Envy

[tradeunionsupporter]

Many Right Wing Capitalists say Socialism is about Class or Wealth Envy what do Socialists say to this claim ?

[PhoenixAsh]

Hell...no...its about shared pain being leighter to bear. :)

But seriously...no its not about envy. Its about being stolen from, being cheated and being structurally exploited. Its about having to work our asses off to have medical aid for our children, to put food on the table while the ones who exploit us and keep us down get to live in mansions paid by that which they stole from us which we need to survive.

Its about being classified as lesser people because laws protect their theft and prevent us from taking what is "ours" back. Which prevent us from living in equality.

Lets use the burglarly analogy. Somebody stole my TV. Is it envy that I want it back?


edit: Or better yet...its like my neighbor stealing my bandwith enjoying the downloads and the surfing while I pay for it. (the bastard!)

[danyboy27]

Many Right Wing Capitalists say Socialism is about Class or Wealth Envy what do Socialists say to this claim ?

the wealth capitalist talk about is nothing but pure power, most people dont have much power, so they seek to have more of it to be in a better position, to be master of their own lives.

This envy thing is nothing more, nothing less than a symptom of the current economical system, a bestial manifestation of the human being most primitive instinct of self preservation in a rather dire and desesperate situation.

When there will plenty of food, when decisions will be shared, when there will be plenty of space for everyone, then this thing we call envy will be reduced to the occasional dispute for rare items.

[Demogorgon]

I am sure plenty of slaves were envious of their masters.

[RGacky3]

Its not a real claim, its just an appeal to emotion and a way for Capitalists to feel good about themselves.

[¿Que?]

Seems a modern day rehash of Nietzsche's ressentiment argument. In this sense, the idea of communism is based on slave morality, rather than, as Marx intended, an analysis of society from a materialist perspective i.e. not a moral/ethical argument.

[ZombieRothbard]

Hell...no...its about shared pain being leighter to bear. :)

But seriously...no its not about envy. Its about being stolen from, being cheated and being structurally exploited. Its about having to work our asses off to have medical aid for our children, to put food on the table while the ones who exploit us and keep us down get to live in mansions paid by that which they stole from us which we need to survive.

Its about being classified as lesser people because laws protect their theft and prevent us from taking what is "ours" back. Which prevent us from living in equality.

Lets use the burglarly analogy. Somebody stole my TV. Is it envy that I want it back?


edit: Or better yet...its like my neighbor stealing my bandwith enjoying the downloads and the surfing while I pay for it. (the bastard!)

What was stolen from you?

[RGacky3]

Every thing his labor produced that he had no say over what happened with it.

[ZombieRothbard]

Every thing his labor produced that he had no say over what happened with it.

What would he be doing with his labor if he wasn't employed?

[#FF0000]

What would he be doing with his labor if he wasn't employed?

Something else, probably.

What a strange question.

[ZombieRothbard]

Something else, probably.

What a strange question.

Something else? Like starving to death?

[#FF0000]

Something else? Like starving to death?

Yeah probably, since, you know. Private Property. :mellow:

[ZombieRothbard]

Yeah probably, since, you know. Private Property. :mellow:

Well, then that begs the question of how labor is being stolen if the alternative to laboring is not laboring? How is laboring in a factory having your labor stolen when you otherwise wouldn't be laboring at all? Typically to have something stolen, you have to possess it to begin with. If you possess a state of not laboring before being employed by a factory you are gaining something, not losing it.

[Dunk]

What was stolen from you?

Stolen is the wrong word - since it implies autonomy was ours to begin with. Control over our lives, equal control over society is alienated from us along with the product of our labor, because we are forced to enter the market to exchange our labor-power for a wage in order to buy our satisfaction in the market, because the overwhelming majority who must work are deprived the means to produce to collectively satisfy our needs.

Our lives become a means to support the lives of those who own or control the means of production, who deprive us of the full value of our labor, and those who collect interests, rents, dividends on our work.

Seriously, this isn't the first time you could have run into this line of thinking on Revleft. What's the point of asking the same questions and having the same arguments over and over, with no variation? Do you think your mind, or perhaps the mind of someone here will gain some sort of insight from it's diametric opposite?

[#FF0000]

Well, then that begs the question of how labor is being stolen if the alternative to laboring is not laboring?

Oh, I never said that. People labor and produce in their free time all the time.


How is laboring in a factory having your labor stolen when you otherwise wouldn't be laboring at all?Alright. The theft we are talking about is what Marxists call "Exploitation". Exploitation occurs in capitalism because, first of all, the means of production are privately owned. Secondly, workers are in a situation where, to live, they must sell their labor. Lastly, we have the state sitting there, which, through its laws, protects the property-owning class and its wealth.

