Socialism: Voluntary or Mandatory [Archive]

cyu

14th June 2013, 21:38

If someone did not want to contribute towards the commune, what would you propose be done to them?

The assumption here is that people don't like to hang out with their friends, crushes, or admirers, doing things that they themselves believe are important things to do.

From http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/

Ariely then ran another experiment. He read from “Leaves of Grass,” and then asked his students the following:

- 1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10

The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.

The students who were asked if they’d accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Psychology

Atilla

15th June 2013, 18:01

I fully support a society that values and encourages integration within a commune.

However, if someone, perhaps rebellious, perhaps mentally disturbed, decided he did not want to pool his labor with his neighbors, and instead wanted to break away from the commune, what would (if anything) be his punishment?

If you assert punishment, then your ideal is not voluntary, by definition.

cyu

16th June 2013, 07:10

What is the purpose of justice? Is it to deal out punishment? Is it to prevent injustice? Is it possible for punishment to work in opposition to justice?

If someone is about to rape your mother, and you hit him over the head with a chair, what is it that you have done? Clearly not something that is voluntary with respect to what he wanted.

As I've mentioned before, I don't support capital punishment, but I do support the use of lethal force if it is necessary for the immediate defense of people. If you've already captured someone, there is no longer a need for his immediate death in order to protect people.

So the real question for someone who does not feel like joining a commune is like the question of a captured murderer or rapist. If there is no need to execute the murderer or rapist in order to protect people, what need is there to punish an introvert who prefers not to hang out with others?

Akshay!

16th June 2013, 08:06

Obviously every anarchist, left communist etc. would say that it should be "voluntary".

My own opinion however is that it should be voluntary for those who accept it (vast majority of the people) and mandatory (which means use of force) for those who want to create a counter-revolution, etc..

In other words, mandatory.

If someone did not want to contribute towards the commune, what would you propose be done to them?

What's "the commune"? And more importantly, how did you get to "the commune"? Did you use Force? Authority? Did you KILL the person who prevented you from overthrowing capitalism or did you make it "voluntary" for him to do whatever he likes?

Atilla

16th June 2013, 12:19

What's "the commune"? And more importantly, how did you get to "the commune"? Did you use Force? Authority? Did you KILL the person who prevented you from overthrowing capitalism or did you make it "voluntary" for him to do whatever he likes?

I take the commune as: A group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities.

More broadly, let's refer to it as communistic society. People work together, through publicly owned, and democratically controlled, means of production.

To get to the commune you used force. You used violence. Revolutionary socialism. In order to overthrow the bourgeoisie, violence was, indeed, needed (in order to seize, and nationalize, private property and so on).

My point is: in this newly found communistic society, formed with networks of communes, "from each according to ability, to each according to need" etc, what if some wants to break away from the commune?

If you answer that someone cannot, voluntarily, break away from the commune, then your version of socialism/communism is not voluntary, and not true anarchism/utopia.

You're saying: contribute to my society or I put a bullet in your head.

cyu

16th June 2013, 13:24

To get to the commune you used force. You used violence.

Nope - this comment sounds like it belongs in OI Learning. It's just pro-capitalist propaganda.

The only violence and force that is used is when pro-capitalists attempt to protect property claims. There is no other way that property claim regulations can be enforced.

This is what happens: employees show up at work. They serve their customers. They collect the revenue. They keep it for themselves. When the capitalist shows up and demands a cut of the profits, the employees say, "Why don't you get us a cup of coffee instead?" So what can the capitalist do now? As you can see, the only way for the capitalist to continue to get the profit he used to get, would be to use violence on the employees, or get others to use violence on the employees.

And if these pro-capitalists attempt to attack the employees, at that point, retaliation is just self-defense.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 15:08

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
— Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

I am not sprouting propaganda.

cyu

16th June 2013, 15:20

The question for you is, do you prefer to kill CEOs, or not?

You may have noticed I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist, not a Marxist. But regardless, I have a feeling there are a great many self-identified Marxists that would not go right up to a CEO and bash his head in with a police baton.

However, if a CEO or other pro-capitalist were in the act of attacking employees, then I would have no problem with shooting them.

In other words, pro-capitalists are not killed for what they are, but murderers are killed for what they are doing.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 15:40

I have no problem with violent revolution, you misunderstand me, cyu.

I think we're talking cross-purposes.

Let me refine my position, maybe I have not been clear:

I acknowledge that the only way for the proletariat to seize control is through, and specifically through, violent revolution.

Let's define this as, the killing of CEOs who refuse to co-operate etc. Just as you have stated.

My point in this conversation (referring to the title Socialism: Voluntary or Mandatory) is whether, under a higher stage of communism, would people be forced into participating in the commune?

If the answer is no, then it is, by nature, coercive. If someone does not want to participate in the commune, he should be free to leave, or there is no difference between this and slavery.

To reiterate: a CEO must be killed to seize his property, but, 20years later, if his child wants to leave the commune, he should be able to.

cyu

16th June 2013, 15:50

a CEO must be killed to seize his property

If a CEO leaves the country and no longer bothers with the company, will you try to track him down and kill him? Do you believe the company won't be under the control of the employees until the employer is dead? Why or why not?

if his child wants to leave the commune, he should be able to.

There is no single entity as The Commune for anarchists. Everyone is considered their own nation, their own country, or their own commune, if you prefer. Relationships between people might be what you see as relationships between countries today - each person is sovereign.

However, for anti-capitalists, there is no concept of property either. If you leave "a commune" it's not like you've just abandoned property to go get your own property. None of it can be considered exclusively yours, whether you're on the commune or not.

If you need something to survive, it is fully within your rights to take it. If you are already living a good life, and you attack people for doing what they need to survive, then I would support the defense of those who need to survive.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 15:58

If a CEO leaves the country and no longer bothers with the company, will you try to track him down and kill him?

As long as his assets are liquidated, I'm fine. I was saying killing him might be necessary if he violently retaliates against the revolution.

Do you believe the company won't be under the control of the employees until the employer is dead? Why or why not?

As long as the employer "backs off", as stated above. When the company is democratically controlled, it can be decided if the previous owner's expertise if still needed.

There is no single entity as The Commune for anarchists. Everyone is considered their own nation, their own country, or their own commune, if you prefer. Relationships between people might be what you see as relationships between countries today - each person is sovereign.

So if someone starts offering his service as a gardener, for example, to other people in this anarchy, and someone offers him to paint his wall with blue paint, i.e: exchange, is this permitted?

However, for anti-capitalists, there is no concept of property either. If you leave "a commune" it's not like you've just abandoned property to go get your own property. None of it can be considered exclusively yours, whether you're on the commune or not.

If I do not want to work for the commune, can I leave, or as previously mentioned, trade my skills with others (provided it is voluntary, and non-coercive )

If you need something to survive, it is fully within your rights to take it. If you are already living a good life, and you attack people for doing what they need to survive, then I would support the defense of those who need to survive.

I agree here, partially. Please clarify though as it reads quite vaguely.

cyu

16th June 2013, 16:14

People already engage in exchange within a family, without any measure of GDP - for example, "I'll make you your favorite dessert if you help me in the garden." (They are free to do it, but I personally wouldn't recommend it on a psychological level - but that's a different topic.)

But what happens if a parent refuses to give their child any food? Does the child have the right to simply take the food?

Anarchists would say yes.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 16:25

Not all branches of anarchism.

So theft is justified in your utopia, or whatever you want to refer to it?

If I have an exquisite talent: gardening, making beautiful gardens out of patchy, colorless gardens, and people want great gardens, and they trade their specialties with me (like desserts, paint, music, etc), and I become wealthier than the average person because of my talent, then can someone a) forcefully redistribute my wealth and b) steal from me.

Funny thing is: the example I illustrated would most likely be condemned I'd say by quite a few on this forum in the name of egalitarianism, i.e: if I am wealthier than you ("hierarchy") then I must be suppressed.

Talent is unavoidable.

cyu

16th June 2013, 16:58

Again with the OI Learning comments - I suspect either you are a warmed over Randroid, or still a full-blown Randroid.

If you make useless gardens that nobody needs to survive, there's no need for anybody to take useless plants from you if they are useless. If you are attacking starving people from eating food that you claim is "yours", then I would support retaliation against you.

