Debate with an AnCap: monopolization and accumulation of capital

[Questionable]

So I was debating with an anarcho-capitalist. It started out as us discussing Marx's theory of alienation, then moved on to small businesses. The AnCap was complaining about how people were too afraid to take the risk of starting their own business, and I countered that they rightfully should be considering that accumulation of capital and monopolies would crush their small businesses. He countered with:

"The trend of history is against you on this one. Credit is generally cheaper now than at any point in human history, and the costs and risks of starting a company are far less now than ever before. Look at all the recent giant tech companies - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. None of those required almost any capital to start at all, and within a very short span of time they have exploded in size. It's never been easier to self-employ, and I see no reason that that trend won't continue."


My own ignorance puts me at a disadvantage here. I really don't know the inner-workings of credit, nor the histories behind the companies that he listed. It seems like the cheapness of credit could be explained by Marx's fall in the rate of profit, but I could be wrong about that. Could some more economic-savvy users help me out here?

[campesino]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
eduardo saverin makes an initial investment, peter thiel makes a a 500,000 dollar investment.
you always need capital to start and grow a business.

my view is that an-capitalism is feudalism

the old nobility of feudal times had power because they held the land and wealth, well today and in an-capitalism those who have the power are the ones with land and wealth. the state(I lean anarcho-communism) with all it's faults has given the masses an instrument to restrain the elite. with the state gone, or diminished the elite will have nothing holding them back from, buying all the means of production and viciously removing any competition. The goal of all capitalistis to make a profit, and with a state removed, a profit can now be made on things that were once free, and the liberties of people will now come with a price.

big business cartels and being charged for everything, your freedom being decided by which family you were born into.
what a glorious an-cap world


this is the reason the right-wing is so anti-government and promotes cynicism about the government. to separate the people from the one thing that they have a voice in and can restrain the capitalist, to lead to the eventual privatization of everything. this is the meaning of "small-government"

the right-wing strategy is to rile up the crazy right-wing and create political apathy amongst everyone else.

[Questionable]

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on the feudalism thing. I even described anarcho-capitalism as neo-feudalism to my opponent. However, right now I need to engage him on his own economic terms in order to prove that capitalism isn't this free-for-all where anyone can start their own business, which is what he's been claiming it is.

[Revolution starts with U]

The supposed $7 investments into Microsoft are not what allowed it to start making PC's. Bill Gates making and distributing Windows is one thing. Microsoft exploiting cheap labor in China is a whole other matter.

2) (Who needs a 1?) Where would windows be without the massive state investments into the internet, and the subsidy and regulation of the telephone networks (remember when everything was dial up? I do not miss that annoying electronic "music.")?
Not to mention that we do not live in an-capistan. The US has been a pretty highly regulated economy, even from the very beginning. It's just the pro-poor people regulations that got right wingers up in arms.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I don't understand what he is trying to argue. Even if it were true that anyone can start a new business as they please, it doesn't change the fact that capital centralizes and eventually leads to monopoly. Thus having the larger more aggressive business swallow up the smaller businesses.

I mean you can see it happen every day all over the world, small "mom and pop" shops getting utterly destroyed by larger companies. Also, the same little "mom and pop" store would do the same to a smaller competitor, because the entire goal is profit.

[Questionable]

Okay, I checked back in and I've gotten a couple new responses, which I'm going to need some help with, if you guys don't mind.

