Why 'Right' Libertarians are what they are.

[DinodudeEpic]

'Right' libertarianism, which some restricted members follow, wants to free the markets from the supposed socialist-government threat. The problem with such an idea is that most of them don't know what socialism is. It is not government ownership of the means of production/no free markets, it is the WORKER'S control of the means of production. It has nothing to do with whether markets exist or not, nor government ownership.

Capitalism does not mean free markets, the term was actually used first by Marx as 'Bourgeois control of the means of production'. So, the capitalism Americans love and worship actually means not free markets, but bourgeois control of the economy.

A economy where voluntary exchange with profit occurs in an open market is called a Free Market Economy. Not Capitalism. So, you can have an economy where the markets are open and competitive, but the workers own the means of production via cooperatives. Or, have labor unions serve as democratic representation of the workers against the corporations in a free market economy.

As for the 'right' libertarian's place on the political spectrum, they are not right-wing. They are either syncretic, are left-wing classical liberals that were common in the 19th century, or are just paleoconservatives with a fancy name.

(I know that this is more of a rant then anything, so sorry if I annoyed anybody.)

[trivas7]

Capitalism does not mean free markets, the term was actually used first by Marx as 'Bourgeois control of the means of production'. So, the capitalism Americans love and worship actually means not free markets, but bourgeois control of the economy.

A economy where voluntary exchange with profit occurs in an open market is called a Free Market Economy. Not Capitalism. So, you can have an economy where the markets are open and competitive, but the workers own the means of production via cooperatives. Or, have labor unions serve as democratic representation of the workers against the corporations in a free market economy.

I disagree. Marx is clear that socialism is the dissolution of markets and capital, and the planning of production by the proletariat that thus abolishes itself as a class. There is no open market separate from historical capitalism (which is why anarcho-capitalism is a utopian ideology).

[Rafiq]

Bourgeois Right Libertarians follow what they do because it best serves their class interest.

[Judicator]

I think socialism would be no "free markets" in the sense that you'd probably have to completely reallocate property to give workers control, and you'd probably have to continually reallocate property to maintain worker control. To the extent that an underclass is a natural result of free exchange + minimal social safety nets, you'll always have some working class.

The standard right libertarian conception of property rights might usually (or always) lead to bourgeois control of property, and capitalism. To the extent that free markets are meritocracies, and there are heritable characteristics that partially determine income, you'd expect these people and their descendants will eventually accumulate most of the wealth.

[DinodudeEpic]

Of course, 'right' libertarians want private property, but most of them only see government owned property as the alternative. When you actually can have worker-owned property. (Note that there are various right libertarians who just simply don't understand political science, and are actually are right-wing pseudo-conservatives who want power for the corporations.)

Also, Socialism =/= Marxism. Mutualism is a great example of a socialist tendency outside of Marxism. You also can remove the inheritance of wealth and property.

[Judicator]

Of course, 'right' libertarians want private property, but most of them only see government owned property as the alternative. When you actually can have worker-owned property. (Note that there are various right libertarians who just simply don't understand political science, and are actually are right-wing pseudo-conservatives who want power for the corporations.)

Also, Socialism =/= Marxism. Mutualism is a great example of a socialist tendency outside of Marxism. You also can remove the inheritance of wealth and property.

Can you clarify the distinction private property where property happens to be held by workers, and worker-owned property? You're speaking of worker owned property as if it's a policy choice (an "alternative"), which means someone has to intervene to move the property from nonworkers to workers.

If you severely restrict ability to freely transfer property, it's unclear in what sense this is property at all. Socialism is permant worker ownership of means of production, isn't it?

[DinodudeEpic]

(Property means the means of production, just to be clear) You can say it's private property in that the government doesn't own it and the workers own it for profit. The economy would have democratic cooperatives that compete in the market. The workers themselves would run the factory.

Then again, removing inheritance is kinda useless in a society where the profits are evenly split among the workers of the cooperative.