From http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/if-they-do-not-give-you-work-or-bread-gcybcajus7dp-10/

“Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread.”

Part of a speech by Emma Goldman when she was invited to a strike at Union Square, New York. Her speech quoted this declaration from Cardinal Henry Edward Manning:

“Necessity knows no law, and the starving man has a natural right to a share of his neighbor’s bread.”

The laws of man are much easier to break than the laws of survival. If your society isn’t providing enough legal ways to make a decent living, then more and more people will resort to illegal ways.

This isn’t to say I’m encouraging everyone to take bread or engage in armed robbery on the high seas, because while I think it’s justified for those who need to do it to survive, I don’t believe (for obvious reasons) that it’s a good economic strategy.

I would instead encourage the taking of the actual means of production (land, raw materials, equipment, etc) – like what the MST of Brazil did or what the rest of the Latin American recovered factory movements are doing.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 17:21

Again with the OI Learning comments - I suspect either you are a warmed over Randroid, or still a full-blown Randroid.

I have read Ayn Rand. I have read Karl Marx.

Nowhere have I mentioned any of her philosophies? What makes you believe that?

I am a synthesis anarchist, or an anarchist without adjectives.

I am in the learning sub-forum to learn more about the revolutionary left's views towards critical issues. This topic's headline fascinated me.

My conclusion is that one would be forced to participate in a communistic society. it would be mandatory, not voluntary. (unless you otherwise state).

I like how you referred to me as a 'Randroid'. Why not engage in discussion, regardless of political affiliation.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 17:24

If you make useless gardens that nobody needs to survive, there's no need for anybody to take useless plants from you if they are useless. If you are attacking starving people from eating food that you claim is "yours", then I would support retaliation against you.

So if I excel at gardening I can become wealthier than someone who perhaps has no excellent talent. So you're not an egalitarian.

if I amass a collection of desserts from my talent, and someone puts a gun to my head in order to feed someone who is starving, do you consider that legitimate?

cyu

16th June 2013, 17:27

I can smell Randroid ideas from a mile away :D She preaches independent thought, yet none of her followers think independently and instead slavishly follow her every mumbling - quite ironic :laugh:

If you are using violence to enforce a property claim regulation, is that voluntary or mandatory?

cyu

16th June 2013, 17:33

if I amass a collection of desserts from my talent, and someone puts a gun to my head in order to feed someone who is starving

As I've mentioned before, I am not a believer in property. What that pile of desserts is, is just a pile of desserts. You are free to lay claim over them, and as long as nobody cares about your rantings or the desserts, you can do with those desserts as you please. However, if somebody who is starving ignores your rantings and tries to eat some of those desserts, what will you do to him? Attack him?

Atilla

16th June 2013, 17:45

As I've mentioned before, I am not a believer in property. What that pile of desserts is, is just a pile of desserts. You are free to lay claim over them, and as long as nobody cares about your rantings or the desserts, you can do with those desserts as you please. However, if somebody who is starving ignores your rantings and tries to eat some of those desserts, what will you do to him? Attack him?

Can I call upon my friends and neighbors, under my supervision, and under my guidance, to decorate gardens according to my skill. Whoa, I have a successful garden enterprise now, eh? :D Soon I have stockpiled delicious desserts, artwork etc from various communities. People want to share in this success (voluntarily) and I want to expand production (voluntarily). So I pay them a portion of the profits I receive, in order to go and decorate gardens under my guidance.

Nothing coercive. If no one wants the gardening, I fail.

Do you allow gardening practices in your utopia, in exchange for other goods. yes/no. No property rights are needed in this discussion even.

If you are using violence to enforce a property claim regulation, is that voluntary or mandatory?

Protect a property claim, not enforce. Protect

Property comes from labor i;e: mixing labor with natural resources. Exertion of talent on resources.

cyu

16th June 2013, 17:53

Are you trying to dodge the question? Let me ask it again:

if somebody who is starving ignores your rantings and tries to eat some of those desserts, what will you do to him? Attack him?

Protect a property claim, not enforce. Protect

And I am protecting people's right to survive. If a land "owner" has fenced off a large tract of land for his dogs, while landless peasants have no place to grow food, guess which side anti-capitalists believe takes priority? Guess which side those with nothing left to lose will fight harder for?

Atilla

16th June 2013, 17:53

So if I excel at gardening I can become wealthier than someone who perhaps has no excellent talent. So you're not an egalitarian.

if I amass a collection of desserts from my talent, and someone puts a gun to my head in order to feed someone who is starving, do you consider that legitimate?

You didn't answer this, instead you ranted about Randroids.

What do you say?

Atilla

16th June 2013, 17:57

Are you trying to dodge the question? Let me ask it again:

if somebody who is starving ignores your rantings and tries to eat some of those desserts, what will you do to him? Attack him?

I will prevent him from taking my earned possession(s). i.e: self-defense.

And I am protecting people's right to survive. If a land "owner" has fenced off a large tract of land for his dogs, while landless peasants have no place to grow food, guess which side I anti-capitalists believe takes priority?

Placing a fence around a property is not legitimate unless you apply your labor to it. Natural law theorists hold this position. The land owner would have had to justly acquire the land, not simply enclose it. Once justly acquired, he can do what he likes with it so long as he does not violate human being's natural rights.

cyu

16th June 2013, 18:02

if I amass a collection of desserts from my talent, and someone puts a gun to my head in order to feed someone who is starving

There is no need to put a gun against your head. I simply walk up, pick up a dessert, and start eating. If you try to attack me, I shoot you.

I will prevent him from taking my earned possession(s). i.e: self-defense.

Then it's just a matter of civil war isn't it? =]

The land owner would have had to justly acquire the land, not simply enclose it.

Anti-capitalists would say there is in fact no just way to acquire land. Excerpt from http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/reconciling-property-rights-with-gcybcajus7dp-9/

Conquest results in wealth for the conquerors. Then that wealth is distributed to cronies and offspring. On and on it goes – not just in this country, but around the world. If you trace back the history of ownership of land and resources, how much of it doesn’t originate in conquest (or what some would call theft)?

Atilla

16th June 2013, 18:10

There is no need to put a gun against your head. I simply walk up, pick up a dessert, and start eating. If you try to attack me, I shoot you.

Theft. I rightly acquired and earned those desserts. I have every right (based on a whole range of morality philosophies) to defend the desserts. Want me to elaborate on why I have the right to?

Then it's just a matter of civil war isn't it? =]

Nope. But nice try. He attacks me for my goods, I defend myself.

Conquest results in wealth for the conquerors. Then that wealth is distributed to cronies and offspring. On and on it goes – not just in this country, but around the world. If you trace back the history of ownership of land and resources, how much of it doesn’t originate in conquest (or what some would call theft)?

I think this Rothbard quote is sufficient in reply in order to explain my position: If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be.

cyu

16th June 2013, 18:16

I have every right (based on a whole range of morality philosophies) to defend the desserts.

And if you are willing to fight for it against those who disagree with you, then we have civil war, like I said =]

I think this Rothbard quote is sufficient

Lol, quoting Rothbard eh? You still trying to pretend this doesn't belong in OI Learning? Or even just straight up Opposing Ideologies?

If Native Americans didn't happen to be using that piece of land when Columbus arrives, and he starts using it, then it would be similar to the gardener who puts down his tools to get a bite to eat, and then someone else shows up and starts using the gardener's tools.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 18:33

And if you are willing to fight for it against those who disagree with you, then we have civil war, like I said =]

Fight for my well-earned possessions that I acquired through my non coercive talent? How can someone disagree with this.

Provide a case supporting with the principle of taking from those who have earned something.

Lol, quoting Rothbard eh? You still trying to pretend this doesn't belong in OI Learning? Or even just straight up Opposing Ideologies?

Too bad you've never read Rothbard. I on the other hand have read Marx, Kropotkin and Bakunin.

If Native Americans didn't happen to be using that piece of land when Columbus arrives, and he starts using it, then it would be similar to the gardener who puts down his tools to get a bite to eat, and then someone else shows up and starts using the gardener's tools.

Nope. But well done affirming a disjunct and denying the antecedent :)

cyu

16th June 2013, 18:36

Fight for my well-earned possessions that I acquired through my non coercive talent?

What raw materials went into those possessions? What percentage of the raw materials and energy used to produce those items didn't come from conquered land? Do you consider conquest to be coercive?