The first was on the issue of monopolization/accumulation again:


There has been tones of research on this and it is just not true by any findings (look at stigler, kirzner, coase or any other economist that has study competition). There are hardly any longstanding monopolys (as long as a king or government didn't grant it).
Its really funny how people allways say that put nobody ever show any data on this. The economy had hunders of years now and there is still absolutly not the case. The only thing that gets bigger and bigger are governments and there has btw been lots of research that show that governments often help cooperation to stay where there are (regulatory capture, tax code holes ....).
Im from Switzerland and we are quite free market and we acctually do have a huga amount of firms that are 50 people or less (KMUs), you shuld tell them that they are all doomed, I dont think they wouldn't agree.
I think the big thing here is the media the only talk about the couple of fims that grow and grow (like wallmart) and not all the bigfirms that are collapsing and all the small firms that get started.
So I think my question is not out of line if I ask, do you have ANY data to show that this is true? If you do have some empirical findings please publish them, there are tons of economist and lobbyists that would jump on that and probably give you a noble price too. You could writte a colume in the NYT together with krugman.
If you don't and you are just repeating 'common wisdom' off socialists please reconsider your statment.


I'm really not sure how to respond to this. He's denying what seems like an obvious fact until he's given numerical proof, so does anyone have some to offer? Additionally there was this:



You cannot use experiences form our social-democratic society as examples of "capitalism".
Since there has never been a truly capitalistic or truly communist societies, nor do they exist today we can only compare two societies, one that is closer to capitalism (e.g. US) and one that is more communistic (e.g. Cuba). Both of these are of course not even close to ideal implementation of the said ideologies, but these are firmly on the opposite spectrum of Communist - Capitalist axis.
How much alienated do you think a lowest paid worked feels form the richest in each of these countries? How many rags to riches stories can you remember in last 50 years in each of these countries? How much hope do you have for ever becoming one of the richest in each of these?
That should give you an answer which ideology alienates labour more.


To which I answered:



This is an intellectual dead end. You cannot simply handwave anything away as "Not real capitalism" any more than I can handwave away anything as "Not real communism." It answers nothing.
The problem with capitalism, and the problem with the way anarcho-capitalists and the like approach it, is that the bad things are a part of capitalism, not something you can remove. Whereas the common criticisms towards certain forms of Marxist socialism aren't an inherent part of the system and can therefore be handled differently, leftists criticize things that are inherent within capitalism, such as the division between capital and labor, alienation, and a coercive state. This is why all this talk of removing the state and creating "pure" capitalism is nothing more than a utopian call for neo-feudalism (With a return to its warlords and kings, only in the form of "private defense" contractors and corporations).
That being said, you still miss the point by believing the capitalist misconception that "getting rich" is all that matters in life, but I'll address your question anyway. People spend their entire lives working for corporations in America and die poor. Is that really better, in your eyes, than working for a state that at least has its people's interests in its goals? Maybe my labor would have been alienated in Cuba or the USSR, but at least I had the comfort of knowing that I had free education, free housing, free healthcare, and a host of other social safeties, so my labor would have been coming back to me much more directly than receiving a salary and then being left on my own.
We're obsessed with getting rich in a capitalist society because without money, we literally cannot exist. In a socialist society, the problem is moot because the benefits of society exist for everyone.


I can probably handle the Cuba vs. USA guy, but it's the one demanding numeral proof of monopolization that perplexes me. Can I get some concrete statistics so I can satisfy him?

[Tim Finnegan]

It's kind of bizarre that he's invoking Microsoft and Google as an argument against the inevitability of monopoly, given that the very march of success he celebrates was a march towards monopoly (or, at least, the lion's share of oligopoly)...

Anyhoo, the simple answer is that the availability of credit has absolutely no bearing on the prospects of a small business. If anything, the opposite: that credit is easily available to small businesses because their prospects are so bad that big finance has to sweeten the deal to have anyone take them up on it to at all.

The fact that he has not coherent structural explanation for the decline of the petty-proprietor, and must instead resort to claiming that millions of people simply happen to have bad attitude, tends to suggest that he doesn't have a clue what he's on about.



Edit: Missed Questionable's last post. In response to that post, then...

He doesn't know what "alienation" means, in this context. He seems to think it means "feelin' kinda bummed out", which: no. Direct him to the appropriate Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation) (not perfect, but a start), and see if any of it filters through.