So, it's just simply a combination of workers forming cooperatives, the political revolution abolishing the corporation like how slavery was abolished, and the workers striking their way into owning the factories. Pretty much economic democracy.

[Judicator]

(Property means the means of production, just to be clear) You can say it's private property in that the government doesn't own it and the workers own it for profit. The economy would have democratic cooperatives that compete in the market. The workers themselves would run the factory.

Then again, removing inheritance is kinda useless in a society where the profits are evenly split among the workers of the cooperative.

So, it's just simply a combination of workers forming cooperatives, the political revolution abolishing the corporation like how slavery was abolished, and the workers striking their way into owning the factories. Pretty much economic democracy.

In what sense do the workers own it? Would factories be like unlimited liability partnerships with each worker being a partner?

Since property is just means of production, what prevents rich bankers from holding cash and just loaning out 100% of the funds to workers purchase the factory, effectively owning the factory? The workers would own the factory, just like you own a house with a mortgage on it.

You might be able to abolish several important components of the corporation (namely the ability of a corporation to own things), but what would prevent worker cooperatives from being competed out of existence by, for example, partnerships of rich people?

[RGacky3]

In what sense do the workers own it? Would factories be like unlimited liability partnerships with each worker being a partner?


There are examples of this stuff already.


Since property is just means of production, what prevents rich bankers from holding cash and just loaning out 100% of the funds to workers purchase the factory, effectively owning the factory? The workers would own the factory, just like you own a house with a mortgage on it.


I'd say under socialism, (where you still have a limited market, and private property), the banks would be nationalized.


You might be able to abolish several important components of the corporation (namely the ability of a corporation to own things), but what would prevent worker cooperatives from being competed out of existence by, for example, partnerships of rich people?

For every argument you can make on what COULD go wrong under socialism, you have to make an argument why Capitalism handles it better.

BTW, I'm not on board with Dinodudes epic concept of socialism, I don't think it should be a for-profit economy.

[DinodudeEpic]

The workers would own the factory via creating a cooperative that makes it's decisions via the votes from the workers. There are already examples of this. Pretty much sharing the factory and profits democratically and equally.

A combination of banking regulations, and the workers seizing corporate-owned banks away solves the problem.

Who's going to make the stuff for the rich partnerships to sell? The workers? Not available. The rich? They would suck at manual labor, or are too lazy to do it. :laugh:

And, democratic Labor Unions would be there to help the workers even further.

[Judicator]

The workers would own the factory via creating a cooperative that makes it's decisions via the votes from the workers. There are already examples of this. Pretty much sharing the factory and profits democratically and equally.

A combination of banking regulations, and the workers seizing corporate-owned banks away solves the problem.

Who's going to make the stuff for the rich partnerships to sell? The workers? Not available. The rich? They would suck at manual labor, or are too lazy to do it. :laugh:

And, democratic Labor Unions would be there to help the workers even further.

What would cause workers at the factory to maintain equal share - why would this ownership situation be an equilibrium? Would you have to prohibit voluntary exchange of workers shares of a cooperative?

For a super profitable worker cooperative, just like any company, it would make sense to borrow money when the interest you pay is below the return you get from investing in your cooperative. At a minimum the rich (or workers in crappy cooperatives) would lend to those in commercially successful cooperatives.

[DinodudeEpic]

Each cooperative would have a constitution that makes sure that the money is distributed equally. The consitutions would also make sure the voting rights of the cooperatives would be guaranteed.

Of course, the government would not be doing this, but the worker cooperatives would make their constitutions. Of course, inventions would be patented and copyrights would profit those who are creative.

So, how does the rich make the money? They are merely redistributing it via the banking industry. They just can't make money unless they become workers.

And, worker cooperatives are going to lend and bank too like you said. With a vastly larger banking force when the workers own the banks, the banking industry would be ruled by worker cooperatives. Simple and easy, the bourgeois are few, the workers are many. Many beats few.