Atilla

16th June 2013, 18:39

What raw materials went into those possessions?

My dexterity; I shape gardens with the skill of just a blade, for example sakes. I crafted the blade from a flaking stone that I stumbled upon.

What percentage of the raw materials and energy used to produce those items didn't come from conquered land?

The land was unclaimed. I found the stone and assumed no one to be using it.

Do you consider conquest to be coercive?

Yes. But define conquest in your worldview.

cyu

16th June 2013, 18:46

The land was unclaimed.

Once you claim it, is it forever yours? Do future generations get a say in decisions that were made a thousand years ago?

Atilla

16th June 2013, 18:53

Once you claim it, is it forever yours?

If I have applied my labor to it, provided no one else has previously claimed it, then it is mine. If someone else is using it and I claim it, I am initiating aggression- "conquest".

Do future generations get a say in decisions that were made a thousand years ago?

I'm afraid you need to elaborate.

cyu

16th June 2013, 18:59

If I have applied my labor to it, provided no one else has previously claimed it, then it is mine.

If I stepped on a piece of land while hunting for deer, leaving a footprint, have I applied my labor to it? If I lay a trap for beaver on a piece of land, have I applied my labor to it? If I leave and plan to come back 10 years later, is my claim to that land valid? How much of my claim is valid? Just the spot on which my trap rests? What if I left 100 traps? Do I own a bunch of polka dots?

If one of my ancestors and one of your ancestors from 1000 years ago agree to split a piece of land 50/50, or 90/10, trade an island for some beads, or whatever, am I forced to obey their decision? A decision I had no part in making?

LuÃs Henrique

16th June 2013, 18:59

This is a completely absurd question. How can a mode of production be "voluntary"? No, I cannot keep my own factory against the people; it will be expropriated and run by my former employees. No, I can't choose to keep myself enslaved in wage labour with a proprietor or his minions giving me orders; my co-workers will take the place and run it collectively, even if I dislike it and prefer the good old times when bosses ruled everything. I can certainly rant against it all I want, and nobody should forbid me from it; but I can't keep a boss for myself while private property is abolished everywhere.

Good grief.

Luís Henrique

Atilla

16th June 2013, 20:20

If I stepped on a piece of land while hunting for deer, leaving a footprint, have I applied my labor to it?

No.

If I lay a trap for beaver on a piece of land, have I applied my labor to it?

Property comes into existence when one mixes their labor with the land. In others words, that which someone creates by their own initiative, capability and work. John Locke: “The labor of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his.” In other words, if one adds value to an object, it is rightfully his.

I think the rest of your questions are meaningless until this is solved: provide an ethical or philosophical argument against private property or the homestead principle as I am advocating (I would read up on John Locke too). Once you present an argument, I can evaluate your position properly.

cyu

16th June 2013, 20:33

The homestead principle is invalid because it pre-supposes everyone else agrees with the homestead principle. If somebody does not agree with the homestead principle, then your claim that the land is yours, is merely violating their rights.

Even if you did have 100% agreement at the time you homesteaded a piece of land, if 30 years later, a child is born that disagrees with the homestead principle, then your claim is invalidated.

You have no right to impose your views of property on everyone else.

This isn't to say property as a concept is useless. It wouldn't exist as a concept if it were. I would say that property as a concept is handy only as a matter of convenience. If people weren't arguing all day over who gets to control what, then they'd actually have time to do stuff to help each other's survival.

However, when property concepts have been perverted to the point where its exclusionary principle is actually causing people to die, then it needs to be dispensed with. (And I would help provide arms to those who wish to prevent deaths caused by property claims.)

Atilla

16th June 2013, 20:52

The homestead principle is invalid because it pre-supposes everyone else agrees with the homestead principle.

What ethics code are you using? This is a fallacy to presume everyone must agree with a right or rule. If a murderer murders, he can claim he does not agree with the principle that it is wrong to murder. Does that justify his claim?

If somebody does not agree with the homestead principle, then your claim that the land is yours, is merely violating their rights.

I can use consequentialism, deontological ethics and so on to justify the homestead principle. Here's where you make your mistake: you say the claim violates someone else's rights. Let us use Locke's 3 natural rights: life, liberty, property. These hold true provided that one does not violate the other two (or one of the two). You need to use an ethics conduct to counter this, not a false dilemma.

Even if you did have 100% agreement at the time you homesteaded a piece of land, if 30 years later, a child is born that disagrees with the homestead principle, then your claim is invalidated.

As stated above, this is not a refutation.

You have no right to impose your views of property on everyone else.

You have no right to tell me I do not have access to the fruits of my labor.

This isn't to say property as a concept is useless. It wouldn't exist as a concept if it were. I would say that property as a concept is handy only as a matter of convenience. If people weren't arguing all day over who gets to control what, then they'd actually have time to do stuff to help each other's survival.

You have yet to provide an ethics argument.

However, when property concepts have been perverted to the point where its exclusionary principle is actually causing people to die, then it needs to be dispensed with. (And I would help provide arms to those who wish to prevent deaths caused by property claims.)

Emotional jabber. Provide an ethics argument.

CriticalJames

16th June 2013, 20:54

Surely if you refuse to take part in the socialist transition and fight to maintain a capitalist society then you're trying to lengthen the suffering and exploitation of other workers? It's almost as if it would be suggesting to give people the individual freedom to decide the governmental system for themselves regardless of popular opinion.

Of course people should be allowed to express their discontent, but if the ideas that they advocate mean the suffering of others, there's no reason for anybody to listen to them. The common interests of the working people would, in theory, make any individual attempts or campaigns very insignificant.

cyu

16th June 2013, 21:45

If a murderer murders, he can claim he does not agree with the principle that it is wrong to murder.

He can certainly try to make that claim, but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone else agrees. And if they don't agree, then they may kill him themselves or do whatever else they feel like to them. This is called sovereignty. If you don't actually understand anarchist thought, see http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-viewpoint-crime-t178476/index.html

Let us use Locke's 3 natural rights: life, liberty, property.

Let's not. Those are just 3 random things pulled out of thin air. What makes these 3 things more valid than anything else?

But do let me educate you on ideological evolution - whether you agree with an ideology or not, a successful ideology is one that is best able to spread its memes. The same is true of successful gene sequences - they too are best able to spread their genes.

So how does a successful ideology spread it's memes? In the same way a successful genome spreads its genes - by improving the survival chances of its carriers - but not only that, but it must also improve the chances that its carriers will reproduce those genes or memes.

Thus good genes help their organisms survive, and improve their ability to reproduce. Similarly, good memes help their carriers survive, and improve their ability to spread those memes.

When a set of memes encourages its carriers to, say, commit suicide - obviously that set of memes isn't destined to last very long - it kills off its own carriers and hurts its own chances to spread. On the other hand, a set of memes that best enables its carriers to survive and spread their ideas, becomes an ideology that is able to pass itself down through generations and millennia.

Now imagine a set of memes in which carriers are encouraged to accept that some of them are going to live the good life, and some should simply accept that they should die unpleasant deaths. Is this a set of memes that encourages its own survival? Here is one example of such an ideology: capitalism.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 22:01

He can certainly try to make that claim, but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone else agrees.

If there are no principle ethics you are going to argue from then you have no code of ethics, morality etc, so there's no point in discussing private property claims.

What makes murder wrong, according to you? What makes private property wrong? What makes forced redistribution of wealth right?

Let's not. Those are just 3 random things pulled out of thin air. What makes these 3 things more valid than anything else?

Ethical intuitionism makes them more valid. Based on the principle that aggression is inherently illegitimate, and these three subjects are essentially protected provided aggression is prohibited. I can defend this principle using argumentation ethics, consequentialism, deontoligcal ethics, to name a few.

But do let me educate you on ideological evolution - whether you agree with an ideology or not, a successful ideology is one that is best able to spread its memes. The same is true of successful gene sequences - they too are best able to spread their genes.

Appeal to bitterness

Now imagine a set of memes in which carriers are encouraged to accept that some of them are going to live the good life, and some should simply accept that they should die unpleasant deaths. Is this a set of memes that encourages its own survival? Here is one example of such an ideology: capitalism.

Naturalistic fallacy, appeal to bitterness, straw man, judgmental language, appeal to emotion.

