Ask a Right-Libertarian anything

[InOpposition]

Hi folks,
I've been lurking on the site for a while now and thought I'd make a thread in this sub-forum.
I'm a right-libertarian, and I say 'right' to differentiate from the original libertarians. I'm a libertarian in the sense of Mises, Friedman, Rothbard et al, rather than Proudhon or Tucker.
I'm always happy to speak to people of other ideologies and thought you guys might appreciate being able to ask a capitalist whatever questions you liked.
Please refrain from pointless drivel like "How d'you sleep at night knowing children are forced to work in factories?!" as that's just wasting your time and mine. I appreciate that you might be aggravated by a capitalist posting on your forum, but I'm not here to start conflict.
Anyway, enough about me.
Fire away!

[Doflamingo]

Can you explain, in detail, how capitalism can benefit anyone other than people that abuse the system? Also, can you explain how capitalism can survive without the state?

[ВАЛТЕР]

How do you plan on stopping class struggle? Or do you guys think that class antagonisms don't exist?

Also, what prevents monopolies and thus complete control over societies? As it is a fact that capital centralizes, everything else is irrelevant after that since more capital equals more influence and power. This centralization of capital and power results in a powerful ruling class dictating the course of the entire society.

[#FF0000]

kinda don't see the point of these kinds of threads anymore, tbh. We've all spoken to right-libertarians, are familiar with right-libertarian ideas, etc and the people who generally post in them are only fishing for things.

[InOpposition]

Can you explain, in detail, how capitalism can benefit anyone other than people that abuse the system?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'abuse' here, but I'll give it my best shot.
I would argue that capitalism, when done properly (e.g. no subsidies, free movement of goods + labour, etc), benefits virtually everyone involved in the transaction. I would use Honduran sweatshops as an example of this. Despite the fact that their workers are forced to work in conditions that are atrocious by almost any standard, their quality of life is steadily improving. The average wage in Honduras is $2 a day, whereas a worker in an American owned factors can expect to make around $11 a day.
I think we'll all agree that no, sweatshop labour is not something that should be desired, but it's a stepping stone to prosperity. Most industrialised countries went through stages of horrible sweatshop labour, and this was reduced as prosperity rose and the need for such labour diminished.
In addition, the spread of wealth is always a good thing. If you find yourself and the people in your community steadily getting richer, you're afforded more opportunities that you otherwise just wouldn't have.


Also, can you explain how capitalism can survive without the state?

I guess a major failing of libertarianism is the fact that our definition of capitalism is completely at odds with any of the other definitions of capitalism.
I believe capitalism can survive without the state, because I believe that the free market is always striving to exist, and the free market can only be hindered, not helped, by the state.
I understand this puts me in the same position as a lot of social anarchists, but what I would disagree with them on is the belief in private property. Philosophy aside, I expect private property to survive in anarchy due to so-called rights enforcement agencies, common law, and contract law.



How do you plan on stopping class struggle?

I do believe in class struggle. Obviously, I don't believe in the proletariat vs bourgeoisie in the Marxist sense, but I do believe that the world undeniably has a ruling class.
I would argue that this ruling class, these oil tycoons, these oligarchs, only enjoy their position of power and influence as a result of the state. If, for example, patents on alternative energy were cancelled or void, we would have a reduced dependence on oil. If regulations in the agricultural industry were relaxed, we wouldn't have the CEO of Monsanto being given a license to pump us full of crap.
I think then main struggle is between those that are in the loop and those that are firmly outside of the loop. In the absence of a state, I think co-operation and community organisation would lead to a much more decentralised form of business, and without huge mega corporations, I don't think that class struggle, in the Marxist sense, would exist any more.



Or do you guys think that class antagonisms don't exist?

I hesitate to use the word class, but you can't deny that there's almost unsolvable conflict between the haves and have nots.


Also, what prevents monopolies and thus complete control over societies?

Monopolies are prevented by the fact that nobody is barred from entering the market. If there are no restrictions placed on entering a market, than anyone can start competing.
I often get asked the question of monopolies, and I feel that a monopoly can only arise if it is offering the best goods and services. If, for example, LargeCorp offers such good products and services that all its competitors go out of business, I can understand why people would view this as a problem.
However, LargeCorp can only maintain its monopoly status if it continues to offer the best value goods and services. If it were to raise the price, then there'd be a gap in the market filled by a competitor.
If LargeCorp reduced its prices and forced this competitor out, then yes, it would be a monopoly, but it would be a monopoly because it was offering the best goods and services. As soon as it ceased to be the best its monopoly status would cease.



As it is a fact that capital centralizes, everything else is irrelevant after that since more capital equals more influence and power. This centralization of capital and power results in a powerful ruling class dictating the course of the entire society.

I've highlighted the part here that I take the most issue with.
Yes, capital may accumulate faster in some aspects of society than others, but I wouldn't say it centralised. Capital naturally ebbs and flows throughout the various subgroups within society/ If capital naturally centralised, then why would governments have to enact trade barriers to protect their donors? If, as you say, capital centralised, then these corporations wouldn't need the government to protect their businesses; they'd already be protected.
More capital and power already results in a powerful ruling class dictating society. We've seen that with almost every state there ever has been. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the governments of the most affluent nations in the world are far from representative; there's not a single government of the people in Europe, the Americas or Oceania.
I would argue that this centralisation of capital is due to government action, rather than the actions of the market, and thus I can only give you a rebuttal, rather than a concrete answer.

Hope this helps!

[helot]

I guess a major failing of libertarianism is the fact that our definition of capitalism is completely at odds with any of the other definitions of capitalism.
I believe capitalism can survive without the state, because I believe that the free market is always striving to exist, and the free market can only be hindered, not helped, by the state.
I understand this puts me in the same position as a lot of social anarchists, but what I would disagree with them on is the belief in private property. Philosophy aside, I expect private property to survive in anarchy due to so-called rights enforcement agencies, common law, and contract law.


So private property will continue due to violent enforcement of private property?


Btw, you're not in the same position as anarchists due to anarchists not only generally being communists but also recognising that capitalism and the state are inseparable.

[graffic]

Why are people dying of hunger? How can you declare yourself a "capitalist"? Is it some kind of joke. If it is it's not funny.