How it actually happens is like this:

- A worker gets a job in a chair factory. They build $100 worth of chairs a day.
- They are paid 10$ a day.

Though the numbers def. don't reflect the real world, this sort of thing is how wages work. Workers produce far, far more value and wealth than they are given back in wages, while the rest of the value/wealth, goes to the capitalist. The worker, through his/her labor, took raw materials, and created value, but because the factory and the materials were "owned" by a capitalist, the capitalist gets the lion's share.

So, that's the theft. Because of the structure of capitalism, workers are basically paying bosses for the privilege to slave away in factories/farms/workshops/fast food restaurants/big box department stores/your shitty workplace.

Does that clear anything up? Obviously my example was p. rough around the edges but yeah.

[RGacky3]

What would he be doing with his labor if he wasn't employed?

Nothing, only because property rights are enforced, if they were not, he'd be producing for himself and his community.


Well, then that begs the question of how labor is being stolen if the alternative to laboring is not laboring? How is laboring in a factory having your labor stolen when you otherwise wouldn't be laboring at all? Typically to have something stolen, you have to possess it to begin with. If you possess a state of not laboring before being employed by a factory you are gaining something, not losing it.

Its extortion, your not having your labor stolen, your having your product stolen , and you have to comply because of capitalist property, its enforced.

If a dude owns a farm (passed down), and people work on that farm, do everything, yet still 100% of the produce belongs to the farm owner, that produce is being stolen ... legally, they are loosing most of the value of their labor, thats extortion, the only reason the owner can get away with it is because property laws are enforced by the barrel of a gun.

[RGacky3]

If there was no state, people that do the farming work would have the say over what happens with the produce, and the "owner," unless he's involved in the labor, would have no say, now its the otherway around, because of legalized theft (property rights).

[Hebrew Hammer]

Correct, I'm a Communist solely because I am envious of the fat cats and want their cavier and champagne, correct.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Many Right Wing Capitalists say Socialism is about Class or Wealth Envy what do Socialists say to this claim ?

I think they have it backwards - isn't it most right-wingers who envy and wish to live like the elite capitalists... and many have the delusion that they will live like those on the very top one day?

You can't really envy what you want to abolish, but do we envy the ability of the rich to have nice things, the power and security they have over their lives, good healthcare that they don't have to worry about, free-time to devote to their interests and self-development, etc? Sure, what worker or poor person in capitalism wouldn't wish they could win the lotto and not have to worry about 90% of the problems we have to deal with? The difference is that we don't just play the lotto or pray to a god or whatnot, we have a plan for how we can all have more power over our own lives and the economic conditions of our lives.

[PhoenixAsh]

What was stolen from you?

My labour. The fruits of that. My autonomy. My ability to function in society as equal.

I see you are an Anarcho-Capitalist...so this question you ask here is something you should already know the answer to because you in fact should at least agree with the concept that the current society does this.

On the other hand...you wish to perpetuate that same system by replacing it with a system which pretends to offer freedom but still values the concept of property which is protected from others.

[PhoenixAsh]

What would he be doing with his labor if he wasn't employed?

See...and there is the crux of the faulty reasoning in Anarcho Capitalism. Its the utter inability to realise that the concusion is that you "work therefore are treated fair because otherwise you had nothing" is a false equation.

The work is a necessity. The reward shoud always be an equal honest and fair share of the result of that work including the profits that are made. Which it is not. The fact that I need to work to survive and need others to give me a job and reward me make the inevitable negotiations about reward and obligation unequal and exploitative. Since the interest of the employer is in keeping cost down and maximise profit and my interest is to be able to survive...so I have no choice but to accept the job.

Anarcho-Capitalists do not understand the basic concept of economics OR they do and they are totally ok with exploiting others and simply want to create a system which maximises the effect and power to exploit.

[PhoenixAsh]

What would he be doing with his labor if he wasn't employed?

See...and there is the crux of the faulty reasoning in Anarcho Capitalism. Its the utter inability to realise that the concusion is that you "work therefore are treated fair because otherwise you had nothing" is a false equation.

The work is a necessity. The reward shoud always be an equal honest and fair share of the result of that work including the profits that are made. Which it is not. The fact that I need to work to survive and need others to give me a job and reward me make the inevitable negotiations about reward and obligation unequal and exploitative. Since the interest of the employer is in keeping cost down and maximise profit and my interest is to be able to survive...so I have no choice but to accept the job.