Any substantive criticism(s), sir/ma'am?

cyu

16th June 2013, 22:14

People kill each other throughout history, yet all long lasting societies have laws against murder, and all long lasting religions discourage murder. Why you ask? Is there an "ethical" reason for this? Is there a "scientific" reason for this? Is science ethical? Is science amoral?

I am sensing you need my wisdoms bad, so I shall stoop to giving you a tiny fraction of my superior enlightenment ;)

What humans believe is "ethical" or "moral" has developed over time, and indeed can be studied scientifically - despite the fact that science itself is amoral. Science doesn't judge whether something is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do, yet science can explain why humans believe something is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do.

And what is the scientific explanation, you may ask. Here it is: http://www.revleft.com/vb/revenge-ever-justified-t179128/index2.html

Atilla

16th June 2013, 22:19

Why is murder wrong, according to you. Why is private property wrong according to you.

What ethical code are you using to make value judgments on any interactions in society?

Is aggression ever legitimate? Why do people have different talents and skills? Why do we use ethics conducts and codes?

Go ask yourself these questions. Write down the reply in this thread (please, pretty please:thumbup1: )

cyu

16th June 2013, 22:25

In case you didn't actually read the link, here's an excerpt:

...above is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation)

In terms of game theory, tit-for-tat has been shown to be a pretty good survival strategy, and probably accounts for why memes for revenge and "an eye for an eye" are still prevalent. However a lot of human philosophies evolved by an ad hoc basis or through trial and error. The challenge for those participating in the tournament above was, could you design a strategy better than tit-for-tat?

you also have to take into account the environment in which the strategy evolves.

For example, there are some non-poisonous animals that look like poisonous animals, and this protects them. However, this trait will only work in an environment that includes those poisonous animals. If the poisonous ones didn't exist, then the trait would be useless.

Similarly, in an environment in which tit-for-tat was predominant, but was often thrown out of whack by noise (mistakes / misunderstanding), then a strategy of full-forgiveness might be more successful... however, the same strategy might not work as well in an environment where most strategies were a lot "meaner" than tit-for-tat.

I would say the basis for judging whether something is "immoral" or not is whether it is an example of cooperative behavior or not. Murder is wrong because it works against cooperation. There are a great many behaviors to which this can be applied - and a great many different behaviors achieve different levels of cooperation.

Atilla

16th June 2013, 22:27

I would say the basis for judging whether something is "immoral" or not is whether it is an example of cooperative behavior or not. Murder is wrong because it works against cooperation. There are a great many behaviors to which this can be applied - and a great many different behaviors achieve different levels of cooperation.

Who defines what is cooperative behavior?

MarxArchist

16th June 2013, 22:32

Atilla

16th June 2013, 22:43

Voluntary communism but if those who don't want to take part attempt to set up an economic system which facilitates wealth accumulation in a minority class' hands via private property (capitalism) or any other coercive means then, well, that would be considered aggression. I'm not talking about people who would homestead and build a nice cabin, have some land to farm/livestock/small agriculture I'm speaking of people who would seek to attempt a new era of primitive accumulation which can only be done via coercion so that would be unacceptable.

Capitalism co-existing with voluntary communism is entirely possible and inevitable.

Capitalism (defined as voluntary exchange) is not coercive. If someone has the option to contribute to a commune or work as a wage laborer, you cannot deny him the chance to work for a wage laborer or else you are initiating aggression.

cyu

17th June 2013, 04:03

Who defines what is cooperative behavior?

On a theoretical / ideological level, anarchists say everyone decides for themselves what counts as cooperative or not. However, on a sociological / scientific level, evolution itself decides what counts as cooperative or not.

In other words, genes are what enable your cells to cooperate with one another. Do your cells actually "think" or "debate" with one another whether behavior is mutually beneficial or benefits third parties? Of course not - however, genetic evolution itself selects for genes that best enable cooperation between cells in your body.

Similarly, over thousands of years, memetic evolution itself has selected for memes that best enable cooperation between individuals within a society. Laws against murder, for example, are among the most basic. But it goes much beyond that - even basic "politeness" in casual discourse is evidence of cooperative evolution.

Which is more "polite"? "Give me the goddamn salt!" or "Could you please pass the salt please?" The request in the end is the same, and they are both attempts to influence the behavior of others. The second is of course what is considered polite, and politeness is actually a strategy that is much more likely to get your request both fulfilled, while maintaining the possibility of future cooperation between you and your "target".

There are a great many more examples - of course, I hardly expect crypto-social-darwinists to understand much about it... hence why you need my wisdoms so badly ;)

Atilla

17th June 2013, 13:24

Is initiated aggression ever co-operative? If not, I agree with your [rather obscure] crypto-pseudo morality conduct ;)

So, [strangely enough] it appears you abandoned our private property argument. Any way, you have failed to provide me a reason why private property violates this pseudo evolutionary moral construct.

Would you like to return to the subject?

Read this (http://mises.org/daily/3660)

Then this (http://archive.mises.org/17862)

Then, rethink all your beliefs, and return to the discussion. I would be delighted to discuss the praxeological method, deontological ethics and social contracts with you.

cyu

17th June 2013, 14:19

Pro-capitalists believe that taking property counts as "initiating aggression". Anti-capitalists believe that attacking people who are trying to survive counts as "initiating aggression".

Just as dynamite has cooperative uses, dynamite also has anti-cooperative uses. If you believe "property" only has cooperative uses, then it's likely that you've been brainwashed by Charles Koch.

It's not like I haven't encountered the priests of Mises before - just another paid mouthpiece for the wealthy as far as I'm concerned.

But do let me explain what "cooperation" is for noobs like you, but let me not even use labels. Let me just give you 4 types of behaviors:

1. A behavior that benefits both you and others
2. A behavior that benefits you, but hurts others
3. A behavior that hurts yourself, but helps others
4. A behavior that hurts both yourself and others

So we have these 4 types of behaviors. If you were going to make one of these types of behavior pre-dominant in a society, and encouraged by a long-lasting ideology, which would it be? And how would you achieve it?

Atilla

17th June 2013, 15:26

Pro-capitalists believe that taking property counts as "initiating aggression".

Yes. I have absolute jurisdiction of my body. Do you agree no one can justly invade against, or aggress against, someone's body? Guess what logically follows...yep, self ownership. Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics), and return with a refutation.

Anti-capitalists believe that attacking people who are trying to survive counts as "initiating aggression".

I think you mistyped this sentence:laugh:

If you believe "property" only has cooperative uses, then it's likely that you've been brainwashed by Charles Koch.

Lol'ed hard at the underlined part:blink:

The question of property is not whether it is co-operative or not, the question is of self-ownership.

When a society adopts the rule of self-ownership, then mankind as a group makes headway faster and easier. This is not only because each individual can flourish better as outlined earlier. It is also because such a rule is consistent with free markets and cooperative behavior. In fact, self-ownership and free markets are implied by each other. Given self-ownership, we can expect free markets to occur given that people benefit from trade because of specialization. Conversely, where markets are free, people are able to exchange and produce freely, which means that they have self-ownership. All of the many virtues of free markets and property rights, detailed by many writers, are support for the axiom of self-ownership.

Mankind's choice is clear: self-ownership or non-self-ownership. With self-ownership comes individual flourishing, free markets, cooperation, and learning. Without self-ownership comes suppression of the individual, controlled exchange, greater conflict, and a dulled spirit. Without self-ownership comes a regimented society.

Read more here (http://mises.org/daily/1895) (provided you are interested in serious debate.)

It's not like I haven't encountered the priests of Mises before - just another paid mouthpiece for the wealthy as far as I'm concerned.

I am against corrupt bureaucrats as much as you are. I despise corrupt government officials, rich tycoons who get favors from these corrupt officials, and so on.

The difference is I want to eliminate the state so that the wealthy have to compete in conditions that favors those that provide a product that society wants or needs. Not getting rich by providing government officials with favors.

But do let me explain what "cooperation" is for noobs like you, but let me not even use labels. Let me just give you 4 types of behaviors:

1. A behavior that benefits both you and others
2. A behavior that benefits you, but hurts others
3. A behavior that hurts yourself, but helps others
4. A behavior that hurts both yourself and others

So we have these 4 types of behaviors. If you were going to make one of these types of behavior pre-dominant in a society, and encouraged by a long-lasting ideology, which would it be? And how would you achieve it?