He doesn't know what "capitalism" means, in this context. He seems to think it refers to voluntary market exchange as such, and that any society in which these exchanges are hampered by non-market activities (which is to say, any human society) can be described as "not really capitalist". Contrary to this, we use "capitalism" to describe a society in which productive relations are mediated by exchange values (and therefore by capital), regardless of whether these relations take the form of voluntary exchanges. His usage is ideal, capitalism-as-transcendent-principle, ours is historical, capitalism-as-concrete-activity.

He doesn't know what "communism" means, in this context. He seems to think it is an ideology, a set of ideals which are enacted through the medium of the state, but "communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things".

He may disagree with us on each of these points, and he's within his rights to do so, but he can't expect to engage with our critique of capitalism if he begins by denying that it actually exists.

[Questionable]

This whole deal with AnCaps have such totally different concepts of economic reality gets really confusing at times. It's like discussing physics with an alien being from another dimension. There are too many arguments that just go like, "No, this economic concept doesn't exist, sorry."

[Revolution starts with U]

Well at first I was going to point out that the first and second quotes are obvious contradictions. Then I was going to point out the state monopoly capitalist model in which Cuba mostly finds itself... but alas, they are from different people.

Either way, I'm not big on economic data, nor economics really (I find the whole language confusing... weird coming from an amateur physics buff but w/e) but I've been reading this lately, and it's good on debunking economics. might help:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC1.html

[Jimmie Higgins]

So I was debating with an anarcho-capitalist. It started out as us discussing Marx's theory of alienation, then moved on to small businesses. The AnCap was complaining about how people were too afraid to take the risk of starting their own business, and I countered that they rightfully should be considering that accumulation of capital and monopolies would crush their small businesses. He countered with:

"The trend of history is against you on this one. Credit is generally cheaper now than at any point in human history, and the costs and risks of starting a company are far less now than ever before. Look at all the recent giant tech companies - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. None of those required almost any capital to start at all, and within a very short span of time they have exploded in size. It's never been easier to self-employ, and I see no reason that that trend won't continue."

Well then there's always facts:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/08/an-international-comparison-of-small-business-employment.html
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/selfemployment.png

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Okay, I checked back in and I've gotten a couple new responses, which I'm going to need some help with, if you guys don't mind.

The first was on the issue of monopolization/accumulation again:



I'm really not sure how to respond to this. He's denying what seems like an obvious fact until he's given numerical proof, so does anyone have some to offer? Additionally there was this:



To which I answered:



I can probably handle the Cuba vs. USA guy, but it's the one demanding numeral proof of monopolization that perplexes me. Can I get some concrete statistics so I can satisfy him?

The Workd Bank Statistic 2010 stated that 500 Corporations and richest individuals control 52% of all the world's wealth. It' astounding the rate of monopolisation that we are seeing as capital is running out of breathing space; The german car company BMW just two years ago tried to make a deal with the Owners of VW to "buy them out", but the board of directors and major shareholders of VW ended up bribing the owners of BMW and bought them out. And as if the conjunction of Germany's two biggest car company's was not enough, I yesterday read in the Financial Times Deutschland that VW are starting to conjoin with the biggest truck company monopoly of Germany, MAN. We are outgrowing feudal wealth inequality already by a long way.

[campesino]

I can barely understand the an-caps post, what is his point? sure wal-mart competes with k-mart, but can a small business owner compete with either. success, begets profits, which are used to expand and lower costs, a well-established corporation has the ability to manipulate prices, because of it has more profits and can sell at a loss for a brief time, until the competition disappears. A small store has has no profits, and attains capital through credit which can only be attained by having high profits and little debt, something a small business does not have when starting out. After the small business owner exhaust his line of credit, he will go under, while the more established business can continue a price war longer due to its larger reserves of capital and higher credit limit based on its history of revenue and credit worthiness.