Anarcho-Capitalists do not understand the basic concept of economics OR they do and they are totally ok with exploiting others and simply want to create a system which maximises the effect and power to exploit.

[Baseball]

The work is a necessity. The reward shoud always be an equal honest and fair share of the result of that work including the profits that are made. Which it is not. The fact that I need to work to survive and need others to give me a job and reward me make the inevitable negotiations about reward and obligation unequal and exploitative. Since the interest of the employer is in keeping cost down and maximise profit and my interest is to be able to survive...so I have no choice but to accept the job.


It would seem that people also "have to work to survive" in a socialist community as well. So it is not clear why a capitalism should be targeted for such a criticism.

Now, its true that in a capitalist community the employer has an interest in keeping costs as low as possible, including costs associated with labor. It is not clear why workers at a particular factory in a socialist community also would not have an interest in keeping costs low (since after all, it might affect profits).

But its also true that your interest, as a worker in either a capitalist or a socialist community, is to get as much as possible back.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, then that begs the question of how labor is being stolen if the alternative to laboring is not laboring? How is laboring in a factory having your labor stolen when you otherwise wouldn't be laboring at all? Typically to have something stolen, you have to possess it to begin with. If you possess a state of not laboring before being employed by a factory you are gaining something, not losing it.


In creating property you have taken away from the community the ability to hold that same property. In effect you take away from the community and reinvent it as something you have absolute control over by exempting others to do so.

You then create the system in which others are dependent on you for survival...which gives you more power.

The fact that you take away and make others dependend bars freedom of development and bars the community from working togethre to assure mutual survival and development and you have repleced that with a system in which you have the rights to extract from them the labour not for the benefit of the community but for the benefit of yourself and for your own advancement as you see fit.

You paint that as a fair system...after all...you create a place in which grants people the ability to survive and offcourse you deserve to get something from that. Which is the rationalisation for paying them less than they put in and than you get out of it.

In other words you take away from the community and subsequently subjegate that community to your power and the monopoly of the means of survival in which you make a profit by continued extraction from the community by under paying their work and also extracting autonomy from the persons.

Its basic ecconomics.

Now this in itself is naturally simply solved by killing you....or by preventing you to assert your power if I feel more peacefully inclined. I can simply walk in and take over or I can give away your property back to the community.

You naturally do not want that to happen. So you decide to use the surplus value of my labour to hire others to protect you against the event that I or others decide that you stole from us and want to reclaim it. Because if all is equal...why do YOU have the right to claim ownership and not me? What is the essential difference that grants you the right to create something by claiming sole proprietorial control?

There is after all no qualitative difference between stealing something and making it property and then bulding something by extracting from others...and stealing the finished product you created.

So you need to protect yourself and you pay others to protect you by using the credits you gained by exploiting them. In effect you create a system of repression in which the rules of society are bend and protected by the use of force or threat of violence to justify your initial theft and codify it so that others are warned of from reclaiming it.

You also create a set of rules which stipulates that others NEED to work in order to survive. You create the rules of society which disable me from providing my own means of survival. Either by hunting or gathering or by creating a system of trade in which the reward you give me for my work is the only option to purchase items I need to develop and continue to survive.

So you create a system of dependency. And since you extracted from the community the few profit from the needs of the many.

[Ocean Seal]

Many Right Wing Capitalists say Socialism is about Class or Wealth Envy what do Socialists say to this claim ?


"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."-Winston Churchill

Our answer to this claim is that its false. Its merely a childlike appeal to us misbehaving towards the rich. Hey you're jealous of the fact that your boss makes 50 times what you make. You don't want to by envious. That's morally wrong. You only want to steal his money because you're jealous that you're not as successful. Instead of stealing from him you should try to be more like him. Open up your own business and become a successful businessman.

We aren't jealous, we just realize that this appeal is full of shit. It all comes down to working class common sense, not some in depth philosophy. FACT: If we were all bourgeoisie, nothing would be produced. There is an unproductive class which proportionally earns far more than what the working class does. Now they tell us that we should be like them even though 80% of small businesses fail and often result in bankruptcy. What do they stand to gain from this? Maintaining their power, maintaining their wealth. What do we gain from this appeal? Being painted as jealous, lazy, and useless. What do the rich have to offer us? I don't care what they call us but when society is organized like this, I think we have a right to reorganize it along class lines. For the benefit of all of us.

file:///tmp/moz-screenshot.pngfile:///tmp/moz-screenshot-1.pnghttp://www.commonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2011-03-21-American-pie-chart-distribution-of-wealth.jpg

[danyboy27]

Seems a modern day rehash of Nietzsche's ressentiment argument. In this sense, the idea of communism is based on slave morality, rather than, as Marx intended, an analysis of society from a materialist perspective i.e. not a moral/ethical argument.