Co-operation is admirable, indeed.

But should someone be compelled to co-operate with others?

In my dream society, everything is voluntary. Want to form a commune? A network of trade organisations? Live on a farm by yourself? Sell your labor to the evil capitalist? As long as it is voluntary I do not care; so long as no aggression is initiated (disregarding self-defense).

cyu

17th June 2013, 16:01

So you don't believe you've been brainwashed by Charles Koch? Why or why not?

Catholics also believe in the sanctity of life. Leftist ideologies also aim to help provide life for everyone. There is a common thread, but is viewed at different angles by different ideologies. What capitalists attempt to do, is try to conflate biological organisms with inanimate objects. You do understand what is a part of your body, and what isn't, don't you?

I despise corrupt government officials, rich tycoons who get favors from these corrupt officials, and so on.

If you don't believe you've been brainwashed by Charles Koch, what do you believe should be done to him?

should someone be compelled to co-operate with others?

Nope - depends on what you mean by compelled, of course. If I say, you will starve unless you agree to my terms, does that count as compelled? Anyway, what religions have traditionally done is "compel" you with "brainwashing" - what they actually do is take a behavior that is altruistic (ie. hurt yourself but help others) and turn it into one that is cooperative (ie. benefits both you and others). How do they do it? They actually play on your emotions. They make you feel pride in donating a lot of money to charity, feel good about yourself when you help others. The result is that you really do benefit yourself (ie. feel happy, an emotional benefit) while helping others... and what is anybody's life goal but to be "happy"?

This is one aspect of many religions that have allowed them to survive for so many hundreds or thousands of years - by encouraging cooperative behavior, they improve the survival chances of all their carriers, who then pass down the religions to their offspring.

And what would you say is the opposite of cooperation? Hurt both yourself and others? That probably sounds silly to you. So if it's not that, what is the opposite of cooperation? If someone is doing something that benefits themselves while hurting others, should they be compelled to stop?

Anyway, from http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-materialist-neo-t181280/index.html

For pro-capitalists who are social darwinists (which I would say most are), I think it's actually interesting that they encourage everyone to engage in cooperation, in order to set up a system of competition. In other words, they want everyone to obey claims of property (ie. cooperate) so that they can set up an economic contest where the winners flush their toilets with distilled alpine water, and the losers die homeless on the street. And this they call "The Market" - which would only exist if everyone works together (cooperates) to ensure property claims are obeyed, contracts are tracked down, and corporate structure enforced - the end result of such cooperation is so that a system of competition can be imposed between people.

I see most leftist ideologies as cooperative systems - which attempt to find a place for everyone, not to die, but to be helped by everyone else. What I think is interesting is that leftists engage in debate (competition) between different cooperative systems, with the end goal being that the winner of the competition - ie. the system that is judged to best enable everyone to cooperate - as the system that should be implemented.

Atilla

17th June 2013, 16:23

So you don't believe you've been brainwashed by Charles Koch? Why or why not?

Yes. It is libertarian protocol to recite the prayers of the Koch dynasty every night, whilst bathing in olive oil and thanking the God, Murray Rothbard, for making me richer than the poor.

Catholics also believe in the sanctity of life. Leftist ideologies also aim to help provide life for everyone. There is a common thread, but is viewed at different angles by different ideologies. What capitalists attempt to do, is try to conflate biological organisms with inanimate objects. You do understand what is a part of your body, and what isn't, don't you?

I reason that if a person owns themselves, they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their own labour and the fruits thereof.

If you don't believe you've been brainwashed by Charles Koch, what do you believe should be done to him?

We should build a shrine of his glorious face, made out of pure gold, using pennies stolen from the poor.

Nope - depends on what you mean by compelled, of course. If I say, you will starve unless you agree to my terms, does that count as compelled?

The laws of nature state that you starve unless you earn. So you are compelled, by the state of nature. It is not coercion.

Anyway, what religions have traditionally done is "compel" you with "brainwashing" - what they actually do is take a behavior that is altruistic (ie. hurt yourself but help others) and turn it into one that is cooperative (ie. benefits both you and others). How do they do it? They actually play on your emotions. They make you feel pride in donating a lot of money to charity, feel good about yourself when you help others. The result is that you really do benefit yourself (ie. feel happy, an emotional benefit) while helping others... and what is anybody's life goal but to be "happy"?

Altruism = psychological egoism.

This is one aspect of many religions that have allowed them to survive for so many hundreds or thousands of years - by encouraging cooperative behavior, they improve the survival chances of all their carriers, who then pass down the religions to their offspring.

The unanswered questions of life- "god of the gaps"- has allowed religion, and will continue to allow it to flourish.

And what would you say is the opposite of cooperation? Hurt both yourself and others? That probably sounds silly to you. So if it's not that, what is the opposite of cooperation? If someone is doing something that benefits themselves while hurting others, should they be compelled to stop?

Define "hurting others".

For pro-capitalists who are social darwinists (which I would say most are), I think it's actually interesting that they encourage everyone to engage in cooperation, in order to set up a system of competition. In other words, they want everyone to obey claims of property (ie. cooperate) so that they can set up an economic contest where the winners flush their toilets with distilled alpine water, and the losers die homeless on the street. And this they call "The Market" - which would only exist if everyone works together (cooperates) to ensure property claims are obeyed, contracts are tracked down, and corporate structure enforced - the end result of such cooperation is so that a system of competition can be imposed between people.

Fantastic analysis. You really showed those bourgeoisie economists! My Rothbard senses are tingling; when a leftist starts owning you, one must retreat!

I see most leftist ideologies as cooperative systems - which attempt to find a place for everyone, not to die, but to be helped by everyone else. What I think is interesting is that leftists engage in debate (competition) between different cooperative systems, with the end goal being that the winner of the competition - ie. the system that is judged to best enable everyone to cooperate - as the system that should be implemented.

False dilemma; affirming a disjunct; denying the antecedent; appeal to motive; appeal to spite

Who judges how effective a system is in enabling everyone to co-operate?

LuÃs Henrique

17th June 2013, 16:26

Capitalism co-existing with voluntary communism is entirely possible and inevitable.

Capitalism (defined as voluntary exchange) is not coercive. If someone has the option to contribute to a commune or work as a wage laborer, you cannot deny him the chance to work for a wage laborer or else you are initiating aggression.

People won't have the option of selling their labour power for a wage, no more than they have the option of selling themselves as slaves, or of swearing loyalty to a feudal lord.

But your reasoning is funny. Does it mean that if, in a capitalist society, I apply for a job, and the company refuses me, they are "initiating aggression" against me? If so, and I consequently shoot them in the middle of their ugly faces, can I argue self-defence then?

Luís Henrique

Atilla

17th June 2013, 16:59

People won't have the option of selling their labour power for a wage, no more than they have the option of selling themselves as slaves, or of swearing loyalty to a feudal lord.

But your reasoning is funny. Does it mean that if, in a capitalist society, I apply for a job, and the company refuses me, they are "initiating aggression" against me? If so, and I consequently shoot them in the middle of their ugly faces, can I argue self-defence then?

Luís Henrique

Hi, Luís

Aggression is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person, or legitimately-owned property of another.

Your example does not constitute aggression.

If your résumé fails to impress an evil capitalist pig, then he has the right to adjust his monocle, and not employ you.

Akshay!

17th June 2013, 17:11

My point is: in this newly found communistic society, formed with networks of communes, "from each according to ability, to each according to need" etc, what if some wants to break away from the commune?

You mean if the whole world has become communist will I care if some random guy wants to go and live in the Himalayas? No, I won't. But this is totally irrelevant to the discussion "Socialism: Voluntary or Mandatory". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)

Capitalism co-existing with voluntary communism is entirely possible and inevitable.

Capitalism (defined as voluntary exchange) is not coercive. If someone has the option to contribute to a commune or work as a wage laborer, you cannot deny him the chance to work for a wage laborer or else you are initiating aggression.

Why are you on revleft? :confused:

Ethics. Ethics. Ethics.
You don't define class struggle in terms of some higher ethics (that's idealism). You define ethics in terms of the class struggle (that's materialism). What helps the proletariat take power from the bourgeoisie IS moral. You should try Friedrich Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific."