[Questionable]

The Workd Bank Statistic 2010 stated that 500 Corporations and richest individuals control 52% of all the world's wealth. It' astounding the rate of monopolisation that we are seeing as capital is running out of breathing space; The german car company BMW just two years ago tried to make a deal with the Owners of VW to "buy them out", but the board of directors and major shareholders of VW ended up bribing the owners of BMW and bought them out. And as if the conjunction of Germany's two biggest car company's was not enough, I yesterday read in the Financial Times Deutschland that VW are starting to conjoin with the biggest truck company monopoly of Germany, MAN. We are outgrowing feudal wealth inequality already by a long way.

Can you give me a link to the exact article that stated those statistics, or at least some form of reference? Thanks.

The AnCaps on this particular website are pretty goddamn disorganized. It's a battle against strawmen and hypotheticals. The only way I'm going to be able to cut through the bullshit is by showing how flawed their own economic system really is with cold hard facts, and numbers don't lie.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Can you give me a link to the exact article that stated those statistics, or at least some form of reference? Thanks.

The AnCaps on this particular website are pretty goddamn disorganized. It's a battle against strawmen and hypotheticals. The only way I'm going to be able to cut through the bullshit is by showing how flawed their own economic system really is with cold hard facts, and numbers don't lie.

Well, the VW story with BMW was in all the german press a few years ago (no real source, just general knowledge), the World Banks Statistics report 2010, and i read about VW and MAN conjoining two days ago in a (watch out!) physical newspaper Financial Times Deutschland!

[Questionable]

You guys have been awesome help so far, but I have a few more questions.

Ancap 1:

I think some aspects of Marxism are assimilated into modern capitalism.
For example, employees are no more paid in just wages, but are also given bonuses and stocks and bonds of the company. Therefore, they aren't "fixed wage" workers, but rather share the profit of the company.
Secondly, modern industries don't have a division between "owner" and "worker". As employees move up the promotion chain, they get to make more important decisions, the company itself governed by a board of multiple stakeholders as opposed to autocratic whims of an "owner".Response:


Then you have a misunderstanding of what Marxism is. It is not a set of ideals, it's an analytical tool.
This does not refute the objective dominance of capital. No matter how much bonuses and bonds may seem to blur the line between bourgeois and proletariat, there is still a class of people who could not live without working using the means of production that someone else owns. It doesn't matter of it's one man or ten men or a thousand men who own the company. In the end, exchange-value is still dominating society.Ancap 2:

"But Zuckerberg was still able to get it, wasn't he? If people with good ideas get together with people who are willing to take monetary risks, and together they create insane amount of wealth, the system is working IMO.Cheap credit enables people with no capital to access enough to pursue their goals. Low interest rates are objectively a good thing for people who are not already wealthy."
Response:




Don't forget a certain amount of luck to go with it. And besides, the wealth they created was finite and only fits into the framework of capitalism. If the people of America all decided to start their own business tomorrow, the system would quickly break. And let's not even forget the countless unsung failures that have occurred when people tried to start their own business. The success of Zuckerberg does not by any means show that the system is working, especially when statistics show that small business ownership is falling in vast amounts.

The availability of credit shows us nothing about the prospects of business. As I said before, if anything it means that capitalists are trying more desperately to sell in times of bad business.Tips, criticisms, etc? I know it's a huge wall of text and I'm sorry, but I just want to make sure I'm on the right path here.

[Lokomotive293]

I thought this one was pretty good:

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/397006_210283339069245_302263367_n.jpg

[Peoples' War]

I wonder if the ancap can answer this:

With everyone self employed, making money and happy...who works at gas stations, walmarts, costco, etc?