[The Jay]

Could you give me an explanation of your theory of value? Do you use Marginal Utility Theory?

[Questionable]

All the right-libertarian arguments seem to rely on capitalism "when done correctly."

What makes capitalism today "incorrect"? I assume you'll say state interference, but to us Marxists, the state and capitalism are one-in-the-same, the state is merely the "headquarters" of capitalism. The state as we know it did not exist until the rise of capitalism.

So, can you tell us that exact moment in history when the state gained a kind of independence? When it began to counteract capitalism despite being a product of the capitalists themselves?


Monopolies are prevented by the fact that nobody is barred from entering the market. If there are no restrictions placed on entering a market, than anyone can start competing.
I often get asked the question of monopolies, and I feel that a monopoly can only arise if it is offering the best goods and services. If, for example, LargeCorp offers such good products and services that all its competitors go out of business, I can understand why people would view this as a problem.
However, LargeCorp can only maintain its monopoly status if it continues to offer the best value goods and services. If it were to raise the price, then there'd be a gap in the market filled by a competitor.
If LargeCorp reduced its prices and forced this competitor out, then yes, it would be a monopoly, but it would be a monopoly because it was offering the best goods and services. As soon as it ceased to be the best its monopoly status would cease.This seems naive to me. First of all, not everyone can enter the market. It requires capital to get started, and the more capital the better. It is undeniable that small business is taking a severe beating right now. A small shopowner simply cannot compete with the mass of resources that, say, Wal-Mart has at its disposal. Furthermore, there's a lot more that goes into these market decisions beyond the quality of their products. Many lower-class Americans will gladly buy inferior products for a variety of reasons unrelated to quality, ranging from cheapness of goods to the geographic location of the business.


I believe capitalism can survive without the state, because I believe that the free market is always striving to exist, and the free market can only be hindered, not helped, by the state.I feel like there's a greater philosophical argument here that is not often touched on. Pro-capitalists like to praise the free market as the greatest expression of human freedom, yet they also say that it is an inevitability. The free market is, supposedly, an amazing place where you can get whatever product you want, yet it is also the natural state of human being, and any attempts to interfere with it must end in disaster. Again, it's a philosophical thing, but I feel like it's reflective of capitalism in some ways.

Anyway, by saying that the free market is always striving to exist, I assume you would invoke historical images of petty trade dating back to ancient slave societies. While it must be admitted that trade has always existed, the free market as an institution is only about 200 or so years old. That is, the free market as an institution of commodity trading which is based upon socially-necessary labor time and requires capital accumulation, concentration, and labor-power to be able to function in. Some of us Marxists, rather than using "free market," call it the "market imperative," because it is not an expression of human freedom as its advocates call it, but a system which demands certain economic behaviors in order to exist in. As the market is the only place which the means of reproduction (food, shelter, etc) are available in, we must conform to it. That means we must play by its rules. From a worker's viewpoint this means working for a wage, from an owner's perspective it means capital accumulation, wage-slavery, constant reinvention of the means of production, and above all, the necessity of profit. Profit is the blood of the market, and nothing moves without it. So, far from being the highest expression of human freedom and ingenuity available, the "free" market is rather an institution which molds society in its own image. This is what Marx meant when he said in the Communist Manifesto, "In one word, it creates a world after its own image."

[ВАЛТЕР]

I do believe in class struggle. Obviously, I don't believe in the proletariat vs bourgeoisie in the Marxist sense, but I do believe that the world undeniably has a ruling class.
I would argue that this ruling class, these oil tycoons, these oligarchs, only enjoy their position of power and influence as a result of the state. If, for example, patents on alternative energy were cancelled or void, we would have a reduced dependence on oil. If regulations in the agricultural industry were relaxed, we wouldn't have the CEO of Monsanto being given a license to pump us full of crap.
I think then main struggle is between those that are in the loop and those that are firmly outside of the loop. In the absence of a state, I think co-operation and community organisation would lead to a much more decentralised form of business, and without huge mega corporations, I don't think that class struggle, in the Marxist sense, would exist any more.

You do realize that these large corporations would still exist. They would influence society around them with their money. They would buy up a large amount of land and invest in housing, and anything else they could get a hold of. They wouldn't care about you having their patent as they would have the means of production. They would own the machinery. The entire class struggle boils down to who has control over the means of production.




I hesitate to use the word class, but you can't deny that there's almost unsolvable conflict between the haves and have nots. When the haves have, and the have nots don't, that is when open class struggle takes place in the form of strikes, workplace occupations, and sabotages.




If LargeCorp reduced its prices and forced this competitor out, then yes, it would be a monopoly, but it would be a monopoly because it was offering the best goods and services. As soon as it ceased to be the best its monopoly status would cease.It forces it's competitors out, buys up their factories and productions centers. Then in order to raise profits, it cuts back on production costs. Cutting jobs, and making a cheaper product. Who will compete with them? They own the machinery and know how to make the product.





Yes, capital may accumulate faster in some aspects of society than others, but I wouldn't say it centralised. Capital naturally ebbs and flows throughout the various subgroups within society/ If capital naturally centralised, then why would governments have to enact trade barriers to protect their donors? If, as you say, capital centralised, then these corporations wouldn't need the government to protect their businesses; they'd already be protected.They do it because capital centralizes and the industries with most of the capital can influence politics. They then use the state which is a capitalist creation to defend their markets from potential competitors. States exist to protect markets. If the states disappeared and the markets stayed, they would reappear again in some form or another to protect the markets of the owners of capital.



I would argue that this centralisation of capital is due to government action, rather than the actions of the market, and thus I can only give you a rebuttal, rather than a concrete answer.Governments that are defending the class interests of the bourgeoisie. States are bourgeois creations. They do what the owners of capital want them to do.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well, at the very least you are clearly an intelligent libertarian. I hope we can win you over!

[#FF0000]

are you from reddit

[Ostrinski]

If one were to go on a conservative or libertarian forum and make a "ask a socialist anything" thread what would be the reaction?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Ayn Rand or Robert Nozick?