Atilla

17th June 2013, 17:20

Hi, Akshay

You mean if the whole world has become communist will I care if some random guy wants to go and live in the Himalayas? No, I won't. But this is totally irrelevant to the discussion "Socialism: Voluntary or Mandatory". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)

If I live in the Himalayas, can I trade with others that went their voluntarily to avoid communism?

Why are you on revleft? :confused:

To learn about the revolutionary left and engage in discussion.

You don't define class struggle in terms of some higher ethics (that's idealism). You define ethics in terms of the class struggle (that's materialism). What helps the proletariat take power from the bourgeoisie IS moral. You should try Friedrich Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific."

What is moral to me is simple: it relies on a praxeological presupposition necessary to any ethical discourse. It states that aggression is inherently illegitimate (defined as as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person, or legitimately-owned property of another).

I understand your proposition, and I agree, the state of nature that is present, that is the state, must be abolished in order to preserve freedom.

Whether you are apart of a commune, or are a wage-laborer is irrelevant, as long as society is voluntary and free of coercion.

--------------------------------------------------------------
It is very relevant to the title Socialism: voluntary or mandatory.

If I learn that socialism is mandatory, then it violates the NAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), and thus is immoral.

Unless you can otherwise prove aggression is legitimate.

LuÃs Henrique

17th June 2013, 17:24

Hi, Luís

Aggression is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person, or legitimately-owned property of another.

Your example does not constitute aggression.

If your résumé fails to impress an evil capitalist pig, then he has the right to adjust his monocle, and not employ you.

I see. Then, what do you mean by

If someone has the option to contribute to a commune or work as a wage laborer, you cannot deny him the chance to work for a wage laborer or else you are initiating aggression.

?

If a "capitalist pig" has the right to deny a job to anyone, why would a "commune" be under the obligation of hiring a person just because?

Luís Henrique

Atilla

17th June 2013, 17:37

If a "capitalist pig" has the right to deny a job to anyone, why would a "commune" be under the obligation of hiring a person just because?

Luís Henrique

Hi, Luís

I thought under communism everyone would pool their labor for the benefit of society, in the form of a commune.

My point was that, if one wanted to break away from the commune, and you denied them the opportunity to (what many in this thread have advocated for), you would be initiating aggression i.e: the threat (or use) of force.

A capitalist needs laborers in order to create a product; if a person wants to work for them, then the people in the commune cannot deny the person a chance to work for the capitalist (assuming we were living in a free society, where communes existed, yet people had the opportunity to work for themselves).

If the capitalist does not require or see fit the laborer's skills, he is not initiating aggression by not hiring the worker.

If you are confused as to what constitutes aggression for the purpose of the axiom "the non-aggression principle" (NAP), read here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) for a quick, brief introduction.

LuÃs Henrique

17th June 2013, 17:39

Hi, Luís

Please define commune for the purpose of this conversation.

Well, I am merely using the same word you used. What is a "commune" to you?

Luís Henrique

Atilla

17th June 2013, 17:49

A society where groups of people pool their labor for the benefit of the collective. Stateless, classeless etc.

If I do not want to participate, I should have the freedom to break away from this society.

I think it is an admirable idea, though. As long as it is voluntary and not mandatory.

cyu

17th June 2013, 17:51

What Charles Koch relies on is the advantage that wealth gives him in spreading his ideas. Obviously, wealth enables a person to use more resources to spread their ideas, no matter how deluded. That is the advantage that capitalists have. On the other hand, since they have no other natural advantage other than material resources, they have to rely on half-truths and demagoguery for their ideas to succeed - the result of doing that is a natural disadvantage - no ideology can really be a serious one if it's based on half-truths and demagoguery. So for pro-capitalist ideas, there's an ever-lasting conflict between their natural advantages and disadvantages - as long as they can use economic resources to their benefit, they will be gaining ground - but that gain will always be checked by the deception they are forced to use in order to further their agenda.

So if Charles Koch were funding organizations in Colombia for the purpose of killing union activists, what should be done to Charles Koch?

Who judges how effective a system is in enabling everyone to co-operate?

Again, for anarchists, everyone decides for himself. And how will it be implemented? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action

...and what if anarchists disagree as to the best plan of action? From http://everything2.com/title/anarchist+army

For the anarchist deciding on the merits of a military tactic, her action would be based on the military tactic she believes to be most well thought out. Perhaps she will consult with her peers about the relative merits of any given tactic, perhaps she will believe she already has enough information to act and all she needs to do is contact the people who agree, so they can help each other carry out the strategy against their common foe.

Of course, like anything else, if she finds that she is alone in the tactic she chooses and can't accomplish it without the help of others, she has no right to force others to follow her - she will either have to do nothing, or select an alternate tactic that does have enough supporters to be effective.

cyu

17th June 2013, 17:55

A capitalist needs laborers in order to create a product; if a person wants to work for them, then the people in the commune cannot deny the person a chance to work for the capitalist (assuming we were living in a free society, where communes existed, yet people had the opportunity to work for themselves).

If all the world were made up of "communes" - however you define them, and there are no non-communes left - and you want to break away from your commune, what resources would you require? What raw materials? What if no commune was willing to provide you with access to any resources and raw materials? Would that be aggression against you?

If all the world were made up of capitalist companies - however you define them, and there are no non-capitalist companies left - and you want to break away from your company, what resources would you require? What raw materials? What if no company was willing to provide you with access to any resources and raw materials? Would that be aggression against you?

Atilla

17th June 2013, 17:57

The majority of the most influential people in history were not wealthy. Good ideas allow concepts to spread, not wealth.

If he was discovered to support groups that initiate aggression, he should be punished according to law. He is not, in my eyes, above the law because he is rich. He is above the law because he can get government to do favors for him and turn a blind eye to any (if any) illegal actions he does.

Your "plan" is tyranny of the minority, in essence.

Let people make decisions concerning themselves and build a society upon voluntary interactions, and you have freedom.

Atilla

17th June 2013, 18:00

If all the world were made up of "communes" - however you define them, and there are no non-communes left - and you want to break away from your commune, what resources would you require? What raw materials? What if no commune was willing to provide you with access to any resources and raw materials? Would that be aggression against you?

Yes.

If all the world were made up of capitalist companies - however you define them, and there are no non-capitalist companies left - and you want to break away from your company, what resources would you require? What raw materials? What if no company was willing to provide you with access to any resources and raw materials? Would that be aggression against you?

Many workers pay their union fees; why not pool together and purchase a factory and have it democratically controlled?

cyu

17th June 2013, 18:10

Good ideas allow concepts to spread, not wealth.

Would you say the following is a good illustration of this claim? From http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalist-science-self-t172025/index.html

in 1969 Sweden’s central bank used the pretense of its 300th anniversary to push through an independent prize in “economic science” in memory of Alfred Nobel. To ensure the prize would be awarded to the right economists, the bank managed to install a rightwing Swedish economist named Assar Lindbeck, who had ties to University of Chicago, to oversee the awards committee and keep him there for more than three decades.

For the first few years, the Prize in Economics went to fairly mainstream and even semi-respectable economists. But after establishing the award as credible and serious, the prizes took a hard turn to the right.

five years after the prize was first created, it was awarded to Friedrich Hayek, one of the leading enrich the rich economists of the 20th century. Milton Friedman, who was at the University of Chicago with Hayek, won the prize just two years later.

Before he won the award, it looked like Hayek was washed up. He was considered a quack and fraud by contemporary economists, he had spent the 50s and 60s in academic obscurity, preaching the gospel of economic darwinism while on the payroll of ultra-rightwing American billionaires. Hayek had powerful backers, but was out on the fringes of academic credibility.

Billionaire Charles Koch brought Hayek out for an extended victory tour of the United States, tapping Hayek’s mainstream cred to set up and underwrite Cato Institute in 1974 (it was called the Charles Koch Foundation until 1977).

If he was discovered to support groups that initiate aggression, he should be punished according to law. He is not, in my eyes, above the law because he is rich. He is above the law because he can get government to do favors for him and turn a blind eye to any (if any) illegal actions he does.

You say "punished according to law" yet you say "he can get government to do favors for him" - so you don't see those two ideas in conflict? Anarchists (ie. the original libertarians) see the wealthy as actually writing the law, so that punished "according to law" no longer makes any sense, since the law is already their plaything.

Your "plan" is tyranny of the minority, in essence.

