Anarcho-Capitalism? [Archive]

MarxArchist

27th June 2013, 08:43

'Anarchism" cannot prescribe how people will act. I just implies people should be free to peruse their lives. *How* they might act is where it gets confusing.

Private property necessitates a state. That should be the end of the discussion. Capitalism, free market or not, also necessitates perpetual expansion. This "anarcho" capitalist market expansion (even if somehow "anarcho" capitalists managed to find hundreds of millions of people who would "voulentarily" work for a boss) demands that the areas/regions the market is expanding into are voluntarily open to market relations. In reality this market expansion has required military to facilitate. Without market expansion capitalism will go into crisis/stop functioning. In their world privatized armies would be doing the dirty work just as their privatized police/military/courts would be legitimizing private property. They advocate a privatized state. Capitalism is also the first system that creates a mass of systemically unemployed people. Without the state giving 'the reserve army of labor' social benefits there would be no unemployed work force to call on in boom times. Just a bunch of dead bodies and workers who had jobs would have too much leverage to demand better wages/benifits in so making profit impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

ThatGuy

27th June 2013, 22:06

I have had many discussions with people over anarcho-capitalism and if it is truly a type of anarchism at all. The main arguments against it are that private property is coercion and that negates the principles of anarchy or that private property requires a state to maintain. I don't see it that way, because I believe private property is the only sensible mechanism for avoiding conflict in a world of scarcity and I see no reason why local militias or private security organizations couldn't provide security instead of the state providing it.

Another argument against, is that anarchy is against all sorts of hierarchy, even those that are voluntary, that's why it is inherently against capitalism, because in capitalism there will always be bosses and workers. I find this argument much less compelling, because it is completely impossible to have prolonged human interaction without some sort of hierarchy. Even if a carrot farmer buys potatoes from another farmer, that's hierarchy, but they choose to engage in it of their own free will, because they each decided it will be beneficial for them. I really can't see anything wrong in this scenario.

Brandon's Impotent Rage

27th June 2013, 22:33

There are various flavors of An-Cap, but it all can be traced back to Murray Rothbard and his followers.

Rothbard, in turn was inspired by Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school. It's virtually impossible to win an argument against an Austrian or Rothbardian, because their entire ideology is based on pseudo-science, namely praxeology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology)

The thing is, though, An-Cap can go in either right-wing or left-wing directions. You have super-duper right-wingers like Lew Rockwell, and then you have hippie-inspired New Left veterans like the late Samuel Edward Konkin, III and his still-living diciple/fanboy J. Neil Schulman, both of whom helped found Agorism.

Konkin's New Libertarian Manifesto (http://www.agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf) and Agorist Class Theory (http://www.agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf) are worth reading, if only for the sake of recognizing where these guys are coming from (and how oh so very wrong they are).

liberlict

28th June 2013, 03:27

Private property necessitates a state. That should be the end of the discussion. Capitalism, free market or not, also necessitates perpetual expansion. This "anarcho" capitalist market expansion (even if somehow "anarcho" capitalists managed to find hundreds of millions of people who would "voulentarily" work for a boss) demands that the areas/regions the market is expanding into are voluntarily open to market relations. In reality this market expansion has required military to facilitate. Without market expansion capitalism will go into crisis/stop functioning. In their world privatized armies would be doing the dirty work just as their privatized police/military/courts would be legitimizing private property. They advocate a privatized state. Capitalism is also the first system that creates a mass of systemically unemployed people. Without the state giving 'the reserve army of labor' social benefits there would be no unemployed work force to call on in boom times. Just a bunch of dead bodies and workers who had jobs would have too much leverage to demand better wages/benifits in so making profit impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

Like many other terms bandied around these days, 'state' is a nebulous term, and so is 'private'. If you want to define 'private property' as people having control over the houses they live in and the things they operate, and 'state' as outsourcing the protection of property/owning, then absolutely, private property requires a 'state', as well as formal legislation to back it up. Some myopic cretins, such as myself, view the desire to own stuff as timeless, immutable and inevitable, and the desire to banish these motivations requiring coercion. So ultimately it gets down to an opinion of how you think people *want* to act. 'Anarcho capitalism', defined as you do, definitely requires a 'state', defined in your way.