[robbo203]

Hi folks,
I've been lurking on the site for a while now and thought I'd make a thread in this sub-forum.
I'm a right-libertarian, and I say 'right' to differentiate from the original libertarians. I'm a libertarian in the sense of Mises, Friedman, Rothbard et al, rather than Proudhon or Tucker.
I'm always happy to speak to people of other ideologies and thought you guys might appreciate being able to ask a capitalist whatever questions you liked.
Please refrain from pointless drivel like "How d'you sleep at night knowing children are forced to work in factories?!" as that's just wasting your time and mine. I appreciate that you might be aggravated by a capitalist posting on your forum, but I'm not here to start conflict.
Anyway, enough about me.
Fire away!


I sincerely doubt that you are capitalist - it is statistically unlikely unless you happen to be one of those rare fortunate ones with a few million quid tied up in your investment portfolio. You probably mean to say that you are are "pro-capitalism" which denotes something quite different to saying you are an actual capitalist.

That aside, since you are a Mises fan you might want to have a glance at this as a demolition of the so called "economic calculation argument" advanced by him:

http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

Oh yes, and the idea of a market without a state is an utter absurdity. States enabled the market economy to come into being. Read David Graeber - his recent book on debt for example -and learn something

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Hi folks,

Hi


I'm a libertarian in the sense of Mises, Friedman

As in, Milton Friedman who got to try out his theories in Pinochet's Fascist Chile? Real "libertarian"... Mises was heavily criticized by the Statist Milton Friedman, and Rothbard was opposed to Milton Friedman. So what the hell are you getting at, how can you follow in one line such a colorful array of idiots as these three competing idiots?


I'm always happy to speak to people of other ideologies and thought you guys might appreciate being able to ask a capitalist whatever questions you liked.

Most of us here are Marxists, hence not "ideological" as you. If you want to talk to people with "other ideologies" you have come to the wrong place.

The difference between Marxists and "ideological" people is that we Marxists do not follow a predestined set of ideas, although that does not dispel ideals; our convictions come from a scientific analysis of Human Society.

Maybe you want to talk to people on Stormfront if you are looking to talk with people of "other" ideologies.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I would argue that capitalism, when done properly (e.g. no subsidies, free movement of goods + labour, etc), benefits virtually everyone involved in the transaction.

So you are telling me that a worker benefits from having to give a large portion of his product to his Boss? How is exploitation beneficial please; why do you believe that workers should not own and control the profits they make themselves?

[l'Enfermé]

Hmm, you are no more a capitalist than an idiot from contemporary Western society who favors a restoration of the feudal social order is a member of the aristocracy. You are probably a petty-bourgeois apologist for capitalism.

But in the unlikely scenario that you are a capitalist, you are a social parasite whose class has the blood of hundreds of millions on its dirty hands, a class guilty of so much injustice and responsible for so much misery that all the oppressors of the human race that preceded your kind are saints in comparison. If indeed you belong to the capitalist class, only traitors will welcome you here.

[helot]

Hi



As in, Milton Friedman who got to try out his theories in Pinochet's Fascist Chile? Real "libertarian"... Mises was heavily criticized by the Statist Milton Friedman, and Rothbard was opposed to Milton Friedman. So what the hell are you getting at, how can you follow in one line such a colorful array of idiots as these three competing idiots?


I think s/he means David Friedman, Milton's son.

[InOpposition]

Gonna be a pretty long post here; I apologise in advance for the walls of text that will follow. I'm going to address ВАЛТЕР's points in another post, since his reply was so long.


If one were to go on a conservative or libertarian forum and make a "ask a socialist anything" thread what would be the reaction?
I have absolutely no idea. I guess it would depend upon whether or not the forum was open for discussion.


are you from reddit
No, I'm not from reddit.


Ayn Rand or Robert Nozick?
I'm not a Randian, due to her belief in charity being a waste of time, and the fac tthat her philosophy didn't really seem to extend beyond "being selfish is good for everybody". Equally, I'm not really a big fan of Nozick either, as his ideas just seem a little half baked to me.


Could you give me an explanation of your theory of value? Do you use Marginal Utility Theory?
I believe in the subjective theory of value. I believe that labour and goods don't have an intrinsic worth, and are only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for them.



So private property will continue due to violent enforcement of private property?
When you put it like that, yes, I guess that is exactly what I am saying. Private property will exist because its owners will be prepared to defend it.


Btw, you're not in the same position as anarchists due to anarchists not only generally being communists but also recognising that capitalism and the state are inseparable.
I think a lot of that is due to the fact that "capitalism", when used by Marxists and other revolutionaries, refers exclusively to state exploitation of the working class. The libertarian definition simply refers to free trade, but I guess we didn't do ourselves any favours when we took a vilified word and tried to make it sound positive.



So, can you tell us that exact moment in history when the state gained a kind of independence? When it began to counteract capitalism despite being a product of the capitalists themselves?
Thank you, and that's a very interesting question.
I would disagree with you on the idea that states were originally set up to defend capitalists, but I can't help but agree that during the 18th and 19th century, that's pretty much what they did.
I think that when elected officials realised they had the power to advantage their friends in matters of commerce, states began to defend interest groups at the expense of the market. I also think that the spread of suffrage, particularly to the working classes, led to a greater form of democracy, which I believe is just a polished version of mob rule.
Please don't interpret this as me advocating taking rights away from workers; I don't believe that at all. I believe in limited/no government, rather than an oppressive one.


So you are telling me that a worker benefits from having to give a large portion of his product to his Boss? How is exploitation beneficial please; why do you believe that workers should not own and control the profits they make themselves?
You and I differ on the definition of exploitation, then. I think that the worker benefits due to being paid regardless of whether his product sells and having a constant supply of work. I think that the investors, as those who take the risk and actually own the company, have the right to the profits of the people they hire.


Most of us here are Marxists, hence not "ideological" as you. If you want to talk to people with "other ideologies" you have come to the wrong place.
The difference between Marxists and "ideological" people is that we Marxists do not follow a predestined set of ideas, although that does not dispel ideals; our convictions come from a scientific analysis of Human Society.
Maybe you want to talk to people on Stormfront if you are looking to talk with people of "other" ideologies.
It seems to me like you're arguing semantics here. I came here to debate with people who have viewpoints that differ from mine.. I don't think it's unreasonable, considering you have an opposing ideologies sub-forum.