Note that this system is NOT utopian. There will be some problems, but it looks better then the old system of capitalism. It is not a perfect system, and there will never be a perfect system. Crime would still happen(Way less then capitalism), corruption will appear (Way less then capitalism.), some people would be richer then others via inventions, competition, and achievements. But, the point of socialism (My vision of it atleast.) is not equality of outcome and utopia, but rather improving equality of opportunity, and spreading liberty and equality to the workers.

[CHE with an AK]

The right-libertarian quasi-philosophy is like a jigsaw puzzle in which every word is redefined to jibe perfectly with some other word, again, arbitrarily redefined, in such a way as to produce an effect which is purely specious. It is an attempt to force reality into a mould dictated by purely verbal formulae with very little examination of fact.

It is built around a fallacy: the assumption that "only individuals exist". In reality, the family, the community, the nation, have an existence and a reality of their own, which transcends that of the individual. This is not an abstraction; it is a fact. How far would you get in farming if you said "There's no such thing as varieties of corn, only individual ears of corn"? "There is no such thing as breeds of cows, only individual Anguses, Holsteins, and Guernseys, etc."?

Right-libertarianism always ends the second their house catches on fire. Then it is time to call the "commie"-inspired fire department.

[CHE with an AK]

Plus, another fundamental fallacy of right libertarianism is that the state is the only source of coercive power. They don’t recognize that the corporations that control most economic resources, and therefore most people’s access to the necessities of life, have far more power than government to dictate our behavior and the day-to-day terms of our existence.

[Judicator]

Each cooperative would have a constitution that makes sure that the money is distributed equally. The consitutions would also make sure the voting rights of the cooperatives would be guaranteed.

Of course, the government would not be doing this, but the worker cooperatives would make their constitutions. Of course, inventions would be patented and copyrights would profit those who are creative.

So, how does the rich make the money? They are merely redistributing it via the banking industry. They just can't make money unless they become workers.

And, worker cooperatives are going to lend and bank too like you said. With a vastly larger banking force when the workers own the banks, the banking industry would be ruled by worker cooperatives. Simple and easy, the bourgeois are few, the workers are many. Many beats few.

So for a short time everyone would be capitalists, but what would stop capitalism from appearing spontaneously once a few people accumulate sufficient wealth? What would stop the least skilled workers from falling to the bottom, where they are now? Why wouldn't some cooperatives distribute money unequally to attract the best workers?

[RGacky3]

What would cause workers at the factory to maintain equal share - why would this ownership situation be an equilibrium? Would you have to prohibit voluntary exchange of workers shares of a cooperative?


Other peoples votes would cause that. What would prohibit you to sell your share? The fact that its not an "ownership" you can sell, if you work there, you have a vote, if you do not, you do not.

Can you sell your right to vote to someone in mexico?


For a super profitable worker cooperative, just like any company, it would make sense to borrow money when the interest you pay is below the return you get from investing in your cooperative. At a minimum the rich (or workers in crappy cooperatives) would lend to those in commercially successful cooperatives.

If banks are nationalized lending gets done based on what is better for everyone rather than what is "profitable." Also socialism should be a mostly non-profit economy.


So for a short time everyone would be capitalists, but what would stop capitalism from appearing spontaneously once a few people accumulate sufficient wealth? What would stop the least skilled workers from falling to the bottom, where they are now? Why wouldn't some cooperatives distribute money unequally to attract the best workers?

Capitalism actually takes a lot to maintain, it does'nt appear spontaneously.

What would prevent it is the fact that private property is subject to democratic control.

[Judicator]

Other peoples votes would cause that. What would prohibit you to sell your share? The fact that its not an "ownership" you can sell, if you work there, you have a vote, if you do not, you do not.

Can you sell your right to vote to someone in mexico?


Why would existing owners ever want to dilute their shares and voting power by allowing new people in as voters, rather than hiring them as wage laborers?



If banks are nationalized lending gets done based on what is better for everyone rather than what is "profitable." Also socialism should be a mostly non-profit economy.


Who decides what is "better for everyone?" Where are all of these benevolent bureaucrats you speak of? Claims like this are the reason Marxists/Socialists get attacked for being completely delusional about human nature.