Sotionov

2nd July 2013, 14:13

I'm a former "libertarian", was an "an"-cap, then minarchist, now I'm something people call libertarian socialist.

I always figured that capitalism was the consequence of a free market which anarchism was opposed to.
Nope. Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy, and there are anarchisms that support free markets- they're called individualist anarchism and mutualism.

Capitalism is defined mainly by the employer-emplyee relationship and it can be both free market and statist (where the state takes the role of the private employer).

.

As far as "Anarcho"-capitalists are concerned, the confusion arises because they use the term anarchism in a destorted way as meaning only "against state" or "stateless"; and a more precise term for them would be stateless capitalists, or voluntaryists.

There are various flavors of An-Cap, but it all can be traced back to Murray Rothbard and his followers.
Actually, it's interesting that the first "An"-Caps are from a little earlier time. Even though Rothbard is the most respected explounder, the first thinkers of the school are Bastiat, de Molinari and Auberon Herbert.

Rothbard, in turn was inspired by Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school. It's virtually impossible to win an argument against an Austrian or Rothbardian, because their entire ideology is based on pseudo-science, namely praxeology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology)
Actually, it is pretty much impossible to win a debate against them because they are very rationalistic, and thereby very clear and consistent, so the only way to win an argument with them is to go at their first principles from which they logically derive their views. I was 'converted' from voluntaryism that way.

ThatGuy

2nd July 2013, 16:11

I was 'converted' from voluntaryism that way.

Seriously? I'm really interested in what made you change your mind.

Tim Cornelis

2nd July 2013, 16:33

"Anarcho-"capitalism (or as Murray Rothbard once suggested it be called, nonarchism) is incompatible with the basic principles of anarchism, as a political theory. Anarchy had and has two distinct meanings, a political theory regarding egalitarianism and an 'apolitical' word for describing a situation of chaos resulting from impotent government or lawlessness. The "anarcho-"capitalists use the 'apolitical' meaning of the word and make it political, rather than express a continuity between the political-theoretical definition of anarchy.

Proudhon laid the basis for the meaning of anarchism, which he described as the "absence of a master or sovereign." This is clearly indicative that anarchism necessarily stresses opposition of social hierarchy, or more positively, advocates egalitarianism.

If we look at it from the perspective of freedom, then capitalism is oppressive as well. The decision to partake in wage-labour is only nominally free as wealth and power was already divided and owned prior to being born, thus one's social position is to a large extent already predetermined. Secondly, inequality of bargaining power in the favour of those whom were privileged enough to be able to monopolise productive resources means that decisions cannot be truly free. Free market fundamentalists ignore the context ("context dropping" Ayn Rand, ironically, may have called it if she hadn't been blindsided by her idiotic ideology).

Sotionov

2nd July 2013, 17:08

Seriously? I'm really interested in what made you change your mind.An insight on the genesis of Argumentation ethics. I was explained that Hoppe was a student of Habermas, and basically ripped off his framework of Communicative rationality and Discourse ethics and just put capitalism in it. When you know only about Hoppe, and you come to see that framework is right, you naturally accept voluntaryism, because (compliments to Hoppe's intellectual honesty in referencing his teacher) it is the only conclusion you are offered. I suppose you could think of alternative conclustion, if you're a really creative thinker, which, unfortunatelly, I am not. It took someone to point out to me that the a priory norms of argumentation are not voluntaryist, but actually anarchist- being that argumentation negates not only aggression, but also hierarchy; and that capitalist property is not only not implied, but in fact contradictory with the notion of individual sovereignty (/self-ownership) because 1) labor is de facto inalienable, and yet de jure alienable in the employment contract (making the employment contract void), and 2) any unearned income contradicts the fact that property is product of labor.

piet11111

2nd July 2013, 17:22

Free of regulation capitalism is the shortest way i can describe anarcho-capitalism

It has way more in common with anarchy (political disorder and lawlessness) then anarchism.