[InOpposition]

Questionable: (I've snipped off quite a bit of what you said just for the purpose of clarity. If there's anything you feel I've deliberately missed out, just tell me and I'll address it)


This seems naive to me. First of all, not everyone can enter the market. It requires capital to get started, and the more capital the better. It is undeniable that small business is taking a severe beating right now. A small shopowner simply cannot compete with the mass of resources that, say, Wal-Mart has at its disposal. Furthermore, there's a lot more that goes into these market decisions beyond the quality of their products. Many lower-class Americans will gladly buy inferior products for a variety of reasons unrelated to quality, ranging from cheapness of goods to the geographic location of the business.
Of course not everybody can enter the market. Sorry if I sounded overly optimistic in my other post, I fully understand that not every individual is capable of simply getting up and starting a business.
However, I believe that the number of individuals who are capable of starting a business would significantly rise if government regulations around many industries were greatly relaxed.
For companies like Wal-mart, their costs would go up (no more subsidies), and their competitors wouldn't be at such an unfair disadvantage. There's not going to be a spontaneous reaching of equilibrium, but I'd put money on Wal-mart's lead being hugely reduced to the point where it could no longer dominate the market.
As for inferior products, geography, etc, I believe that these are all economic decisions, and are thus taken into account when buying a good.



Some of us Marxists, rather than using "free market," call it the "market imperative," because it is not an expression of human freedom as its advocates call it, but a system which demands certain economic behaviors in order to exist in. As the market is the only place which the means of reproduction (food, shelter, etc) are available in, we must conform to it. That means we must play by its rules.
I would argue that no amount of human action could remedy the fact that things like food and shelter have a cost, which must be paid for by someone, somehow. I don't believe in the concept of post-scarcity.


From a worker's viewpoint this means working for a wage, from an owner's perspective it means capital accumulation, wage-slavery, constant reinvention of the means of production, and above all, the necessity of profit. Profit is the blood of the market, and nothing moves without it. So, far from being the highest expression of human freedom and ingenuity available, the "free" market is rather an institution which molds society in its own image. This is what Marx meant when he said in the Communist Manifesto, "In one word, it creates a world after its own image."
I think that the free market, by allowing opportunities to escape poverty and by allowing anyone to succeed so long as they can market something viable, is the highest expression of freedom. rather than say, a planned economy, the free market rewards ingenuity and entrepreneurship and provides the resources necessary for a society to progress and develop.
Capitalism has been funding all over -isms since 4000 B.C.


ВАЛТЕР:

You do realize that these large corporations would still exist. They would influence society around them with their money. They would buy up a large amount of land and invest in housing, and anything else they could get a hold of. They wouldn't care about you having their patent as they would have the means of production. They would own the machinery. The entire class struggle boils down to who has control over the means of production.
Yes, these corporations would exist, but as I've tried to explain above, I believe their power would rapidly diminish.
I think that this nullifies the point about them investing; if they're unable to dominate their own market, how would they amass the resources necessary to set foot in another one?


It forces it's competitors out, buys up their factories and productions centers. Then in order to raise profits, it cuts back on production costs. Cutting jobs, and making a cheaper product. Who will compete with them? They own the machinery and know how to make the product.
If the company is providing an even better quality of service, why is there a need for competitors? Again, so long as the monopoly is voluntary (in the sense that people willingly buy from it because it is the best) there is no problem.[/QUOTE]


They do it because capital centralizes and the industries with most of the capital can influence politics. They then use the state which is a capitalist creation to defend their markets from potential competitors. States exist to protect markets. If the states disappeared and the markets stayed, they would reappear again in some form or another to protect the markets of the owners of capital.
This seems to be mutually contradictory. If capital centralises, why would the owners of the capital be worried about competitors taking away their capital? They would only need to be worried if capital did not centralise.


Governments that are defending the class interests of the bourgeoisie. States are bourgeois creations. They do what the owners of capital want them to do.
Yes, exactly, so I believe that the state should not dictate the economy.

[Prinskaj]

I think that the free market, by allowing opportunities to escape poverty and by allowing anyone to succeed so long as they can market something viable, is the highest expression of freedom. Rather than say, a planned economy, the free market rewards ingenuity and entrepreneurship and provides the resources necessary for a society to progress and develop.
Capitalism has been funding all over -isms since 4000 B.C.
WHAT!? Excuse me if I am not understanding you correctly, but are you seriously suggesting that the capitalism mode of production was introduced 6000 years ago? If so, then you are a mad man!
Secondly, if there is no barrier of entry into the market, I.E. that anyone can make product, no matter how invented it. Then what incentive does that provide anyone to create something new, if capital is the only reward?

[maskerade]

how many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, the invisible hand does it (sorry couldn't resist).

In this free market capitalist society what would be the incentive to invest in renewable and ecological solutions and how would you encourage people to follow suit? As in, the path dependency we've created already won't disappear - oil and natural gases will still be the main source for energy - so what would make people look for alternative and hopefully renewable energy sources when it makes much more financial sense to fuck the planet and the environment up?

Are unions allowed in this free market capitalist society?

[helot]

When you put it like that, yes, I guess that is exactly what I am saying. Private property will exist because its owners will be prepared to defend it. The owners won't be defending it themselves though will they? It will be defended via courts and police forces. Because there will be inherent antagonisms between classes this violent force, which goes to the highest bidder, will be used to suppress one class in favour of another. How is it not a state?






I think a lot of that is due to the fact that "capitalism", when used by Marxists and other revolutionaries, refers exclusively to state exploitation of the working class. The libertarian definition simply refers to free trade, but I guess we didn't do ourselves any favours when we took a vilified word and tried to make it sound positive. While the state is inseparable when Marxists and anarchists refer to capitalism we do mean a system where one class extracts value from another via private property and wage labour.




You and I differ on the definition of exploitation, then. I think that the worker benefits due to being paid regardless of whether his product sells and having a constant supply of work. I think that the investors, as those who take the risk and actually own the company, have the right to the profits of the people they hire.

Risk? You're kidding right? It's the workers that risk everything, they risk poverty if they lose their jobs because by definition they don't have access to what's needed to produce without selling their labour power for a wage that's only a portion of what they produce. The owners don't risk their lives and in the worst case scenario they wouldn't even become an average worker if they fail due to having contacts that would willingly give them a comfortable position commanding labour.