Capitalism actually takes a lot to maintain, it does'nt appear spontaneously.

What would prevent it is the fact that private property is subject to democratic control.


What do you mean by "democratic control?" Would people make it illegal to compensate more skilled individuals more favorably?

[RGacky3]

Why would existing owners ever want to dilute their shares and voting power by allowing new people in as voters, rather than hiring them as wage laborers?


Because it benefits them to have more workers, you can work less, you can produce more (if its needed), and so on.


Who decides what is "better for everyone?" Where are all of these benevolent bureaucrats you speak of? Claims like this are the reason Marxists/Socialists get attacked for being completely delusional about human nature.


The people decide whats better for everyone, democratically.

I'll give you an example, the Norwegian Oil money as opposed to countries with privatized Oil, one benefits the people of the country, the other does not.

BTW, the US bureaucratic system is more corrupt BECAUSE its subject to market forces.


What do you mean by "democratic control?" Would people make it illegal to compensate more skilled individuals more favorably?

Why would they make it illigal? What part of democratic don't you get?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2191802]Because it benefits them to have more workers, you can work less, you can produce more (if its needed), and so on.

Since it is rational to have more workers if the demand increases, is it also rational to have fewer worker if demand decreases?

How does a socialist community remove no longer needed labor from a particular enterprise?





I'll give you an example, the Norwegian Oil money as opposed to countries with privatized Oil, one benefits the people of the country, the other does not.

Which is based entirely upon capitalist modes of production.




Why would they make it illigal? What part of democratic don't you get?

It seems to me that the questions of being asked rests upon the assumption that a democratic decision is by definition the correct and rational decision. SWhich is of course total nonsense.

In answer to the former (and to beat a dead horse from that earlier exchange elsewhere) the community can only offer to pay higher compensation for labor in more needed industries if those industries have higher value to the community than other industries. And the only to measure that is by the degree of "profit" (or "increased revenue" whichever term you wish to use) that industry accrues. And since that effort can lead to higher compensation, and more people working, it has to be concluded that the rational approach to production, which leads to offering higher compensation and requiring more workers, is to gear production for profit.
Certainly if the INDIVIDUAL prospective worker can seek out employment based upon what that particular is prepared to compensate, then the factory as a COLLECTIVE, can decide to base production upon what the community is prepared to give IT in return for its labor.

But we also know that such production justifications are disallowed to the socialist community. Hence the question asked. The answer of democracy doesn't answer it, since it doesn't measure the content of the decision, which after all, has to be the socialist decision.

[pluckedflowers]

A economy where voluntary exchange with profit occurs in an open market is called a Free Market Economy. Not Capitalism.


I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like an accurate representation of Marx's critique of Capitalism, at least not as I understand it. Marx actually grants, for the purpose of his argument in capital, the free market, or, in his own words: "a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm)

This is important because it makes Marx's critique far more damning for libertarians than you would have it. The exploitation and coercion of capitalism, for Marx, cannot be dismissed as a result of an insufficiently free market. Rather they are a necessary result of social relations organized on the basis of such a market.

[RGacky3]

Since it is rational to have more workers if the demand increases, is it also rational to have fewer worker if demand decreases?

How does a socialist community remove no longer needed labor from a particular enterprise?


For an individual capitalist enterprise, yes, because you save money, but it creates the systemic problem of further decreasing demand.

In a socialist community if demand decreases, you have 2 things you can do, either increase compensation to increase demand, or lower everyones hours.


Which is based entirely upon capitalist modes of production.


Point stays, its a non-profit, state owned company.


It seems to me that the questions of being asked rests upon the assumption that a democratic decision is by definition the correct and rational decision. SWhich is of course total nonsense.


Not all the time, but more often than not it will be a better decision for everyone than one made by a plutocracy.


But we also know that such production justifications are disallowed to the socialist community. Hence the question asked. The answer of democracy doesn't answer it, since it doesn't measure the content of the decision, which after all, has to be the socialist decision.