But one could also argues that communism is a form of master morality in the sense that, it would allow everyone to be in full control of their lives and exercise their will to power with far less limitation than what capitalism actually offer.

[Revolution starts with U]

Many Right Wing Capitalists say Socialism is about Class or Wealth Envy what do Socialists say to this claim ?

So what if it is? It's not for everyone, even if it is for some.
Some socialists are socialists because they are poor. Some of us are socialists because we are against oppression.
Does that change the hierarchical nature of capitalism?
Is a slave envious because of his utterly poor position? Would that make slavery any mroe justifiable?

[ZombieRothbard]

Oh, I never said that. People labor and produce in their free time all the time.

Alright. The theft we are talking about is what Marxists call "Exploitation". Exploitation occurs in capitalism because, first of all, the means of production are privately owned. Secondly, workers are in a situation where, to live, they must sell their labor. Lastly, we have the state sitting there, which, through its laws, protects the property-owning class and its wealth.

How it actually happens is like this:

- A worker gets a job in a chair factory. They build $100 worth of chairs a day.
- They are paid 10$ a day.

Though the numbers def. don't reflect the real world, this sort of thing is how wages work. Workers produce far, far more value and wealth than they are given back in wages, while the rest of the value/wealth, goes to the capitalist. The worker, through his/her labor, took raw materials, and created value, but because the factory and the materials were "owned" by a capitalist, the capitalist gets the lion's share.

So, that's the theft. Because of the structure of capitalism, workers are basically paying bosses for the privilege to slave away in factories/farms/workshops/fast food restaurants/big box department stores/your shitty workplace.

Does that clear anything up? Obviously my example was p. rough around the edges but yeah.

Without the capitalists initial investment, it is unlikely the workers would make even a fraction of the chairs they make in a day, and would likely make below the wages they would otherwise.

When we talk about private property, socialists always make the claim that since land is owned, people cannot subsist or sustain themselves, so they are forced to work in a factory. This of course wouldn't be true in an anarcho-capitalist society. There would be no barriers to entry, if you felt like the capitalist was paying you for your chairs lower than your share of the work was worth (including the added efficiency from the capitalists investment), then you could simply begin making your own chairs. You and some of your buddies from the factory can come over and you guys can set up a division of labor and make your own hand crafted chairs to sell. Nobody is stopping you.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, as long as the workers have the capability to make the product on their own, they could always make it themselves. If the product doesn't have the ability to be produced outside of a highly technical and complex manufacturing process, than it is clear that the workers wouldn't even have this product if it wasn't for the capitalist in the first place.

[ZombieRothbard]

See...and there is the crux of the faulty reasoning in Anarcho Capitalism. Its the utter inability to realise that the concusion is that you "work therefore are treated fair because otherwise you had nothing" is a false equation.

The work is a necessity. The reward shoud always be an equal honest and fair share of the result of that work including the profits that are made. Which it is not. The fact that I need to work to survive and need others to give me a job and reward me make the inevitable negotiations about reward and obligation unequal and exploitative. Since the interest of the employer is in keeping cost down and maximise profit and my interest is to be able to survive...so I have no choice but to accept the job.

Anarcho-Capitalists do not understand the basic concept of economics OR they do and they are totally ok with exploiting others and simply want to create a system which maximises the effect and power to exploit.

How many computers could you make by yourself in a day? None, because computers are too complex for a single person to understand every aspect of their production. Computers only exist because capitalists saved and invested in research and bringing together a division of labor to create a highly complex machine. In socialism, I would argue that computers wouldn't exist, as well as any other complex technology. The capitalist is important to technological advancement. Without the capitalist, we would be living in caves.

[ZombieRothbard]

In creating property you have taken away from the community the ability to hold that same property. In effect you take away from the community and reinvent it as something you have absolute control over by exempting others to do so.

You then create the system in which others are dependent on you for survival...which gives you more power.

The fact that you take away and make others dependend bars freedom of development and bars the community from working togethre to assure mutual survival and development and you have repleced that with a system in which you have the rights to extract from them the labour not for the benefit of the community but for the benefit of yourself and for your own advancement as you see fit.

You paint that as a fair system...after all...you create a place in which grants people the ability to survive and offcourse you deserve to get something from that. Which is the rationalisation for paying them less than they put in and than you get out of it.

In other words you take away from the community and subsequently subjegate that community to your power and the monopoly of the means of survival in which you make a profit by continued extraction from the community by under paying their work and also extracting autonomy from the persons.