[human strike]

What I don't understand about right libertarianism is the strategy. How does one make such a situation? What do right libertarians do to advance it? Supporting Ron Paul doesn't seem like a very effective strategy...

[Thirsty Crow]

Just a few quick remarks.


I think a lot of that is due to the fact that "capitalism", when used by Marxists and other revolutionaries, refers exclusively to state exploitation of the working class.

No, it does not. Capitalism as a mode of production is premised on the exploitation workers by the capitalist class - whether this class is composed of individual owners of parts of the total capital, or its composition takes different routes, such as the one through the formation of the states as a monopsony (I think this is the term; meaning - the sole buyer of labour power, implying wage labour, implying capital as a social relation of production).


You and I differ on the definition of exploitation, then. I think that the worker benefits due to being paid regardless of whether his product sells and having a constant supply of work.
This seems like a bad joke, and one flying at the face of reality, the reality of the so called flexibilization of labour relations, unemployment (which is a result of the lack of profitable outlets for capital investment), and other form of class struggle waged by the capitalist class and their state.

On a more general level, workers must "benefit" from capitalist production since the very subsistence necessities are commoditis which have to be bought.


I think that the investors, as those who take the risk and actually own the company, have the right to the profits of the people they hire. While I think that this kind of argument is irrelevant for two reasons:

1) it does not explain the concrete production of profits, but merely justifies the facts post hoc by an appeal to a form of morality (glory to the brave right?)

2) the whole framework of the argument is irrelevant because of the real and tangible consequences of capitalist exploitation and oppression - when you're pushed to the edge, forget about any fairy tales of morality or any such thing.

And of course this wonderful piece of wisdom:


Capitalism has been funding all over -isms since 4000 B.C.Your problem is that you are unable to think about the various ways in which humans organize their social reproduction in a historical manner.
In other words, of course that capitalism did not exist for 600 thousand years. Capitalism does not equal trade as such.

[Questionable]

Thank you, and that's a very interesting question.
I would disagree with you on the idea that states were originally set up to defend capitalists, but I can't help but agree that during the 18th and 19th century, that's pretty much what they did.
I think that when elected officials realised they had the power to advantage their friends in matters of commerce, states began to defend interest groups at the expense of the market. I also think that the spread of suffrage, particularly to the working classes, led to a greater form of democracy, which I believe is just a polished version of mob rule.
Please don't interpret this as me advocating taking rights away from workers; I don't believe that at all. I believe in limited/no government, rather than an oppressive one.Where do you think the state came from, if not capitalism? It it some historical accident? How could something happen that flies in the face of capitalism exist as such as an important part of it? Please note that when I say "capitalism," I don't just mean "free trade." Free trade is not capitalism. If I trade an apple for an orange I am not a capitalist. I am talking about a scientific organization of society, one based on capital accumulation powered by surplus-value collected by labor-power. You don't need consent for the self-expansion of capital and the quest for profit. An oppressive state works just fine for this goal. Look at Nazi Germany, or even post-Stalin USSR, or hell, any capitalist system since they've all had states.

Secondly, are you implying that the state exists as a way for democratic workers to hinder capitalism? If so, then how is it that in almost ALL of history, the state has stood opposite to the workers? How many times has the state deployed its soldiers to break up workers' strikes? How many times has it invaded other nations in the interests of "free trade"? Hell, just look at the recent neoliberalism trend and how its almost completely destroyed the status of workers.


Of course not everybody can enter the market. Sorry if I sounded overly optimistic in my other post, I fully understand that not every individual is capable of simply getting up and starting a business.
However, I believe that the number of individuals who are capable of starting a business would significantly rise if government regulations around many industries were greatly relaxed.
For companies like Wal-mart, their costs would go up (no more subsidies), and their competitors wouldn't be at such an unfair disadvantage. There's not going to be a spontaneous reaching of equilibrium, but I'd put money on Wal-mart's lead being hugely reduced to the point where it could no longer dominate the market.
As for inferior products, geography, etc, I believe that these are all economic decisions, and are thus taken into account when buying a good.Even if the largest corporations ceased using the state for their own interests, what would be the implications of this? Capitalism is a stratified system. Competition implies winners and losers. One cannot simply maintain this constant state of free competition forever. Eventually the most successful capitalists will put the others out of business and centralize the economy towards themselves.


I would argue that no amount of human action could remedy the fact that things like food and shelter have a cost, which must be paid for by someone, somehow. I don't believe in the concept of post-scarcity.Money is a recent phenomenon restricted to capitalism. Are you denying that money is a social construct? Why does it exist? I assume you'd say it's a way to deal with scarcity, but why do we have instances in capitalism where overabundance leads to scarcity? For instance, big farmers destroying their own crops during the Great Depression in order to raise prices, despite mass starvation occurring. This is only one example.


I think that the free market, by allowing opportunities to escape poverty and by allowing anyone to succeed so long as they can market something viable, is the highest expression of freedom. rather than say, a planned economy, the free market rewards ingenuity and entrepreneurship and provides the resources necessary for a society to progress and develop.
Capitalism has been funding all over -isms since 4000 B.C.It's ironic that you're saying this because capitalism is almost entirely socialized these days. The era of free trade existed very briefly in the dawn of capitalism, but now production is almost entirely planned under corporations and governments. I'm sure you'll say this is part of the problem, but for us Marxists, this is a natural process that occurs whenever certain capitalists defeat others in free competition. Can you prove that this is an unnatural process and not part of capitalism? Keep in mind I'm referring to capitalism as an organization of society (Wage-labor, commodity production, all that good stuff), not just free trade. If we separate capitalism from its historical setting and just call it "free trade," then yes, I can see how you'd come to your conclusions that corporations and states are contrary to capitalism. But it is much more than that.

[ВАЛТЕР]

ВАЛТЕР:
Yes, these corporations would exist, but as I've tried to explain above, I believe their power would rapidly diminish.
I think that this nullifies the point about them investing; if they're unable to dominate their own market, how would they amass the resources necessary to set foot in another one?

Why do you think the power would rapidly diminish? The person who owns the means of production has all the power. Their only threat would be competing capitalists who have the money to invest in purchasing modes of production. Which rarely happens. Hoover the vacuum cleaner company isn't going to jump into the ring against Toyota to make automobiles.