Why would they be disallowed? They may be, they may not be. Socialism does not mean equal compensation, it means democratic economy and worker contorlled industry.

BTW, the measure is not profit, nor is it necessarily increased revenue, if healthcare is free, you don't get increased revenue from increased usage, if they need more resources, they can petition the community for more, the same goes for other things, its not necessarily increased revenue, you can measure consumption.

Also its not ALWAYS gonna be how much its needed that determines compensation, probably education required will have something to do with it, probably the difficulty of the job will have something to do with it, and so on.

The democratic process has a much better imagination than you have.

[Baseball]

In a socialist community if demand decreases, you have 2 things you can do, either increase compensation to increase demand, or lower everyones hours.

Well, the demand for typewriters declined as demand for personal computers increased. Under your scenario, you would raise the compensation of the the typewriter people (why? If people prefer computers to typewriters what sense does it make to produce typewriters?).

Or you would simply have the typewriter work fewer hours. But the same objection as above exists here: What difference does it make if you are making typewriters more slowly, if the demand does not exist? And what about that labor, which may be more needed in other industries?



Why would they be disallowed?

Asked and answered.


They may be, they may not be. Socialism does not mean equal compensation, it means democratic economy and worker contorlled industry.

Understood. The workers can choose to compensate anyone as they wish; workers can refuse to work at compensation rates offered.
But then nothing has been solved; nothing has changed. Certainly not the social dynamics which socialism proposes to.


BTW, the measure is not profit, nor is it necessarily increased revenue, if healthcare is free, you don't get increased revenue from increased usage,

The health care folks, whose facilities are, after all, run by the workers who in turn need to compensate those workers, who may in turn refuse to work at compensation rates offerred...


if they need more resources, they can petition the community for more, the same goes for other things, its not necessarily increased revenue, you can measure consumption.

There has to be two sets of books: One which measures credits (compensation which comes in) and debits (costs which go out). Increasing compensation for workers falls under debit for production, under the theory that the resulting credits due to attracting that labor will exceed the debits. Yes?


Also its not ALWAYS gonna be how much its needed that determines compensation, probably education required will have something to do with it, probably the difficulty of the job will have something to do with it, and so on.

True enough. It happens in capitalist communities as well. But the problem for the socialist community in doing so has not been resolved.


The democratic process has a much better imagination than you have.

The only imagination I see thus far is simply the socialist community operating its functions based upon capitalism, refusing to examine what that means for the socialist project, and then claiming a major structural change.

[Klaatu]

Name the system advocated by DinodudeEpic whatever you want to, his is the system which I would support. I would also add that if there is one thing we have learned from capitalism, it is that size matters. That is to say, the larger the company/organization, the larger the chances of at least part of that organization becoming corrupt, human nature being what it is. For example, consider many modern and past companies that have cheated people, shipped good-paying jobs out of their host country, or have tried to seize political power.

My point is, we need worker-owned co-ops, but keep them relatively small and well-regulated, lest any one or group of people try to dominate or take over for themselves (when which we would be right back where we started from: corrupt capitalism!)

[RGacky3]

Well, the demand for typewriters declined as demand for personal computers increased. Under your scenario, you would raise the compensation of the the typewriter people (why? If people prefer computers to typewriters what sense does it make to produce typewriters?).


You know as well as I know that I'm talking macro, demand shifting does not mean demand decresing. If demand shifts then you shift production.

If we are talking the macro level we must stick to that.


Asked and answered.


No, it was not asked and answered, you were just making assumptions.


The workers can choose to compensate anyone as they wish; workers can refuse to work at compensation rates offered.
But then nothing has been solved; nothing has changed. Certainly not the social dynamics which socialism proposes to.


Yes, something has been solved, juts because something is still possible does'nt mean it has'nt been solved, whats been solved is economic dictatorship and neccessary wage slavery, might there be problems? Sure

But its a hell a lot better than Capitalism.


The health care folks, whose facilities are, after all, run by the workers who in turn need to compensate those workers, who may in turn refuse to work at compensation rates offerred...