Its basic ecconomics.

Now this in itself is naturally simply solved by killing you....or by preventing you to assert your power if I feel more peacefully inclined. I can simply walk in and take over or I can give away your property back to the community.

You naturally do not want that to happen. So you decide to use the surplus value of my labour to hire others to protect you against the event that I or others decide that you stole from us and want to reclaim it. Because if all is equal...why do YOU have the right to claim ownership and not me? What is the essential difference that grants you the right to create something by claiming sole proprietorial control?

There is after all no qualitative difference between stealing something and making it property and then bulding something by extracting from others...and stealing the finished product you created.

So you need to protect yourself and you pay others to protect you by using the credits you gained by exploiting them. In effect you create a system of repression in which the rules of society are bend and protected by the use of force or threat of violence to justify your initial theft and codify it so that others are warned of from reclaiming it.

You also create a set of rules which stipulates that others NEED to work in order to survive. You create the rules of society which disable me from providing my own means of survival. Either by hunting or gathering or by creating a system of trade in which the reward you give me for my work is the only option to purchase items I need to develop and continue to survive.

So you create a system of dependency. And since you extracted from the community the few profit from the needs of the many.

That isn't basic economics. Basic economics would recognize that the amount of labor you put into working under the capitalist is enriched by the capitalists initial investment in the process used for production. You can either contribute to the creation of one chair a day with the help of your buddies out in your garage, or you can contribute to the creation of 200 chairs made a day with the help of the more efficient process. Not only does this mean the community has more chairs to use, but it also means that you are paid more than you would if you made a single chair in your garage.

[#FF0000]

Without the capitalists initial investment, it is unlikely the workers would make even a fraction of the chairs they make in a day, and would likely make below the wages they would otherwise.

Capitalists don't build factories. Workers do. While in capitalism, yeah, things don't happen without a capitalist's investment but there's no reason why a capitalist can't be replaced by a council of workers who decide what to produce based on everybody's need.


words

I don't understand why this is different from a capitalist society. If I wanted I could use the powertools I have to churn out one chair a day (or more with friends). However that doesn't really change much of anything does it? A class system would still exist. All you're claiming here is that it would be a little more fluid. It doesn't change the fact that most homemade chair startups would probably get crushed in the market, either.

[#FF0000]

How many computers could you make by yourself in a day? None, because computers are too complex for a single person to understand every aspect of their production. Computers only exist because capitalists saved and invested in research and bringing together a division of labor to create a highly complex machine. In socialism, I would argue that computers wouldn't exist, as well as any other complex technology. The capitalist is important to technological advancement. Without the capitalist, we would be living in caves.

Nope. Humans have a long, long, long history of inventing things without capitalists. That's a silly thing to say.

And what magical powers does a capitalist have that makes it impossible for workers to organize themselves and their own production?

[ZombieRothbard]

Capitalists don't build factories. Workers do. While in capitalism, yeah, things don't happen without a capitalist's investment but there's no reason why a capitalist can't be replaced by a council of workers who decide what to produce based on everybody's need.

If there is no reason for that not to happen, then it would obviously happen in anarcho-capitalism. I would argue there are damn good reasons why it doesn't happen, but if you believe it is plausible, then it could exist in anarcho-capitalism just fine.


I don't understand why this is different from a capitalist society. If I wanted I could use the powertools I have to churn out one chair a day (or more with friends). However that doesn't really change much of anything does it? A class system would still exist. All you're claiming here is that it would be a little more fluid. It doesn't change the fact that most homemade chair startups would probably get crushed in the market, either.

There isn't any way a home made chair start up would get crushed on the market if they differentiated their product enough. Perhaps people don't like mass produced chairs, and they like the rustic look of a home made chair? Maybe the home made chair is stronger with better materials? Maybe the home made chair has fancy carvings in it?

In an ancap society, there wouldn't be starting regulations for businesses to comply with. Literally anybody can start a business. If workers are truly being paid below what they would make building their own chairs, they could just simply make their own.

[ZombieRothbard]

Nope. Humans have a long, long, long history of inventing things without capitalists. That's a silly thing to say.

And what magical powers does a capitalist have that makes it impossible for workers to organize themselves and their own production?

Some things may have been invented without capitalists, but they cannot be mass produced without the help of the capitalist.

And if workers want to organize and create a workers cooperative there isn't anything stopping them. I would just argue that they wouldn't be able to reach consensus on anything, and would likely not produce a single product.

[#FF0000]

Some things may have been invented without capitalists, but they cannot be mass produced without the help of the capitalist.

Why on earth not?