When people do not agree and are willing to fight for it, we have civil war, as previously mentioned =]

So when a commune refuses to give you resources, it is aggression, but the same is not true if capitalist-controlled companies are involved? What is the essential aspect that makes these scenarios different at their root?

Atilla

17th June 2013, 18:16

You say "punished according to law" yet you say "he can get government to do favors for him" - so don't see those two ideas in conflict? Anarchists (ie. the original libertarians) see the wealthy as actually writing the law, so that punished "according to law" no longer makes any sense, since the law is already their plaything.

That's why we must remove the state so that he cannot get the government to do favors for him.

Law is not reliant on the government. Property rights are not reliant on the government. Of course you straw man the heck out of the libertarian position into thinking these are reliant on the government, when in reality the government are the biggest violators of natural law and property rights.

When people do not agree and are willing to fight for it, we have civil war, as previously mentioned =]

How can you not agree with a voluntary society: do whatever you want, just do not violate the rights of others (aggression).

So when a commune refuses to give you resources, it is aggression, but the same is not true if capitalist-controlled companies are involved? What is the essential aspect that makes these scenarios different at their root?

How did the commune acquire the resources? Legitimately? Or with the barrel of a gun? If legitimately, then it is not aggression if they deny you their resources. Just as it is not aggression if a capitalist denies you his resources.

cyu

17th June 2013, 18:40

That's why we must remove the state so that he cannot get the government to do favors for him.

The following is an anarchist viewpoint on the creation of "The State (TM)":

People engage in economic activity. To try to help facilitate that economic activity (for mutual benefit), they start to use the concept of property. Eventually this concept of property allows some individuals in that society to get much wealthier than everyone else. That person begins to hire body guards, then weapons makers for his body guards, then security forces, and eventually builds an army. Sometimes they use this army for the protection of their fellow villagers, sometimes they use this army to conquer their neighboring villages, sometimes they use this army to enslave their own people.

...in other words, abolishing the current government makes little difference, if it will just be replaced by private security forces. How would you prevent a second de-facto government from rising up, if not by preventing the wealthy from building a private army?

How can you not agree with a voluntary society: do whatever you want, just do not violate the rights of others (aggression).

The pro-capitalists claim, "You aggressed against us by taking our property! Attack!" The anti-capitalists claim, "You attacked us simply for trying to grow food next to the pond! Attack!" ...thus, civil war.

How did the commune acquire the resources? Legitimately?

Again, anti-capitalists do not believe any land can be "acquired" legitimately. What percentage of current land holdings do you believe originated in conquest? What should be done about that land? What percentage of current factory and office equipment originated from conquered raw materials? What should be done about them?

If legitimately, then it is not aggression if they deny you their resources.

So if all the world were communes "acquired legitimately" in your words, then it is now mandatory to live on communes?

CriticalJames

17th June 2013, 18:56

Capitalism co-existing with voluntary communism is entirely possible and inevitable.

Capitalism (defined as voluntary exchange) is not coercive. If someone has the option to contribute to a commune or work as a wage laborer, you cannot deny him the chance to work for a wage laborer or else you are initiating aggression.

This isn't a one-way system though. If he's being a wage laborer, then there's somebody else that's making a profit from the products of his labor. Are you saying that a socialist world would allow business owners to begin new configurations of exploitation and unfair profit? While freedom is an important pillar of socialism, that freedom ends when it's demonstrated at the expense of others.

Atilla

17th June 2013, 19:05

cyu,

Your post is an elementary critique of the libertarianism anarchy.

Why should I spend ages typing out a helpful response? We disagree on private property; of which you have not refuted, and I refuse to describe a libertarian anarchy in detail when there's plenty of free literature online available for you to read if you were truly interested.

I recommend reading the links here, it is a great virtual library of Libertarian FAQ: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28958.aspx

Atilla

17th June 2013, 19:08

This isn't a one-way system though. If he's being a wage laborer, then there's somebody else that's making a profit from the products of his labor. Are you saying that a socialist world would allow business owners to begin new configurations of exploitation and unfair profit? While freedom is an important pillar of socialism, that freedom ends when it's demonstrated at the expense of others.

If a worker actively knows his labor will generate profit for another individual, yet still wants to work for him, then what is morally wrong with that?

I'm saying one should be free to not participate in a socialistic society; otherwise, it is inherently immoral if they are forced to.

cyu

17th June 2013, 19:08

Gee, I was under the impression you were here to learn about socialism. I didn't realize I was here to learn about capitalism.

From http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/reconciling-property-rights-with-gcybcajus7dp-9/

There are many definitions of theft – different societies have different laws governing control over objects and resources. This control is basically how property is defined. Different kinds of laws mean different concepts of property. Some wealthy property owners, when confronted with the possibility that the (more numerous) poor may vote for higher taxes on the wealthy, will argue that taxation is theft. Other less wealthy people, particularly those who work under someone else, may believe exploitation is theft. Then there’s Proudhon’s famous declaration that, “Property is theft.”

The following are reactions to the concept of conquest from two different types of pro-capitalists.

Ownership Through Conquest is Justified
This view claims that conquest is justified because the conqueror risked his life (or at least risked the lives of his minions) in battle, and thus has earned the right to control.

However, these pro-capitalists are opposed to the concept of an anti-capitalist revolution, claiming that would be a violation of their property rights. If employees “conquer” their places of work by escorting their boss off company premises, these pro-capitalists do not see that as a “legitimate” form of conquest.

Ownership Through Conquest is Not Justified
Other pro-capitalists do not believe conquest is justified and yet they oppose returning conquered land and resources to the natives (or their descendents). They believe conquest is an injustice, but do not have a good idea of how to rectify that injustice.

Conquest results in wealth for the conquerors. Then that wealth is distributed to cronies and offspring. On and on it goes – not just in this country, but around the world. If you trace back the history of ownership of land and resources, how much of it doesn’t originate in conquest (or what some would call theft)?

How far back do you have to go before you consider property valid? If one group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon conquered land from another group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon, do their ancestors have to return it? If not, why not? Is there a “statute of limitations”? If so, how many years does it have to be, and who decides on this number?

Why Have Society?
Personally, I don’t (that’s right, don’t) support giving back everything to the natives (or their descendants). Instead, I assert that the resources be used for the benefit of everyone in that area, whether it’s later settlers, recent immigrants, the natives, whatever. Human beings form societies in order to protect themselves. The point of the political, economic, and religious systems they set up is to benefit as many of the individuals in the population as possible. Because property requires society to enforce it, why should society enforce something that is not beneficial to it? It is not an “axiomatic” right – if it has become perverted to the point at which it is judged no longer beneficial, then it (or at least parts of it) should be dispensed with – especially if it is causing the death of others.

Atilla

17th June 2013, 19:16

I am here to learn about socialism, indeed.

I do not have any need to type out a libertarian anarchy (in terms of law, protection agencies and so on). I just think it's amusing how smug you were, and how clever you [thought] you were, in identifying that protection agencies could take over.

Don't you think it has been covered before? :)

I see more straw men. You know my position doesn't justify conquest.

Private property benefits everyone. Even if it did not, the question is not public benefit, but personal freedom.

I'd like to ask you: you complain about "dire poverty" in the world and such. Humans have lived in abject poverty forever. The question should not be "why are people poor", but rather "why, in the last 2 centuries, have people managed to climb out of poverty?"

Think about the answer. Think about its connection to property rights and the division of labor.

:thumbup1:

cyu

17th June 2013, 19:24

the question is not public benefit, but personal freedom

Personal freedom is a part of public benefit. If you didn't see personal freedom as a benefit, why fight for it?

"why, in the last 2 centuries, have people managed to climb out of poverty?"

Lol, and why are people in Greece climbing back in? :D There's a reason I'm smug - it's because you're an idiot ;) [Actually, the real reason is because I'm using what I call "The Voice of Contempt" - a rhetorical tool I use on those I consider to be social darwinists.] Anyway, another economics lesson for fools that have only been educated by the ruling class:

From http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/demand-is-not-measured-in-units-of-gcybcajus7dp-4/

A market economy can work pretty well to determine what needs to be produced, provided there’s one condition: that everyone has relatively equal amounts of spending power. Consider the concept of supply and demand: in theory, the more demand there is for some product or service, a market economy will be encouraged to increase the supply for that product or service.