Sure, but its much less likely for that to happen when you have a say in what goes on and you are part of the community.

I mean sure, crazy people can exist in socialism and kill people, but again, it is still better than capitalism.


There has to be two sets of books: One which measures credits (compensation which comes in) and debits (costs which go out). Increasing compensation for workers falls under debit for production, under the theory that the resulting credits due to attracting that labor will exceed the debits. Yes?


not necessarily, btw, "attracting labor" is not only about compensation, when you have a stable economy and a lack of poverty many different issues come into what people decide to do for work than compensation.


True enough. It happens in capitalist communities as well. But the problem for the socialist community in doing so has not been resolved.


In capitalist communities the only determination is profit, not social or human needs. Now of coarse SOME socia needs or human needs are taken into consideration, but only those which are profitable, or MORE profitable.


The only imagination I see thus far is simply the socialist community operating its functions based upon capitalism, refusing to examine what that means for the socialist project, and then claiming a major structural change.

You don't need an imagination, we actually have examples of socialsm working, better than Capitalism.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;2192823]You know as well as I know that I'm talking macro, demand shifting does not mean demand decresing. If demand shifts then you shift production.

If we are talking the macro level we must stick to that.

But it can.


N
o, it was not asked and answered, you were just making assumptions.

Based upon claims of what socialism proposes to do, what it proposes to solve ect.




Yes, something has been solved, juts because something is still possible does'nt mean it has'nt been solved, whats been solved is economic dictatorship and neccessary wage slavery, might there be problems? Sure

What has been solved? Compensation is still set by the factory, labor can accept it or not.



Sure, but its much less likely for that to happen when you have a say in what goes on and you are part of the community.

How so? The only way that can be true is if prospective worker at a factory, clinic, wherever, has a vote in how much that factory, that clinic will offer to compensate. Which can only work if those current workers do not have full control over their means of production.
Or, if the theory is that all workers in the community own all the means of production in the community, simultaneously (which is sometimes offered here, though I believe you have said your own opinion is that the workers only own those places where they actually work), which means both can control compensation offered and accepted (via a bureaucracy) but that would tend to undermine the solution of compensation adjustment to respond to changes in production requirements.



not necessarily, btw, "attracting labor" is not only about compensation, when you have a stable economy and a lack of poverty many different issues come into what people decide to do for work than compensation.

It seems here you are placing the cart before the horse. 'Everything will work fine because everything works fine.'



I
n capitalist communities the only determination is profit, not social or human needs. Now of coarse SOME socia needs or human needs are taken into consideration, but only those which are profitable, or MORE profitable.

Now we are back to that old canard.

[RGacky3]

But it can.


yes, it can shift production if it needs to.


Based upon claims of what socialism proposes to do, what it proposes to solve ect.


What it proposes to do is to give everyone a say in the economy and give workers control of their work places.


What has been solved? Compensation is still set by the factory, labor can accept it or not.


What has been sold is that now everyone has a say in the economy and workers have a say in their workplaces.


How so? The only way that can be true is if prospective worker at a factory, clinic, wherever, has a vote in how much that factory, that clinic will offer to compensate. Which can only work if those current workers do not have full control over their means of production.
Or, if the theory is that all workers in the community own all the means of production in the community, simultaneously (which is sometimes offered here, though I believe you have said your own opinion is that the workers only own those places where they actually work), which means both can control compensation offered and accepted (via a bureaucracy) but that would tend to undermine the solution of compensation adjustment to respond to changes in production requirements.


As I said before, the community decides how much a factory gets, based on the demand, and the factory decides how that is used.

Its pretty simple, btw, if this is such a stump to socialism, why is it that in every example of socialism that this did'nt happen?


It seems here you are placing the cart before the horse. 'Everything will work fine because everything works fine.'


No I'm not, I'm saying that since there is A, a non profit economy, and B, everyone has a say in it, you won't have the same sort of desperation you have under capitalism.

There are many different factors that go into decisions.