ThatGuy

2nd July 2013, 19:08

An insight on the genesis of Argumentation ethics. I was explained that Hoppe was a student of Habermas, and basically ripped off his framework of Communicative rationality and Discourse ethics and just put capitalism in it. When you know only about Hoppe, and you come to see that framework is right, you naturally accept voluntaryism, because (compliments to Hoppe's intellectual honesty in referencing his teacher) it is the only conclusion you are offered. I suppose you could think of alternative conclustion, if you're a really creative thinker, which, unfortunatelly, I am not. It took someone to point out to me that the a priory norms of argumentation are not voluntaryist, but actually anarchist- being that argumentation negates not only aggression, but also hierarchy; and that capitalist property is not only not implied, but in fact contradictory with the notion of individual sovereignty (/self-ownership) because 1) labor is de facto inalienable, and yet de jure alienable in the employment contract (making the employment contract void), and 2) any unearned income contradicts the fact that property is product of labor.

Could you explain the ideas of Communicative rationality and Discourse ethics a little? I went through the wikipedia articles, but those philosophical terms were completely unintelligible to me.

I don't see paying someone a wage as the only way to deprive them of their work. If someone produces pens and you buy one from them, that means that the pen is probably worth more to you than the asking price, so when you buy the pen you're doing the same an employer would do if he was paying the guy for making pens. The worker might be better off on his own, but he might also be better off working for someone.

What do you mean by unearned income?

Sotionov

2nd July 2013, 19:52

Could you explain the ideas of Communicative rationality and Discourse ethics a little? I went through the wikipedia articles, but those philosophical terms were completely unintelligible to me.Communicative rationality is pretty much the notion that there exist something called a priori norms of communication, it was first espoused by Thomas Reid, and then reiterated by Habermas, from whom Hoppe got it. Discourse ethics is something like Argumentation Ethics, but Habermas pointed out that argumentation's norms pertaining to inter-personal ethics are autonomy (invidiual sovereignty, something like NAP is implied), and power equality (most importantly- no hierarchy). Argumentation itself is a libertarian socialist framework, it's obvious when you think about it- it is not only aggression that negates argumentation (giving us NAP) but also giving orders negates argumentation- making non-hierarchy also an a priori norm of argumentation, that is- an ethical axiom.

I don't see paying someone a wage as the only way to deprive them of their work.It's not the only way, but it is the way that it's done today.

when you buy the pen you're doing the same an employerNot even close. The customer buys pens, the employer buys labor-hours from the laborer. If I am self-employed, and I make pens and then Jim buys them, the pens are mine, and the money Jim gives me is mine. If you employ me to make pens, and Jim buys pens, neither the pens nor the money are mine, being that I have sold the labor to you, and de jure both the pens and the money are yours, because my labor is yours- that's why you get to order me when, where, how to make pens, what to wear while making them, when I can take breakes while making them, etc, I am literally rented to you, just like a slave would have been bought.

It is similar for services- intangible products of labor. If I paint walls as a self-employed painter, and Jim comes as a customer- I go and paint his walls, he gives me money and that's that. If I am your employee, when I paint Jim's walls the money he pays for the painting of the walls is never mine- it is de jure yours because my labor is de jure yours, even though labor is de facto inalienable. And when you have a contract that specifies alienation of something that is non-transterable, and labor is inalienable being that only I can labor with my own body, that kind of contract is simply void and illegitimate.

What do you mean by unearned income?Renting. Renting means of production, renting money, renting anything generates unearned income, being that to rent something is not labor, and yet generates income, and being that only labor produces property, the rentier is appropriating the products of someone else's labor, thereby making rent contracts void just like the employment contract.

ThatGuy

2nd July 2013, 20:14

Communicative rationality is pretty much the notion that there exist something called a priori norms of communication, it was first espoused by Thomas Reid, and then reiterated by Habermas, from whom Hoppe got it. Discourse ethics is something like Argumentation Ethics, but Habermas pointed out that argumentation's norms pertaining to inter-personal ethics are autonomy (invidiual sovereignty, something like NAP is implied), and power equality (most importantly- no hierarchy). Argumentation itself is a libertarian socialist framework, it's obvious when you think about it- it is not only aggression that negates argumentation (giving us NAP) but also giving orders negates argumentation- making non-hierarchy also an a priori norm of argumentation, that is- an ethical axiom.