However, there is a flaw in the theory above that many pro-capitalists overlook: demand (in a capitalist economy) is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. Thus you can have 99% of the people “demanding” basic necessities of life, but it won’t matter a bucket of spit compared to a rich man with millions of times more money, who is demanding luxury goods. As the gap between rich and poor increases, the market economy will be focused more and more on producing luxury goods for the oppressive minority.

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal. But can that be achieved through non-violence?

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

All these acts are non-violent. However, you may be attacked while carrying out these activities, in which case fighting back would only be self-defense.

Atilla

17th June 2013, 19:33

Lol, and why are people in Greece climbing back in? :D

HAHAHAHAHAH. Nice refutation. Giving an example of something I am against in so many ways, and is linked to something I am against in so many ways.

You didn't answer the question, though.

There's a reason I'm smug - it's because you're an idiot ;) Anyway, another economics lesson for fools that have only been educated by the ruling class:

David Conway’s A Farewell to Marx
Hans-Hermann Hoppe Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis
Karl Marx and the Close of his system- Hans hermann Hoppe

Bet you don't have the intellectual capacity to refute any of these.

I like how you throw insults around btw. Rich.

Stop linking me to that (your?) blog.

Being a Marxian economist doesn't count in modern academia thanks to the Austrians annihilating them :)

e.g: ...Gottfried Haberler argued Böhm-Bawerk's thorough critique of Marx's economics was so devastating that as of the 1960s no Marxian scholar had conclusively refuted it.

Tim Cornelis

17th June 2013, 19:38

Excuse me if I missed some arguments, I've not read the entire thread.
Under current conditions there's an inherent inequality of bargaining power favouring highly skilled workers and capitalists against unskilled and medium skilled workers. This inequality of bargaining power is what makes the capitalist social relations of wage-labour unjustifiable. However, with the socialist mode of production established this inequality of bargaining power no longer exists. If then a worker chooses to work for a capitalist, it is in no way morally unfair. A worker should be free to do so. However, I anticipate no sane worker would do so. Under socialism the average socially necessary work day to reproduce the standard of living would be significantly lower. Currently, an economic think thank estimated there's 23 hours per week per available worker. Add to this the end to unemployment, an end to most retail work, an end to banking, an end to PR and all such work, and include in that increased automation as low paid workers are no longer an obstacle to their implementation we can reduce the work day significantly.

No sane worker will sacrifice self-direct, self-controlled work for 3 to 4 hours for five days per week with immense social security (free healthcare, free education, no unemployment) to go and enter into authoritarian social relations working for 8-12 hours a day and a capitalist pocketing much of the revenue creating by his work, and only the social security the worker has saved up for himself.

The social dynamics that allowed for the establishment of the capitalist mode of production are absent under the socialist mode of production. Capitalism emerged out of proto-industrialisation and the Industrial revolution which turned simply commodity production into generalised commodity production. Under the socialist mode of production, no commodity production exists and nor does monetary exchange. So on what basis can a capitalist class re-emerge? The social dynamics simply do not allow for it.

Thus, workers should be free to enter into wage-labour relations as there's no inequality of bargaining power under socialism, however this is a scenario with no basis in reality.

Being a Marxian economist doesn't count in modern academia thanks to the Austrians annihilating them :)

Academia acaschmedia. The real world matters. And Austrians are a joke because they represent only the narrow interests of a tiny strata of the petty bourgeoisie they do not even reach out to.

Atilla

17th June 2013, 19:43

Excuse me if I missed some arguments, I've not read the entire thread.

No problem. Most of it is your friend insulting me, though. So you haven't missed much :)

Under current conditions there's an inherent inequality of bargaining power favouring highly skilled workers and capitalists against unskilled and medium skilled workers. This inequality of bargaining power is what makes the capitalist social relations of wage-labour unjustifiable. However, with the socialist mode of production established this inequality of bargaining power no longer exists. If then a worker chooses to work for a capitalist, it is in no way morally unfair.

Brilliant. Then I wholly support socialism, as this suggests it is voluntary.

A worker should be free to do so. However, I anticipate no sane worker would do so.

As long as they can if they wish.

Under socialism the average socially necessary work day to reproduce the standard of living would be significantly lower.

Sounds fantastic. If this dream does not materialize, then workers will opt out :)

Currently, an economic think thank estimated there's 23 hours per week per available worker. Add to this the end to unemployment, an end to most retail work, an end to banking, an end to PR and all such work, and include in that increased automation as low paid workers are no longer an obstacle to their implementation we can reduce the work day significantly.

Fantastic.

No sane worker will sacrifice self-direct, self-controlled work for 3 to 4 hours for five days per week with immense social security (free healthcare, free education, no unemployment) to go and enter into authoritarian social relations working for 8-12 hours a day and a capitalist pocketing much of the revenue creating by his work.

Yeah. No "sane" person would try marijuana either, though. Let people chose as they wish and bear the consequences.

The social dynamics that allowed for the establishment of the capitalist mode of production are absent under the socialist mode of production. Capitalism emerged out of proto-industrialisation and the Industrial revolution which turned simply commodity production into generalised commodity production. Under the socialist mode of production, no commodity production exists and nor does monetary exchange. So on what basis can a capitalist class re-emerge? The social dynamics simply do not allow for it.

"I have an idea, I want to profit from it." =capitalism

Thus, workers should be free to enter into wage-labour relations as there's no inequality of bargaining power under socialism, however this is a scenario with no basis in reality.

Finally, someone proposing peaceful society. Unlike your comrades, you do not worship the barrel of a gun in order to promote your ideals.

Tim Cornelis

17th June 2013, 19:56

Sounds fantastic. If this dream does not materialize, then workers will opt out :)

If it doesn't materialise it is the flaw exclusively of the socialist mode of production and it deserves to disintegrate. If workers do not want to stay in socialism, we do not deserve them. I do not anticipate that, however.

"I have an idea, I want to profit from it." =capitalism

How would that work out though? Imagine, for the sake of argument, the socialist mode of production is entirely feasible. We now have a system based on rationing and distribution according to needs (no money involved). We have workers' associations managing production through 'sociocracy'.
A would-be capitalist has an idea he thinks he can profit with. Where does he go? Let's say he acquires a workplace, to whom does he sell? No money exists, and thus no potential consumers. Moreover, the stable, secure, and free existence of a producer under communism is preferable to the insecure exists of a small-scaled merchant.

Finally, someone proposing peaceful society. Unlike your comrades, you do not worship the barrel of a gun in order to promote your ideals.

Actually most of them do, but they do not realise that wage-labour under the capitalist mode of production is unfair due to inequality of bargaining powers, and with removing this inequality wage-labour becomes unproblematic (but also obsolete). But all of us, ultimately, advocate communism: the free association of equals.
But don't get me wrong, the use of violence to defend the revolution is entirely justifiable. As I've stated, the inequality of bargaining power is, in my view, injustifiable. Consequently, expropriating means of production is justified. However with expropriation being illegal and capitalist wanting to retain their privileges, a counter-revolution is inevitable. To which we, again, have the right to use violence.

cyu

17th June 2013, 20:03

thanks to the Austrians annihilating them

You mean "Marxists" like Bill Gates:

“There is more money put into baldness drugs than into malaria. Now, baldness is a terrible thing and rich men are afflicted. That is why that priority has been set.”

...and Citigroup and the Wall Street Journal? http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/01/08/plutonomics/

There is no “average” consumer in Plutonomies. There is only the rich “and everyone else.” The rich account for a disproportionate chunk of the economy, while the non-rich account for “surprisingly small bites of the national pie.” Kapur estimates that in 2005, the richest 20% may have been responsible for 60% of total spending.

The best way for companies and businesspeople to survive in Plutonomies, Kapur implies, is to disregard the “mass” consumer and focus on the increasingly rich market of the rich.

A tough message — but one worth considering.

Mises did indeed point out an economic calculation problem in some self-proclaimed socialist states, however, he just misses the boat on the same calculation problem just described above by Gates and Citigroup.

you do not worship the barrel of a gun in order to promote your ideals.

I used to consider myself an (American) Democrat, and actively debated in favor of gun control legislation. It was actually pro-capitalist libertarians that converted me. However, now I just promote the use of guns to destroy capitalism :D

http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Symbol-Of-Democracy.jpg