[Questionable]

Okay, I was handling myself pretty well, but now we're back to the Microsoft thing and I've hit another wall:


Microsoft is a software firm and almost all of its employees make pretty good money. Microsoft did benefit indirectly from the rise of the computer industry, but high-tech industries like that were not able to take advantage of cheap Chinese and Indian labor until very recently, relying instead on relatively well-paid manufacturers in Japan, Taiwan, and the US.This was in response to me saying that cheap surplus-labor was essential to Microsoft's success. I don't know enough about Microsoft and the computer industry to provide a good counter right now, so...help?

[Prinskaj]

Microsoft is a software firm and almost all of its employees make pretty good money. Microsoft did benefit indirectly from the rise of the computer industry, but high-tech industries like that were not able to take advantage of cheap Chinese and Indian labor until very recently, relying instead on relatively well-paid manufacturers in Japan, Taiwan, and the US.
Exploitation of labour is not limited to "cheap third world labour". The programmer and the engineer is being exploited just as much as the weaver and the factory worker. Exploitation is merely the act of the capitalist taking the fruits of ones labour, and giving the worker a token reward instead, which does not amount to the value that he/she has created.

[Strannik]

Perhaps software is a bit of a special case as a whole. It was a young industry that was born into advanced capitalism.

In essence, software originally made technology of complex calculations usable for general, non-specialized population. The product did not require mass effort to produce, you just had to write down some algorithms and replicate them automatically as much as necessary. So originally and in some rare cases still - original software workers were more similar to handicrafters. They used to be "small proprietors that milked their brain". Their higher wages meant they took advantage of the increased exploitation in other industries, made possible by software they created.

However, the general trend in this industry, as everywhere else, has been a sharp decline towards standardized programming languages and code monkeys. Generally each new language requires less effort to learn and also, infoworkers are competing globally for lowest wages. But this has happened so fast, that often they haven't even realized their changed situation yet :)

[Raúl Duke]

the costs and risks of starting a company are far less now than ever before.

I don't see this as being true...businesses still had a risk factor that is pretty high. At best, it was 50/50.


Look at all the recent giant tech companies - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. None of those required almost any capital to start at all, and within a very short span of time they have exploded in size.

WRONG
As stated earlier and even depicted in a goddamn movie...FB needed start-up capital investment to get rolling.

[Questionable]

Okay, I'm losing my goddamn patience with these guys.



Nothing is keeping you from not owning a means of production. In modern capitalism means of production can be obtained very cheaply. A musical instrument is a means of production. a Yo-yo is a means of production. As you can use it to turn a Profit. I know because I did it. Not with the Yo-Yo, but a musical instrument. If you are good you can make about 50 bucks a day. Just sitting in the street playing with the case open. You can afford housing, food, and even some luxuries on that. All without being a slave to anyone else for means of production. Having a steady soul sucking job has made me happier than that. As the luxuries I have been able to afford have increased. That is the benefit of my labor.
I have a lot of problems with Marxism. It probably made a lot more sense in the 1800s when means of production were not as cheap as they are now. Even people on welfare have the capabilities of owning a means of production. All they need is an idea of how to make that means of production, make them capital.
What the fuck do I even say to this? This is one of those moments where I've read something so stupid that I can't even formulate a counter-argument.

[Positivist]

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I'd reccommend that you start looking into credit first of all as even though I am generally unfamiliar with its workings, I am fairly certain that it has negative consequences. And on that ridiculous point about purchasing an instrument and sustaining your lifestyle through it's use I don't even know. Maybe it would help to set up a chart that includes real daily expenses (3 meals etc.) And demonstrate how it easily exceeds $50.00 if you combine it with the necessity of covering rent and bills.

[campesino]

Okay, I'm losing my goddamn patience with these guys.