I guess I have some reading to do before being able to form a proper opinion on this.

Not even close. The customer buys pens, the employer buys labor-hours from the laborer. If I am self-employed, and I make pens and then Jim buys them, the pens are mine, and the money Jim gives me is mine. If you employ me to make pens, and Jim buys pens, neither the pens nor the money are mine, being that I have sold the labor to you, and de jure both the pens and the money are yours, because my labor is yours- that's why you get to order me when, where, how to make pens, what to wear while making them, when I can take breakes while making them, etc, I am literally rented to you, just like a slave would have been bought.

It is similar for services- intangible products of labor. If I paint walls as a self-employed painter, and Jim comes as a customer- I go and paint his walls, he gives me money and that's that. If I am your employee, when I paint Jim's walls the money he pays for the painting of the walls is never mine- it is de jure yours because my labor is de jure yours, even though labor is de facto inalienable. And when you have a contract that specifies alienation of something that is non-transterable, and labor is inalienable being that only I can labor with my own body, that kind of contract is simply void and illegitimate.

Well, the pens are yours when you make them yourself, but when you sell them, they cease to be yours. The only thing that you have left is the money you received in return, which is what made you start making pens in the first place. And being paid to work in a pen factory nets you the same result.

What about traders then? If you make pens, and someone buys a whole bunch of them, to sell them on in a different area and making a profit in this way, is that also exploitation?

Sotionov

3rd July 2013, 10:15

And being paid to work in a pen factory nets you the same result.
Except in that case I sell my labor, the pens are never mine, I don't manage the production process, but am managed by the person who I sold my labor to.

What about traders then? If you make pens, and someone buys a whole bunch of them, to sell them on in a different area and making a profit in this way, is that also exploitation?
Why would it be? He isn't employing anyone or renting anything.

ThatGuy

3rd July 2013, 13:02

Except in that case I sell my labor, the pens are never mine, I don't manage the production process, but am managed by the person who I sold my labor to.

The process of production is different, of course, but it doesn't make what you're doing much different. You make pens for money. If you make your own pens you have some additional overhead, like communicating with clients, purchasing raw materials and managing the production process, but in the end this would all be unnecessary if it didn't lead to pens getting produced and sold.

Why would it be? He isn't employing anyone or renting anything.

I'm just trying to figure out where you draw between exploitation and fair business practices. What about if a trader offered the pen maker a contract, where they agree on the pen-maker making X pens per month at the price of Y per pen? What if the contract is exclusive, so the pen-maker gets paid more per pen, but he promises not to make pens for anyone else? What about if two pen makers join forces to make pens more cheaply, and one focuses on the pen-making while the other focuses on managing the production process including the former pen maker?

Sotionov

3rd July 2013, 13:18

The process of production is different, of course, but it doesn't make what you're doing much different.If you consider being autonomus not much different then being controlled by someone else's orders, then something's wrong with you.

I'm just trying to figure out where you draw between exploitation and fair business practices.Right to property is by definition of property same as the right to the products of one's labor.
Firstly- labor is inalienable, thus every contract that establishes transfer of labor (and thus putting ownership of the products of labor not in the hands of the laborer but of someone else) is void, neccessitating abolition of all bosses, meaning establishment of worker self-managment. Secondly- renting something creates income without labor, and because no income can come from thin air, that means it has come from someone else's labor- meaning that the one renting something is denied the product of their labor. The first is direct and the second indirect exploitation. Voluntariness of contracts means nothing when contracts are fictitious or in contradiction with the very subject they deal with.