Now we are back to that old canard.

How about we go back to the canard you NEVER address.

HOW IS CAPITALISM BETTER?
WHY HAVE THESE PROBLEMS NEVER HAPPENED?

[Baseball]

What it proposes to do is to give everyone a say in the economy and give workers control of their work places.

Except that you have not shown this. You have said that is socialisms' objective.




What has been sold is that now everyone has a say in the economy and workers have a say in their workplaces.

The dead horse reappears. Yes, the workers can decide X; nobody else outside the factory has to agree.




As I said before, the community decides how much a factory gets, based on the demand, and the factory decides how that is used.

Yes. Which means the workers of the factory do not control their means of production. Their decisions are based upon what the community allows, for its own purposes.



No I'm not, I'm saying that since there is A, a non profit economy, and B, everyone has a say in it, you won't have the same sort of desperation you have under capitalism.

The cart before the horse.

[RGacky3]

Except that you have not shown this. You have said that is socialisms' objective.


Yes I did, re-read the posts.


The dead horse reappears. Yes, the workers can decide X; nobody else outside the factory has to agree.


What your fighting on is the possible disagreements between the community and a single industry, and deciding, that because some are possible, that it clearly cannot work, that is rediculous.


Yes. Which means the workers of the factory do not control their means of production. Their decisions are based upon what the community allows, for its own purposes.


Overall, they do, overall the workers of society have control over the means of production.


The cart before the horse.

Well show me why I'm wrong.

And again, stop ingoring this:

HOW IS CAPITALISM BETTER?
WHY HAVE THESE PROBLEMS NEVER HAPPENED?

[DinodudeEpic]

I propose the worker's control of the factory and cooperative. Not the whole community. Competition helps progress humanity, it's that the competition should be for who does the most for humanity. Democracy makes sure that the government takes the people into account, and it allows more innovation.

The autocrats argued against political democracy back then. Saying that the people can't rule their country. Now, the capitalists argued against economic democracy. Saying that the workers can't run their factories.

I have yet to hear why economic oligarchy(Capitalism) is better then economic democracy?(Socialism) All I heard is that Socialism is not perfect, and just cause of that, it will revert to capitalism. This is where economic regulations come in to make sure the market stays competitive and worker-controlled.

The original reason for this thread is one question, why have an market controlled by oligarchs when you can have an market controlled democratically by workers? A democratically controlled market has more freedom, which is what 'libertarians' are supposed to protect. Also, wouldn't corporations be coercion, since they force their workers to do things for them?

[trivas7]

I
The original reason for this thread is one question, why have an market controlled by oligarchs when you can have an market controlled democratically by workers? A democratically controlled market has more freedom, which is what 'libertarians' are supposed to protect. Also, wouldn't corporations be coercion, since they force their workers to do things for them?
What do you mean by "controlled"? Markets serve the purposes of the capitalist class, a democratically controlled market is an oxymoron.

[Baseball]

Now, the capitalists argued against economic democracy. Saying that the workers can't run their factories.

The original reason for this thread is one question, why have an market controlled by oligarchs when you can have an market controlled democratically by workers? A democratically controlled market has more freedom, which is what 'libertarians' are supposed to protect. Also, wouldn't corporations be coercion, since they force their workers to do things for them?

The argument is not that workers cannot run their factories, The argument is whether those things which socialism requires is the best way to run the factories.

And why would one expect that workers in a factory in a particular factory would not be forced, in some manner, to do their job

[RGacky3]

The real question is whether Capitalism is a better alternative, which you refuse to address.

[Svoboda]

'Right' libertarianism, which some restricted members follow, wants to free the markets from the supposed socialist-government threat. The problem with such an idea is that most of them don't know what socialism is. It is not government ownership of the means of production/no free markets, it is the WORKER'S control of the means of production. It has nothing to do with whether markets exist or not, nor government ownership.

Capitalism does not mean free markets, the term was actually used first by Marx as 'Bourgeois control of the means of production'. So, the capitalism Americans love and worship actually means not free markets, but bourgeois control of the economy.