What the fuck do I even say to this? This is one of those moments where I've read something so stupid that I can't even formulate a counter-argument.

all they need is capital and connections, something you can't have and still qualify to be on welfare. Face it you are arguing with a bunch of close-minded children. They need to feel oppressed by capitalism, to turn against it. the best we can do is saddle them with huge amount of student loan debt, with a degree from a for profit institute and stick 'em in a dead end job. then they will change their minds. these people are a product of the capitalist environment, that says your special and above average and anyone who is poor, it is their fault, they grow up to be closet-racist, selfish, unable to feel sympathy, thinking they are capable of becoming rich and successful. some wake up after their experience, others just entrench themselves more into their ideology, based on the constant scare tactics the right uses to keep its members in-line.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'd advise to stop looking at micro economics and try and turn the conversation towards macro economics. Yeah you might be able to get a guitar and get 50 a day playing songs on the street(but who can live comfortably on 50 a day as he says) but you can't do that unless there are people walking by that have money to give to you. You may be able to get some capital and become some mega rich asshole but that doesn't negate the need for a proletarian class in the capitalist system. It doesn't really matter if you the individual may be able to succeed in this capitalist world, the majority are destined to be proles/petty-bourgeois.

[Questionable]

Okay, we're going back down the digital/software path again:

Well, that's more or less what's happening on the internet. As programmers and the like get laid off, they move off into freelancing, and eventually end up building something over their own. I know literally hundreds of people who have done this(I've been in the start-up space for years). You were implying that financial donations and the like are a requirement, when the reality is that bootstrapped start-ups are much more common than the Zuckerberg variety. "Most" people aren't. But "a lot" are, and many, many more are capable. There's many things you can do with not much cash if the government doesn't stop you. There's not a single solution for everyone, but there's some solution out there for most people.

[Rafiq]

So I was debating with an anarcho-capitalist. It started out as us discussing Marx's theory of alienation, then moved on to small businesses. The AnCap was complaining about how people were too afraid to take the risk of starting their own business, and I countered that they rightfully should be considering that accumulation of capital and monopolies would crush their small businesses. He countered with:


"The trend of history is against you on this one. Credit is generally cheaper now than at any point in human history,

It's exclusive to capitalism.


and the costs and risks of starting a company are far less now than ever before.

The chances of a successful buisness, even if this was true, are pretty fucking slim.


Look at all the recent giant tech companies - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. None of those required almost any capital to start at all,

The problem here resides with the fact that the only reason people deem these companies significant is because they got lucky. If most businesses did what they did, no one would give a shit about them.

People consider these companies giants. But they're nothing in comparison to massive banks, oil companies, and the very same fucking companies giving Apple, Microsoft (Facebook, google too) the resources and metals necessary to build computers.


and within a very short span of time they have exploded in size.

How many other companies can do this in comparison to the companies that don't? Let's see the ratio.


It's never been easier to self-employ, and I see no reason that that trend won't continue."


The petite bourgeois nature of this shit head is so blatantly obvious. Self employed automatically signifies employer, as we don't live in Feudalism anymore. And without employees, you're not shit. If anyone could fucking start a successful buisness, they would. Fact of the matter is that unless you can afford a good college (See: Facebook) or get lucky somehow and steal your buddies inventions (See: Steve Jobs), or, came from a fairly wealthy company (See: Bill gates and Microsoft) you're not getting anywhere.

And you know what, with all of that moral bullshit aside, he still doesn't account for the systemic contradictions within the capitalist mode of production that will exist regardless of the "Will" of individuals See: Falling rate of profit, crises, and all that good stuff.

I hate free market scum. The fact he blames the situation on choice ("People don't want to start businesses!") is extremely idiotic. The point is this: Why do we live in a system in which starting a business is exclusive to only some? What systemic conditions necessitated it so people don't have the "Will" to do as you want? Will you blame the state? Regulation? And it's been proven that without these things, your beloved capitalism rots into a mega pile of rotting shit.


My own ignorance puts me at a disadvantage here. I really don't know the inner-workings of credit, nor the histories behind the companies that he listed.

No problems, friend.


It seems like the cheapness of credit could be explained by Marx's fall in the rate of profit, but I could be wrong about that.

Marx could be of great help to you in this regards, no doubt.


