery/d/4048-1/like-where-this-thread-is-going_jpg.jpg

[JazzRemington]

And if you own people you own their labour-power.

Which is beside the point.


No it isn't, a commodity is anything with both a use-value and an exchange-value, an object which is traded on the market.

"A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us [...]" (my emp.)

It's not just something with both a use-value and an exchange value. Labor-power is specifically defined as being "in" people. Even if "labor-power" really is a commodity in the sense defined above, it would seem that the proletariat owns a commodity and not his "self."


There are markets for labour in capitalist society, ergo labour is a commodity. The buying and selling of labour-power as a commodity is the basis of capitalist society.

Where have I denied this? All I said was that things that never once were commodities can be treated as one, like a capacity to do something. It's sort of like selling a right to use or access something.


I don't understand how this is so difficult to grasp. Personally I think the only one with linguistic confusions here is you.

You're the one who doesn't understand that none of this has anything to do with "self-ownership." Period.


Yes, it does. "But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which, result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person."

Given that the work is a critique, odds are he's talking about the conditions as described in bourgeois terms. It is true that two necessary pre-conditions for turning labor-power into a commodity are a lack of legal compulsion to do labor for others and not being the property of others, but this does not automatically suggest that one "owns" oneself. What would this "ownership" consist of?

[JazzRemington]

http://www.jontanis.com/gallery/d/4048-1/like-where-this-thread-is-going_jpg.jpg

Exactly. I call "self-ownership" a bourgeois fantasy and I get people actually defending it because someone used typographically similar words. :laugh:

[Zanthorus]

Which is beside the point.

It is perfectly to the point. My original assertion was that 'having' labour-power, the capacity to labour, is not the same as owning it. One can have labour-power but not own it, as is the case with slaves, who have labour-power, but their labour-power is owned by the slave-owner. You then claimed that pre-capitalist societies were based on owning 'people' not 'labour-power', and I pointed out that owning a person means that you own their labour-power. It was your previous comment that pre-capitalist societies were based on the ownership of 'people' and not 'labour-power' which was besides the point.


"A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us [...]" (my emp.)

It's not just something with both a use-value and an exchange value. Labor-power is specifically defined as being "in" people. Even if "labor-power" really is a commodity in the sense defined above, it would seem that the proletariat owns a commodity and not his "self."

This is utterly and completely absurd. Marx discusses labour-power as a commodity numerous times:


The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer.- Ecoomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Wages of Labour


On the basis of political economy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity... Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general.- Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Estranged Labour


Just as little as loom and yarn are the product of the weaver to whom they are supplied by the employer, just so little are the commodities which he receives in exchange for his commodity – labour-power – his product.

[...]

Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist.- Wage Labour & Capital


What, then, is the value of labouring power?

Like that of every other commodity, its value is determined by the quantity of labour necessary to produce it... Upon the basis of the wages system the value of labouring power is settled like that of every other commodity;- Value, Price & Profit


Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labour power itself in general becomes a commodity.- Results of the Direct Production Process

Or in the very chapter which contains the content which we are discussing:


In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power.

There is no evidence that Marx put any specific stock in the idea that a commodity is necessarily something 'outside us', the main aspect emphasised throughout his work is that a commodity is anything which is bought and sold on the market, and quite consistently with this he describes labour-power as a commodity throughout his work.


You're the one who doesn't understand that none of this has anything to do with "self-ownership." Period.

Yes, it does. This whole discussion began with you asserting that it was nonsensical to claim the possibillity that one owns oneself. I have attempted to show that the ownership of oneself and the buying and selling of one's own capacities on the market is the basis of capitalism, and therefore it does make sense in this context to talk about owning oneself.


Given that the work is a critique, odds are he's talking about the conditions as described in bourgeois terms.

Except Marx is usually quite explicit when he rejects a certain theory - see for example his treatment of Nassau Senior's theory of the 'last hour' and of profits as a reward for 'abstinence'.


What would this "ownership" consist of?

As I have been saying throughout this thread, the ability to alienate oneself and ones labour-power in an act of commodity exchange.

[JazzRemington]

You then claimed that pre-capitalist societies were based on owning 'people' not 'labour-power', and I pointed out that owning a person means that you own their labour-power.

Of course a slave master would have say over how, when, where, why a slave performs labor! But the question remains: what does this have to do with self-ownership? Why can't we just say a proletariat isn't a slave or under any legal compulsion to work for someone? What's wrong with these perfectly clear and understandable definitions that "self-ownership" fixes?


My original assertion was that 'having' labour-power, the capacity to labour, is not the same as owning it.

Depends on what you mean by "to have" and "to own," really.

At any rate, my assertion does not entail a denial that people have a capacity to perform labor or that the proletariat has nothing but this to sell as a commodity on the market. What actually happens is like selling use rights. Remember that there's a difference between the paradigm or theory used to explain a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself. Even if, e.g., Marx was never born, the class struggle would still play out (even if we would not be able to explicitly refer to it as such).


This is utterly and completely absurd. Marx discusses labour-power as a commodity numerous times:

- Ecoomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Wages of Labour

- Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Estranged Labour

- Wage Labour & Capital

- Value, Price & Profit

- Results of the Direct Production Process

In other words, your evidence is things either published before Kapital or never published at all (save for Results..., which technically is an unused draft of a chapter in Kapital). But like I said, there is no problem because things can be used as if they were commodities. The problem here is not that I'm denying the processes you're describing.


Or in the very chapter which contains the content which we are discussing:

Except for the fact that he specifically mentioned things not normally considered commodities can be used or treated as commodities, as I've pointed out. A slave might be treated as a commodity on a slave market, but "A being treated as B" is different from "A being B."


There is no evidence that Marx put any specific stock in the idea that a commodity is necessarily something 'outside us', the main aspect emphasised throughout his work is that a commodity is anything which is bought and sold on the market, and quite consistently with this he describes labour-power as a commodity throughout his work.

Yes there is, he specifically stated it! Your evidence amounts to works either published before Kapital, or never published or used at all. And I've never denied that labor-power being used as a commodity....once again.


Yes, it does. This whole discussion began with you asserting that it was nonsensical to claim the possibillity that one owns oneself. I have attempted to show that the ownership of oneself and the buying and selling of one's own capacities on the market is the basis of capitalism, and therefore it does make sense in this context to talk about owning oneself.

It's the foundation of bourgeois ideology, you mean. Buying and selling of one's capacity to perform labor is a process that occurs frequently in a capitalist economy. "Self-ownership" is used to justify the existence of it.


Except Marx is usually quite explicit when he rejects a certain theory - see for example his treatment of Nassau Senior's theory of the 'last hour' and of profits as a reward for 'abstinence'.

Well, rejections do often occur in critiques. As for Senior, I'm not sure what you're getting at.


As I have been saying throughout this thread, the ability to alienate oneself and ones labour-power in an act of commodity exchange.

If you think that is what "to own" means, then you have a very idiosyncratic definition of the word.

[Zanthorus]

JazzRemington, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere apart from around in circles, so I am going to drop out of this debate.

[the last donut of the night]

JazzRemington, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere apart from around in circles, so I am going to drop out of this debate.

let's also remember this is chit-chat