A economy where voluntary exchange with profit occurs in an open market is called a Free Market Economy. Not Capitalism. So, you can have an economy where the markets are open and competitive, but the workers own the means of production via cooperatives. Or, have labor unions serve as democratic representation of the workers against the corporations in a free market economy.

As for the 'right' libertarian's place on the political spectrum, they are not right-wing. They are either syncretic, are left-wing classical liberals that were common in the 19th century, or are just paleoconservatives with a fancy name.

(I know that this is more of a rant then anything, so sorry if I annoyed anybody.)
A true capitalist's definition of Capitalism is free markets, which most socialists have no conception of what it really is.

Bourgeois Right Libertarians follow what they do because it best serves their class interest.
Not true, if you read or listen to Rothbard, Hayek or other Austrians they frequently talk of how the state essentially creates corporatism which creates inequality and gives power to the few. Rothbard and most Austrians despised Regan because he never presented the coveted free market he advertised; instead he only furthered corporatism.

Of course, 'right' libertarians want private property, but most of them only see government owned property as the alternative. When you actually can have worker-owned property. (Note that there are various right libertarians who just simply don't understand political science, and are actually are right-wing pseudo-conservatives who want power for the corporations.)

Also, Socialism =/= Marxism. Mutualism is a great example of a socialist tendency outside of Marxism. You also can remove the inheritance of wealth and property.
I don't understand why right libertarians don't understand political science.

The workers would own the factory via creating a cooperative that makes it's decisions via the votes from the workers. There are already examples of this. Pretty much sharing the factory and profits democratically and equally.

A combination of banking regulations, and the workers seizing corporate-owned banks away solves the problem.

Who's going to make the stuff for the rich partnerships to sell? The workers? Not available. The rich? They would suck at manual labor, or are too lazy to do it. :laugh:

And, democratic Labor Unions would be there to help the workers even further.
In an anarchist state there should be no rules to how all of society should be run in doing so it would directly contradict the state of anarchy. I hope what you advocate are just guidelines. I think the correct way to approach anarchy is without hyphens, which Karl Hess explains well in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSR3DlzNNUc.

Plus, another fundamental fallacy of right libertarianism is that the state is the only source of coercive power. They don’t recognize that the corporations that control most economic resources, and therefore most people’s access to the necessities of life, have far more power than government to dictate our behavior and the day-to-day terms of our existence.
I do agree that this is the ultimate fallacy except it should be elaborated further, as I feel Capitalism cannot exist without some sort of central body that the interests of the few are met against the many.


My point is, we need worker-owned co-ops, but keep them relatively small and well-regulated, lest any one or group of people try to dominate or take over for themselves (when which we would be right back where we started from: corrupt capitalism!)
How can you keep them regulated without nepotism, corruption or inefficiency?

[RGacky3]

A true capitalist's definition of Capitalism is free markets, which most socialists have no conception of what it really is.

Thats not and never was the definition of Capitalism, there have always been markets.

capitalism is private capitalist property, wage labor, market systems and a for profit economy.


Not true, if you read or listen to Rothbard, Hayek or other Austrians they frequently talk of how the state essentially creates corporatism which creates inequality and gives power to the few. Rothbard and most Austrians despised Regan because he never presented the coveted free market he advertised; instead he only furthered corporatism.


Corporatism is the natural outcome of Capitalism, you can't have capitalism with out state protection, out from that necessarily comes corporatism, it always has and always will happen that way.


In an anarchist state there should be no rules to how all of society should be run in doing so it would directly contradict the state of anarchy. I hope what you advocate are just guidelines. I think the correct way to approach anarchy is without hyphens, which Karl Hess explains well in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSR3DlzNNUc (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSR3DlzNNUc).


Anarchism is not a system of governance, its a philosophy that says no authority is valid unless justified as absolutely neccessary.


How can you keep them regulated without nepotism, corruption or inefficiency?

Well, you might have some, but you'll have a lot less than in Capitalism.