Could some more economic-savvy users help me out here?


I don't fall into this category, unfortunately.

[Rafiq]

I wouldn't attempt to debate ancaps in mass numbers by yourself. Perhaps, if this is some kid of forum, I can temporarily make an account and help you out'?

[Questionable]

I wouldn't attempt to debate ancaps in mass numbers by yourself. Perhaps, if this is some kid of forum, I can temporarily make an account and help you out'?

It's reddit.com. I would fucking love it if you helped me out. You can register easily without even using an email. Here's the thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/

I'm pretty much at the end of my rope here. The discussion is veering off into territory that I'm not very familiar with at all, some more in-depth economics, and some of these guys own actual businesses so I'm a bit outmatched. Help would be appreciated.

[Rafiq]

I'm no fan of reddit, but since I want to help you out, I'll join in soon.

[Questionable]

I'm no fan of reddit, but since I want to help you out, I'll join in soon.

I hate it too. There's a communist subreddit I like to frequent, that's the only reason I go there. I've pretty much been stuck in this argument because I don't want to let the fuckers think they've beaten me, but my knowledge of Marxian economics is beginning to stretch thin.

The discussion has been going for a while, but the current comment trend is:
http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/c53m140

And

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/c53oyvi

They're pretty much both petite-bourgeois who are trying to convince me that anybody can start their own business and get rich.

EDIT: http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/c53pz3f?context=3 There's also this, which is a big argument with the same guy over whether the black market in Soviet Russia proves that capitalism is superior to socialism.

I obviously don't expect you to respond to every single one if you don't, but I'm at a dead end and any help is appreciated at this point.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Wtf is this guys point about one industry that may have easier entry into it than others when it comes to how much initial capital you would have to invest? Like really ask him what this is supposed to prove? Because all he's proven is some industries take less capital investment to start up something. Which is a no brainer which doesn't actually disprove any critique of capitalism that Marx or any other learned anti-capitalist would make.

[Questionable]

Wtf is this guys point about one industry that may have easier entry into it than others when it comes to how much initial capital you would have to invest? Like really ask him what this is supposed to prove? Because all he's proven is some industries take less capital investment to start up something. Which is a no brainer which doesn't actually disprove any critique of capitalism that Marx or any other learned anti-capitalist would make.

I would encourage you to ask him yourself. Not because I'm some kind of smartass, but because I'm currently engaged in four separate debates with three separate people, and I don't think I'm handling any of them very well.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I would encourage you to ask him yourself. Not because I'm some kind of smartass, but because I'm currently engaged in four separate debates with three separate people, and I don't think I'm handling any of them very well.

Okay I am.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Just insulted him pretty badly, don't know if I should have but he was being a prick.
http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/c53oyvi

[Questionable]

Just insulted him pretty badly, don't know if I should have but he was being a prick.
http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/c53oyvi

Maybe you were being a prick, but I certainly enjoyed it.

I'm pretty much done with that discussion. I'm only down to one guy now who's still trying to defend the idealistic conception that capitalism is nothing more than voluntary exchange. No commodity production, no capital accumulation, no division of labor. Once he gives up, I'll be done with that wretched place.

I'd like to thank everyone who helped me during this discussion, though. I learned a lot. Couldn't have done it without you, comrades.

[Rafiq]

I'll be joining tonight. I won't promise to play nice, either.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Tim Finnegan]

None of the fluffy, reconciliatory Rafiq that we know and love?

[Thirsty Crow]

Okay, I'm losing my goddamn patience with these guys.