It also doesn't matter if one company has the monopoly or the other, hell monopolies themselves are irrelevant since power and control over the means of production belong to a small portion of society. They as a CLASS own the means of production, while we as a CLASS provide the labor.



If the company is providing an even better quality of service, why is there a need for competitors? Again, so long as the monopoly is voluntary (in the sense that people willingly buy from it because it is the best) there is no problem.

Because the falling rate of profit forces the company to cut costs, raise prices, or both. Therefore people lose their jobs, may get their pay cut, or prices go up while wages stay the same.



This seems to be mutually contradictory. If capital centralises, why would the owners of the capital be worried about competitors taking away their capital? They would only need to be worried if capital did not centralise.

Because states developed around regional markets. The capitalists of one area organized to defend their markets from capitalists of another area. That is how states are formed. States are a creation of capitalism. They are worried their markets will be overtaken by other capitalists because capital does centralize. They just want it to centralzie to them and not to some other owner of industry.



Yes, exactly, so I believe that the state should not dictate the economy.

States are a creation of capitalism. The state defends capitalism. That is what it is there to do. Any gains the public made were given due to pressure from labor movements. If unions and organized workers weren't there, I'd have been working 15 hour shifts at the textile plant when I was 9 years old. The work day is 8 hours not because capitalists cared, but because they had to cut the work day in order to prevent much greater losses due to strikes, occupations, sabotages, or even outright revolution.

The state never gave a shit, the owners of capital never gave a shit, the only time they pretend to give a shit is when workers strike, burn down their factories, or sabotage their products. When the wallet of the owners of industry starts hurting that is when the politicians come out and pretend they give a rats ass.
The state babies capitalism, without the state capitalism wouldn't exist. To think AnCaps even exist is hilarious because it is like a fish screaming about how water oppresses it. The state gives the capitalist class life, and is the instrument that is used to divide the proletariat and keep us running into each others bayonets so the owners of industry can defend their markets.

[helot]

States are a creation of capitalism. The state defends capitalism. That is what it is there to do. Any gains the public made were given due to pressure from labor movements. If unions and organized workers weren't there, I'd have been working 15 hour shifts at the textile plant when I was 9 years old. The work day is 8 hours not because capitalists cared, but because they had to cut the work day in order to prevent much greater losses due to strikes, occupations, sabotages, or even outright revolution.



I think it should also be stressed that in the absense of a strong labour movement what we're facing is a steady erosion of worker's rights and conditions. This erosion, of course, predates 2008 and thus flying in the face that it's just because of the recession.

[InOpposition]

Just a few quick replies. Again, I'll answer Questionable and ВАЛТЕР in another reply due so as to avoid huge walls of text.



Secondly, if there is no barrier of entry into the market, I.E. that anyone can make product, no matter how invented it. Then what incentive does that provide anyone to create something new, if capital is the only reward?

Capital is the only reward in today's economy, and people still strive to be innovative. In addition, people aren't going to stubbornly refuse to create items that could aid their own quality of life just because they won't receive the exclusive rights to market it.


how many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, the invisible hand does it (sorry couldn't resist).
Zing!



In this free market capitalist society what would be the incentive to invest in renewable and ecological solutions and how would you encourage people to follow suit? As in, the path dependency we've created already won't disappear - oil and natural gases will still be the main source for energy - so what would make people look for alternative and hopefully renewable energy sources when it makes much more financial sense to fuck the planet and the environment up?
Currently, the reason people do not invest into renewable enery is that a lot of alternative energy sources are patented by oil companies. This means that we are unable to create alternatives. If we opened up the fuel market to these alternatives, we'd severely reduce our dependence on oil.


Are unions allowed in this free market capitalist society?
Absolutely. Everyone has the right to free association.



What I don't understand about right libertarianism is the strategy. How does one make such a situation? What do right libertarians do to advance it? Supporting Ron Paul doesn't seem like a very effective strategy...
This is something that I find very frustrating about right-libertarianism. There's no agreed-upon strategy, and no clear plan of moving from A to B. I personally believe that we should focus our efforts towards restraining the government, reining in its powers and reforming some form of constitutional limit on what the government may or may not do.




No, it does not. Capitalism as a mode of production is premised on the exploitation workers by the capitalist class - whether this class is composed of individual owners of parts of the total capital, or its composition takes different routes, such as the one through the formation of the states as a monopsony (I think this is the term; meaning - the sole buyer of labour power, implying wage labour, implying capital as a social relation of production).
Right, well thanks for that. I wasn't entirely sure what Marxists meant by 'capitalism', so I appreciate you clearing that up for me.



This seems like a bad joke, and one flying at the face of reality, the reality of the so called flexibilization of labour relations, unemployment (which is a result of the lack of profitable outlets for capital investment), and other form of class struggle waged by the capitalist class and their state.
On a more general level, workers must "benefit" from capitalist production since the very subsistence necessities are commoditis which have to be bought.
I've highlighted the part here that I'd like to focus on.
All commodities come at a price, and all costs must be paid for. Capitalism allows workers to pay for their necessities and, as a result of market competition, employers must offer other benefits to attract workers. Workers benefit from being able to choose where they sell their labour. The greater number of choices, the greater number of opportunities.




While I think that this kind of argument is irrelevant for two reasons:

1) it does not explain the concrete production of profits, but merely justifies the facts post hoc by an appeal to a form of morality (glory to the brave right?)
Not glory to the brave at all. I don't think investors are any morally better than the people who work for them. I just believe that as they are putting up the start-up capital, investing and providing jobs, it's not outlandish to allow them to keep the profits their company makes.



2) the whole framework of the argument is irrelevant because of the real and tangible consequences of capitalist exploitation and oppression - when you're pushed to the edge, forget about any fairy tales of morality or any such thing.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.