And if workers want to organize and create a workers cooperative there isn't anything stopping them.Of course not. But that isn't communism, and the existence of worker's cooperatives doesn't change anything about the structure of capitalism.


I would just argue that they wouldn't be able to reach consensus on anything, and would likely not produce a single product.I can't imagine why. There are tons of workers cooperatives that do just fine. As for actual revolutionary examples of workers organizing themselves, you can look at the Spanish Civil War. Certainly not the most efficient or effective, given the circumstances, but workers took over automobile manufacturers and managed to pump out a number of armored vehicles for the war effort.

[RGacky3]

How many computers could you make by yourself in a day? None, because computers are too complex for a single person to understand every aspect of their production. Computers only exist because capitalists saved and invested in research and bringing together a division of labor to create a highly complex machine. In socialism, I would argue that computers wouldn't exist, as well as any other complex technology. The capitalist is important to technological advancement. Without the capitalist, we would be living in caves.

Both Computers AND the internet were government inventions, try again.

[ZombieRothbard]

Why on earth not?

Of course not. But that isn't communism, and the existence of worker's cooperatives doesn't change anything about the structure of capitalism.

I can't imagine why. There are tons of workers cooperatives that do just fine. As for actual revolutionary examples of workers organizing themselves, you can look at the Spanish Civil War. Certainly not the most efficient or effective, given the circumstances, but workers took over automobile manufacturers and managed to pump out a number of armored vehicles for the war effort.

I am unsure why you do not support anarcho-capitalism then. Why would you not simply support workers cooperatives?

[ZombieRothbard]

Both Computers AND the internet were government inventions, try again.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. The government is a corporation comprised of many capitalists that obtained their capital through theft and extortion.

[Rafiq]

What would he be doing with his labor if he wasn't employed?

what would a capitalist be doing if he didn't have anyone to extract labor from? Pulling dollars out of his ass?

[Rafiq]

Fuck everyone who has this notion that the Capitalists are employing workers out of benevolence, and that you should be grateful to at least have someone employ you.

Fuck that!

[RGacky3]

I don't know what point you are trying to make. The government is a corporation comprised of many capitalists that obtained their capital through theft and extortion.

LOL, look at that, so now the argument is that the State is actually Capitalism, so good stuff the state does is ACTUALLY the result of capitalism, the logical loopholes you go through are amazing.


It would seem that people also "have to work to survive" in a socialist community as well. So it is not clear why a capitalism should be targeted for such a criticism.


Not as hard because they arn't working for CEO pay and continual profits.

[Rafiq]

I am unsure why you do not support anarcho-capitalism then. Why would you not simply support workers cooperatives?

I love how Anarcho Capitalists approach the Proletariat with:

"Hey, in Anarcho Capitalism, you can form your own worker's cooperative, and form your own communes, you're free to do so!"

You dumb shit, we can do that now, and guess what, life still fucking sucks!

[Baseball]

And what magical powers does a capitalist have that makes it impossible for workers to organize themselves and their own production?

The magical power of actually explaining HOW they are organised.
Revlefters, by contrast, seem to think:

1. A critique of capitalism is proof of socialism.
2. They do not have any responsibility to explain the socialist project ("capitalism bad, socialism good" is what it amounts to)
3. That since nobody knows how socialism will develop, it is impossible to speculate.
4. It all depends upon the existing "material conditions."

[Baseball]

And if workers want to organize and create a workers cooperative there isn't anything stopping them. I would just argue that they wouldn't be able to reach consensus on anything, and would likely not produce a single product.

That would be false. There is no reason to suppose a workers co-op could not come to consensus.

The problem the co-op would face would be: Consensus based upon what? What is the rationale for making the decision they are attempting to reach?

[ZombieRothbard]

Fuck everyone who has this notion that the Capitalists are employing workers out of benevolence, and that you should be grateful to at least have someone employ you.

Fuck that!

I agree that the way our society is now, the capitalist order is perverted to be oppressive towards the workers. However in a truly free market void of state coercion, such leverage on behalf of the capitalists would be diminished and instead the consumer would be sovereign.

[Baseball]

Fuck everyone who has this notion that the Capitalists are employing workers out of benevolence, and that you should be grateful to at least have someone employ you.

Fuck that!


No, this is true. cCapitalists do not employ people out of benevolence.

It remains mysterious why this would be any different in a socialist community.

[Rafiq]

No, this is true. cCapitalists do not employ people out of benevolence.

It remains mysterious why this would be any different in a socialist community.

Well, to firstly answer your question, the difference might be that every willing human will have the chance to have a job, not as a privilege, but as a right.

Secondly, hold on, stop right there.