What the fuck do I even say to this? This is one of those moments where I've read something so stupid that I can't even formulate a counter-argument.
First of all, anecdotal "evidence" doesn't actually constitute evidence. It's a matter of trust whether you'll accept your opponent's word that s/he made 50 dollars a day when playing in the street. But still, it would be interesting to calculate the costs of living in certain parts of the United States - and with rent, I can hardly see people living above the poverty line with 1500 bucks per month. Is that the case? Maybe you could pull up some statistics with regard to these costs of living,

Secondly, I don't know how affordable are music instruments in the US, but the there are two points to be made here:

1) how would a person earn a subsistence when s/he has to cope with the learning process with regard to that instrument since it would take some time to acquire the necessary skill? Or does your opponent presuppose that anybody can learn some basic tunes and repeat them over and over again and still make that 50 dollars per day? Or maybe a person is supposed to take music classes? But then, the whole idea of it being so cheap disintegrates.

2) more importantly, the means of production in this case do not perform in the shape of capital - no surplus value is being produced, no wage labour is being hired, it's only a personal service which redistributes other components such as profit and wages from the passers-by to the pocket of the self-employed service provider

3) and finally, what does this really prove? That wage workers should become self-employed and to escape the exploitation of capital? Imagine a street corner occupied by 3 or 4 freshly emancipated wage workers playing their tunes. No no, competition will not exercise its influence - all of them would earn their 1500 bucks per month and even enjoy some luxuries.

EDIT: in relation to this whole circus of street playing, I realized you can't even conclude that this represents unproductive labor - personal service, since it is in no way obligatory that those who will benefit from a minute or two of music actually pay for the serviece. Therefore, we can conclude that this represents a form of charity.

[Questionable]

I hate to revive this thread, but I'm in a spot of trouble again.
http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/c54dz31?context=3

I've managed to defeat every capitalist in debate except for this guy. Basically, he's wanting me to give concrete proof of the LTV in action. I can describe the process and show how it makes sense, but it's tricky because I can't really PROVE that it's happening. How do I prove to someone who doesn't believe in LTV that the capitalist needs to exploit workers in order to grow his empire?

If anybody would like to jump into the debate itself, feel free. If you decide not to, tips and advice would still be appreciated.

[Thirsty Crow]

I hate to revive this thread, but I'm in a spot of trouble again.
http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/vdgmw/do_capitalists_deny_estrangement_of_labor/c54dz31?context=3

I've managed to defeat every capitalist in debate except for this guy. Basically, he's wanting me to give concrete proof of the LTV in action. I can describe the process and show how it makes sense, but it's tricky because I can't really PROVE that it's happening. How do I prove to someone who doesn't believe in LTV that the capitalist needs to exploit workers in order to grow his empire?

If anybody would like to jump into the debate itself, feel free. If you decide not to, tips and advice would still be appreciated.I know Paul Cockshott's done some empirical research on a verification of the labour theory of value. Here's his website http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html#econ (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/index.html#econ)

I'd also advise you to contact him personally and clarify the issue (maybe you can also ask for direction when reading those papers).

Also, if your opponent doesn't accept your explanation, you might as well turn the tables on him/her and ask to provide concrete proof how capital - a sum of money/dead labour - itself creates new value. Or you can ask to proove that accross the board sellers sell their commodites above their value, thus fleecing the consumers (which would be another explanation of new value).

I'd like to see how money and machinery create something on their own.

[Questionable]

@Menocchio: Can you give me an exact link to Cockshott's studies? I can only find stuff about computer technology on that page.

[Rafiq]

fuck, I'm really sorry but I won't be able to join in on Reddit. I've just been really busy, and previously had to deal with that one thread with the moralist infestation, which takes up all the time I can have on this.

[Questionable]

fuck, I'm really sorry but I won't be able to join in on Reddit. I've just been really busy, and previously had to deal with that one thread with the moralist infestation, which takes up all the time I can have on this.

That's okay. This argument is pretty much a dead-end anyway as my opponent will not admit that workers are needed in capitalism. I still appreciate all the support you've given.

[Rafiq]

Sometimes, when arguing with an opponent, one must take into account the fact that although he may not be convinced of your arguments, there is always an audience watching, taking into account who comes out the winner.