And of course this wonderful piece of wisdom:

Your problem is that you are unable to think about the various ways in which humans organize their social reproduction in a historical manner.
In other words, of course that capitalism did not exist for 600 thousand years. Capitalism does not equal trade as such.
That was more of a tongue in cheek statement than an actual political point. Much in the same vein as maskerade's invisible hand comment, I was just joking.


helot, in future I'll reply to your comments along with Quesionable and ВАЛТЕР's, just because they're starting to get quite lengthy.
Anyway:

The owners won't be defending it themselves though will they? It will be defended via courts and police forces. Because there will be inherent antagonisms between classes this violent force, which goes to the highest bidder, will be used to suppress one class in favour of another. How is it not a state?
In a Marxist society, is everyone expected to defend all infringements of their rights personally? I doubt that you could have a civilised society without some form of police force, even if it was communally organised. An old woman wouldn't be expected to chase down her robbers and bring them to justice; it'd probably be delegated to someone who volunteered to provide that community service. Justice can be legitimate without needing the victim to personally extract it.




Risk? You're kidding right? It's the workers that risk everything, they risk poverty if they lose their jobs because by definition they don't have access to what's needed to produce without selling their labour power for a wage that's only a portion of what they produce. The owners don't risk their lives and in the worst case scenario they wouldn't even become an average worker if they fail due to having contacts that would willingly give them a comfortable position commanding labour.
I don't understand how the workers are risking anything.
If they're supplying their labour to a business, what's to stop them from joining a new company if the business fails?
The investors who put up sometimes millions of dollars, invest time and energy into attracting customers, formulating market strategies and developing products are the ones who are risking something.


I think it should also be stressed that in the absense of a strong labour movement what we're facing is a steady erosion of worker's rights and conditions. This erosion, of course, predates 2008 and thus flying in the face that it's just because of the recession.
There are no such things are workers' rights. Rights are not conditional upon belonging to a certain group. The only rights are individual rights, which every human being has, regardless of class, culture, religion, etc.
I think the right to work is a fantastic idea. Unionisation has been driving manufacturing outside of the USA, and manufacturing is booming in right-to-work states.
Unions may be losing out, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your average joe is disadvantaged.

[helot]

helot, in future I'll reply to your comments along with Quesionable and ВАЛТЕР's, just because they're starting to get quite lengthy. Whenever you have time.



In a Marxist society, is everyone expected to defend all infringements of their rights personally? I doubt that you could have a civilised society without some form of police force, even if it was communally organised. An old woman wouldn't be expected to chase down her robbers and bring them to justice; it'd probably be delegated to someone who volunteered to provide that community service. Justice can be legitimate without needing the victim to personally extract it.
I'm not a Marxist but an anarchist.

Anyway, you fail to understand what i posted. There will of course be a public force within a communist society however there is a fundamental difference. In your ideal society there will continue to be inherent class antagonisms that would necessitate the formation of an organisational force for the defense of one class over another. States are a product of class society created for the defense of the dominant class.






I don't understand how the workers are risking anything.
If they're supplying their labour to a business, what's to stop them from joining a new company if the business fails?

Who risks more; those who stand to lose their homes or those who stand to lose a third of their wealth?

What if it takes the worker time to find another job? What if it takes a month? As i've had first hand experience with unemployment can seriously destroy your living standards.



The investors who put up sometimes millions of dollars, invest time and energy into attracting customers, formulating market strategies and developing products are the ones who are risking something.

and yet the workers create all wealth.



There are no such things are workers' rights. Rights are not conditional upon belonging to a certain group. The only rights are individual rights, which every human being has, regardless of class, culture, religion, etc.
I think the right to work is a fantastic idea.

You're avoiding the content of my post. The conditions of the working class are being eroded before our very eyes due to a lack of a strong labour movement.




Unionisation has been driving manufacturing outside of the USA, and manufacturing is booming in right-to-work states.
Unions may be losing out, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your average joe is disadvantaged.

All this shows is that employers prefer a workforce with lower pay and worse conditions. There's a few methods companies use to reduce the cost of their workforce, the two obvious ones are to bring in cheaper workers to their capital e.g. migrants or to transfer their capital to places with cheaper labour costs. Pretty obvious if you ask me and is at the root of the inherent antagonisms between workers and owners. Our interests are at odds.

[Questionable]

There are no such things are workers' rights. Rights are not conditional upon belonging to a certain group. The only rights are individual rights, which every human being has, regardless of class, culture, religion, etc.
I think the right to work is a fantastic idea.

I want to expand upon helot's argument by pointing out that political rights are not the same as economic rights. Sure, we all have some form of free speech, but at the end of the day we are not equal as individuals because business owners live an entirely different economic life with different interests from workers. We may have equal free speech in certain first-world countries but the economic reality is that workers have much, much less power in our stratified system than business owners. Legal equality does not equal actual equality.

EDIT: Also, can you explain your rebuttal to what I said about market imperatives earlier? I don't feel like I learned much about the libertarian view, you just sort of reiterated your own viewpoint about the market being the expression of human freedom without really addressing my point on the market as a coercive institution.

[Mitt Romney]

If they're supplying their labour to a business, what's to stop them from joining a new company if the business fails?

Are you joking? If not, you and I must live in different worlds.
It can take months to find even the worst job.
I, too, have experienced unemployment - and homelessness.
One does not simply join a new company. Only in Right-"libertarian" la-la land.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that most if not all right libertarian capitalist arguments fall apart once you see through their whole, state/free market separationn. They act like the government is this abstract entity wrapping around a free market strangling it's perfection. They do not get that the Marxist critique of capitalism includes the State as a fundamental element of capitalism. There is no separation of the two.

I don't know why libertarians believe that the government half of a capitalist society is the "socialist" half of society that must be cleansed or limited to make capitalism flourish.

Then they get into this ridiculous notion of American not being truly capitalist, but crony capitalist or corporatist. :rolleyes:

[Will Scarlet]

What is your policy on, uh, lunch?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

WHAT!? Excuse me if I am not understanding you correctly, but are you seriously suggesting that the capitalism mode of production was introduced 6000 years ago? If so, then you are a mad man!
Secondly, if there is no barrier of entry into the market, I.E. that anyone can make product, no matter how invented it. Then what incentive does that provide anyone to create something new, if capital is the only reward?

Well the capitalistic mode of production is very recent, but capitalist class relations (that is, market relations) began in the early feudal period with the mercantile class, and it is arguable that many early market based societies such as the late Greeks and the Romans had a form of market economy without "capitalists".

I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to allow his position to develop so we can engage it properly, instead of dismissing it rudely.

[cynicles]

Can you explain, in detail, how capitalism can benefit anyone other than people that abuse the system? Also, can you explain how capitalism can survive without the state?
Abuse? Is capitalism not supposed to work this way?