How come every critique of capitalism that we make, you always throw in Socialism?

Baseball, let's pretend Socialism can't work. You're telling me Capitalism is the only solution?

Look at all the things that are possible today with technology, with science and medicine...

How come we are told of all this, but nobody tries to look for solutions to capitalism?

To be honest, I don't have your exact solution, but I have your problem.

To me, Socialism is just something that will abolish the problem, and from there, society can adjust itself to it in whatever way it chooses to.

You must admit, 20th century socialist countries could have done a lot to improve their systems without more privatizations. This is undeniable!



Maybe it's time people look for solutions.

I am not one to critique capitalism because I want socialism. I think the only reason I call myself a Socialist is because I want to do away with capitalism. I think it's important we face capitalism because of what it's doing to us, what it's doing to the world.

[PhoenixAsh]

How many computers could you make by yourself in a day? None, because computers are too complex for a single person to understand every aspect of their production. Computers only exist because capitalists saved and invested in research and bringing together a division of labor to create a highly complex machine. In socialism, I would argue that computers wouldn't exist, as well as any other complex technology. The capitalist is important to technological advancement. Without the capitalist, we would be living in caves.

This is some serious bullshit and you damned well know it...lol. Can't believe you are actually bringing this to the table because fundamentally it shows that you have no idea how this works.

The capitalist is irrelevant. The capitalist is only relevant because they approrpiated property and extracted wealth from the community for their own use and to create their own private property...and because they...in the proces I described created a society which makes people dependend on their wealth and property for continued survival.

If the capitalist had not created that consturct of property and dependency...the community would have created the computer by theirselves in exactly the same way...except the wealth woud not have been provided by the capitalist but by the community.

Sorry... You are not bringing arguments to the table you are explaining how the current system works...NOT arguing why it should work that way.



That isn't basic economics. Basic economics would recognize that the amount of labor you put into working under the capitalist is enriched by the capitalists initial investment in the process used for production. You can either contribute to the creation of one chair a day with the help of your buddies out in your garage, or you can contribute to the creation of 200 chairs made a day with the help of the more efficient process. Not only does this mean the community has more chairs to use, but it also means that you are paid more than you would if you made a single chair in your garage.

Again...this is NOT an argument why the system should work that way. You are instead explaining the system.

You have failed to tackle the very principle of why there is theft...the acquisition of property for the sole use and power of the capitalist. You have NOT explained why the capitalist has that right over anybody else.

So try again.

[Conscript]

Meh, you focus too much on the consumer Rothbard. He is usually a worker that consumes a fraction of what he makes, just so the capitalist can perpetuate his status as a sovereign over a ridiculous amount of continuosly expanding wealth, and therefore a greater part of society.

You have good ideals, but bad methods. The proletarian, as a consumer, can never be sovereign. Capital is the only sovereign consumer, it does nothing but consume and expand its ability to consume, all at the expense of exploited labor.

[Baseball]

Well, to firstly answer your question, the difference might be that every willing human will have the chance to have a job, not as a privilege, but as a right.

OK. So in the socialist community employment is a right which can be exercised if the particular person so chooses.




How come every critique of capitalism that we make, you always throw in Socialism?

Because otherwise the critique is meaningless. Maybe some of the problems in capitalism are simply problems of life, not caused by capitalism, and problems which the socialist community will face as well. Who cares if "X" happens in capitalism if it also has to happen in socialism? Where is the improvement? What is the improvement?



Baseball, let's pretend Socialism can't work. You're telling me Capitalism is the only solution?

Depends upon the problem.


Look at all the things that are possible today with technology, with science and medicine...

How come we are told of all this, but nobody tries to look for solutions to capitalism?

By all means do so. But then you have to present solutions, not vague promises of figuring things out later.



To me, Socialism is just something that will abolish the problem, and from there, society can adjust itself to it in whatever way it chooses to.

Well no. Because presumably socialists in a socialist community would object to choosing to import capitalism to solve a problem.


You must admit, 20th century socialist countries could have done a lot to improve their systems without more privatizations. This is undeniable!

That they could have done more without adopting capitalism to solve their problems?? Does this not suggest that perhaps the socialists could NOT have done more, following the rules and laws of socialism?

[ZombieRothbard]

LOL, look at that, so now the argument is that the State is actually Capitalism, so good stuff the state does is ACTUALLY the result of capitalism, the logical loopholes you go through are amazing.

:confused: I don't think that the state is a result of capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Your not following,

I said the the computer and the internet were both state projects.

Then you said "well the state is made up of capitalists," as if to assume that success and innovation by the state is ACTUALLY capitalist innovation.