[cynicles]

I think that most if not all right libertarian capitalist arguments fall apart once you see through their whole, state/free market separationn. They act like the government is this abstract entity wrapping around a free market strangling it's perfection. They do not get that the Marxist critique of capitalism includes the State as a fundamental element of capitalism. There is no separation of the two.

I don't know why libertarians believe that the government half of a capitalist society is the "socialist" half of society that must be cleansed or limited to make capitalism flourish.

Then they get into this ridiculous notion of American not being truly capitalist, but crony capitalist or corporatist. :rolleyes:
It's because their idealists and not materialists. They want teh world to work the way they think it should instead of trying to evaluate and understand how it does work. Because they think capitalism should be this way or that way and reality conflicts with their vision they end up playing the game that trotskyists did for the better part of the 20th century arguing about what should have happened instead of what did.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's because their idealists and not materialists. They want teh world to work the way they think it should instead of trying to evaluate and understand how it does work. Because they think capitalism should be this way or that way and reality conflicts with their vision they end up playing the game that trotskyists did for the better part of the 20th century arguing about what should have happened instead of what did.

But that makes their arguments not only incomprehensible but outright delusional. They really think that you and I and everyone else, before the debate even begins, hold to their same presuppositions. They think of these things they presume as common sense. When you argue against their arguments, it's like you're arguing against nature.

That's why they stress that we need to go back to Economics 101 or need to run a business to understand why our logic is loopy and theirs isn't.

And this whole "Corporatist" bullshit is getting super annoying that it makes me wonder just how many of these libertarians every read Marx or for that matter any left wing books before they begin to debate?

[cynicles]

But that makes their arguments not only incomprehensible but outright delusional. They really think that you and I and everyone else, before the debate even begins, hold to their same presuppositions. They think of these things they presume as common sense. When you argue against their arguments, it's like you're arguing against nature.

That's why they stress that we need to go back to Economics 101 or need to run a business to understand why our logic is loopy and theirs isn't.

And this whole "Corporatist" bullshit is getting super annoying that it makes me wonder just how many of these libertarians every read Marx or for that matter any left wing books before they begin to debate?
They haven't or at best read a few quote and had some temporary emotional attachment to the left then gave it up and went all Horowitz. Which is unfair since just by being born into this world we have to listen and be indoctrinated by their ideology all the time. And the funny thing is, the classical liberals, they don't deserve to even refer to themselves as libertarians that appropriating leftwing labels shit is getting old, are really no different from teh social democrats who think that capitalism should be controlled. They're just delusional idealists who think that capitalism should only come in one flavour, in this respect I have greater respect for intelligent conservatives who acknowledge the capitalist system for what it is, I may not agree with them politically but they don't try and bullshit you with idealism or moralism all the time.

[AlmostAnCap]

What are you opinions on the ideas of Henry George?

[InOpposition]

I'm aware that I've missed out quite a lot of questions, but there's a lot to get through and I don't have time to do them all right now. Again, I'll try and set aside some time to properly respond to some of the more lengthy questions and rebuttals.



We may have equal free speech in certain first-world countries but the economic reality is that workers have much, much less power in our stratified system than business owners. Legal equality does not equal actual equality.

But in order to enforce actual equality we'd have to then infringe upon the rights of free association. I'm under no delusions that in a libertarian society we'd all be on exactly the same footing as perfect equals, so I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you the market will fix it.
I think that there will always be inequality within society, and in order to enforce actual equality, you'd need a coercive, state-like institution to do so.



EDIT: Also, can you explain your rebuttal to what I said about market imperatives earlier? I don't feel like I learned much about the libertarian view, you just sort of reiterated your own viewpoint about the market being the expression of human freedom without really addressing my point on the market as a coercive institution.

Sorry about that.
I understand why people view the market as a coercive institution. I don't think the market is perfect, but I feel that other institutions would be more coercive than the market, which has a grounding in free will, despite not being the perfect expression of it.


Are you joking? If not, you and I must live in different worlds.
It can take months to find even the worst job.
I, too, have experienced unemployment - and homelessness.
One does not simply join a new company. Only in Right-"libertarian" la-la land.

If there's a demand for labour, then workers can fill that demand. If not, then that labour isn't needed. There's always going to be a natural rate of unemployment, which is why I feel that if the state is to exist, it must provide some form of unemployment welfare.


Then they get into this ridiculous notion of American not being truly capitalist, but crony capitalist or corporatist. :rolleyes:

I actually do get a bit infuriated when libertarians refer to the current economy as 'corporatist', given that corporatism is actually a fully fleshed out economic ideology that doesn't really resemble the modern economy at all. However, as for crony capitalism, I would argue that subsidies and taxes distort market forces, and therefore it's not pure capitalism.


What is your policy on, uh, lunch?

The same as my policy on breakfast.

[Prinskaj]

But in order to enforce actual equality we'd have to then infringe upon the rights of free association. I'm under no delusions that in a libertarian society we'd all be on exactly the same footing as perfect equals, so I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you the market will fix it.
I think that there will always be inequality within society, and in order to enforce actual equality, you'd need a coercive, state-like institution to do so. Bullshit. Hunter-gatherer societies existed for thousands of years before classes were introduced into human society. In these societies there were no private accumulation and the means for sustaining ones livelihood was shared among group. All of this without any concept of a state-apparatus.


I understand why people view the market as a coercive institution. I don't think the market is perfect, but I feel that other institutions would be more coercive than the market, which has a grounding in free will, despite not being the perfect expression of it. Free will? I would kindly ask you to distance yourself from such idealist principles when on this board. People don't take kindly to idealism around here (http://youtu.be/GTzKxNkHxrk?t=4s).

[InOpposition]

Free will? I would kindly ask you to distance yourself from such idealist principles when on this board. People don't take kindly to idealism around here.

I think that this will be where I part ways with your forum, then.
Thanks for the questions and I hope some of the answers I have provided have been helpful. I wish you good luck in your future endeavours.

[Avanti]

how do you view

people

who live by stealing food

from dumpsters?

people who refuse to work

even if they are able?

people who sleep on the grass?

[ВАЛТЕР]

You didn't respond to my last statements. I take it you have no rebuttal.