[RGacky3]

It remains mysterious why this would be any different in a socialist community.

No it does'nt, its been explained OVER AND OVER AND OVER again to you, yet you ignore it every time.

[Rafiq]

Well no. Because presumably socialists in a socialist community would object to choosing to import capitalism to solve a problem.

Only if they are idealists (which I am not). If it becomes necessary, than yes, by all means should a Socialist community import capitalism to solve a problem.

That's where the argument comes to. Whether or not capitalism will be able to solve these problems. Which, it has been proven, that it has not, in fact, it lead to the demise of the 'socialist' nations in Eastern Europe and SU.

Like I said, society will adjust itself to socialism, with whatever is necessary. And no, Capitalism is not the only solution, nor is it the greatest system humans could come up with. That's absolutist shit. 2 Million years of Human history, and you tell me Capitalism is the final and most efficient economic system humanity can come up with.

How ridiculous. And your evidence? The Soviet Union collapsed. I propose we do a chart, though. Let's analyse demographics and statistics in planned economies in the third world, and capitalist economies in the third world. Let's compare demographics in Russia today with the Soviet Union, while we are at it.

The statistics are undeniably impressive.


When the Soviet Union and it's puppets went head in into a disaster and collapsed, Bourgeois academics saw this as orgasmic.

But maybe you should analyse why they got into these disasters, the real reason, and it has nothing to do with socialism.

Your evidence is actually just disgustingly full of shit. So because, one attempt (That of which was Leninist, and even more ironically, wasn't even carried out in the traditional, Leninist way, as Lenin described it) to abolish capitalism failed, capitalism is our only solution? It's either that or capitalism?

even more embarrassing for people like you, is that Marx specifically stated that proletariat revolution is bound to failure, if not occurring in the industrialized nations.

So, if you are a free marketter, anti socialist, or whatever, the least you could do to prove you have a fraction of human intelligence is admit that this is not the only solution, and there have been several other methods and strategies that have been either ignored, or never attempted.




That they could have done more without adopting capitalism to solve their problems?? Does this not suggest that perhaps the socialists could NOT have done more, following the rules and laws of socialism?

But they weren't "follwoing the rules and laws of socialism" (Lol, as if there are even any 'laws')

Yes, I am suggesting that the Red Bourgeoisie could have not solved their problems with the current route and system they were hitching their train on.

But where my argument conflicts with yours is that I am saying that their system was inefficient due to the fact that their political structure was absolute crap, and not because of socialism. Private property existed in those countries, so did capital. They basically mixed soda(socialism) with dog shit (capitalism), which, if you haven't tasted, tastes like ass.

I will even say that the collapse of the SU was not only unsurprising, it was in fact inevitable.

[ZombieRothbard]

Your not following,

I said the the computer and the internet were both state projects.

Then you said "well the state is made up of capitalists," as if to assume that success and innovation by the state is ACTUALLY capitalist innovation.

The state are capitalists as far as their investment of capital in production. The problem is how they accumulated that capital (theft).

[RGacky3]

In that case a socialist government is capitalist, as is a co-operative, as is communism, as are the Zapatistas.

[the Left™]

I agree that the way our society is now, the capitalist order is perverted to be oppressive towards the workers. However in a truly free market void of state coercion, such leverage on behalf of the capitalists would be diminished and instead the consumer would be sovereign.

Consumerism as a transcendent class is such a bullshit idea, stop talking about consumerists like all anarcho-cappies do. The fact that I am a consumer in control of my egoist consumption does not lessen the fact that I live in a society predicated on structural exploitation and class antagonism, and belong to the working class. I am a prolertariat, NOT a "consumer" no matter how deified this neo-class role is presented as.

[Book O'Dead]

Many Right Wing Capitalists say Socialism is about Class or Wealth Envy what do Socialists say to this claim ?

I, for one, agree with this. I personally envy the wealth, comfort and privilege that capitalists enjoy at my expense. I resent their arrogance and calculated cruelty and despise their parasitic ways. I have declared war on their system and consider them my enemies both as a class and as individual exploiters.

I think it's wrong and disingenuos for any socialist to deny to others or himself his feeling of animosity toward those who exploit and oppress him and his class.

However, it is impolitic at best and dangerous at worst to agitate, organize or act in behalf of the working class solely on the basis of our animus toward the parasite class.

Our revolutionary zeal must be tempered by compassion and love and the concept of a unified Human race so that in the end, after we've overthrown them and taken possession of the industry and wealth they legally stole from us, we don't wind up ripping the putrid heart out of their worthless fucking bodies.

Does this answer your question? Have nice day.