What about if a trader offered the pen maker a contract, where they agree on the pen-maker making X pens per month at the price of Y per pen?The pen-buyer doesn't get to decide anything about the pen-makers production, when, where, how etc the pens are made, his only concern would be yh

What if the contract is exclusive, so the pen-maker gets paid more per pen, but he promises not to make pens for anyone else?Firstly, legitimate contracts are not promises, but title transfers (read your Rothbard), but ok, if we were to rephrase it, something like such a contract is possible, nothing wrong with it.

What about if two pen makers join forces to make pens more cheaply, and one focuses on the pen-making while the other focuses on managing the production process including the former pen maker?You can't contract away your ability to manage youself, that is- you can, but that kind of contracts are unfulfillable- therefore anything but self-management of people cannot be a part of a legitimate legal system.

ThatGuy

3rd July 2013, 17:42

If you consider being autonomus not much different then being controlled by someone else's orders, then something's wrong with you.

...

The pen-buyer doesn't get to decide anything about the pen-makers production, when, where, how etc the pens are made, his only concern would be yh

Well, you don't really sign away your autonomy when taking a job somewhere. You can still quit, do what you want in your free time and you always have an agreement on what things the employer can order you to do during your work hours. Some employers I had didn't really concern themselves with how, where and when I did my job, they only cared that it got done by the deadline, and that the quality wasn't lacking. In some other cases, a well-organized schedule and hierarchical management is necessary for performance reasons, like in a factory, or in a construction project. Even in a system of public cooperation and public ownership of the means of production, when building a big project, people couldn't just come whenever to the construction site, bringing whatever they decided that was needed that day etc. If they wanted to do a good job, the only way to go about it would be someone drawing a plan of the building, someone organizing the workers into shifts, assigning roles to each and calculating how much of what is needed etc.

I forgot to bring this up, but I guess you're ok with division of labor?

You can't contract away your ability to manage youself, that is- you can, but that kind of contracts are unfulfillable- therefore anything but self-management of people cannot be a part of a legitimate legal system.

It's not the management of himself that the pen maker would be contracting away, but the management of a pen production process. The other guy would make sure raw materials and pen-making equipment would get there on time, he would organize the system of production, so that it would be more optimal and that more pens could be made in the same amount of time.

How do you feel about private property btw? And what about banks loaning money and charging interest on the loan?

Sotionov

3rd July 2013, 19:54

Well, you don't really sign away your autonomy when taking a job somewhere.If you make your own work hours, determine your own breakes, manage the way you perform your job, then you're almost certainly self-employed. Employees do none of that, and to say that they do would imply that you have not witnessed a workplace in your life (except for maybe some home-based, IT online job, 'work-place').

You can still quitIf I voluntarily obey orders, that doesn't mean that I am not obeying orders, otherwise it wouldn't be called obeying orders. Subordination is in itself illegitimate, and therefore it's voluntaryness cannot make it legitimate.

In some other cases, a well-organized schedule and hierarchical management is necessary for performance reasons, like in a factory, or in a construction project.That's just simply not true. You can look at a book called No contest which enumerates and elaborates more then 400 studies that show that cooperatives are much more productive and efficient then businesses with hierarchical workplaces.

Even in a system of public cooperation and public ownership of the means of production, when building a big project, people couldn't just come whenever to the construction site, bringing whatever they decided that was needed that day etc. If they wanted to do a good job, the only way to go about it would be someone drawing a plan of the building, someone organizing the workers into shifts, assigning roles to each and calculating how much of what is needed etc.Yes, it seems that non-hierarchial construction businesses are doing the impossible by existing.

I forgot to bring this up, but I guess you're ok with division of labor?There is nothing wrong with it in itself, but if it's hierarchical- it's illegitimate.

It's not the management of himself that the pen maker would be contracting away, but the management of a pen production process.And being that the pens are not produced miraculosely, but by the labor the pen-maker, management of the pen production process is the same as management of the actions of the pen-producer.

The other guy would make sure raw materials and pen-making equipment would get there on time, he would organize the system of production, so that it would be more optimal and that more pens could be made in the same amount of time.Then the other guy can be the first guys colleague in the workers' cooperative that's in the business of making pens.

How do you feel about private property btw?Private property is not illegimate in itself, but with the labor theory of property consistently applied- the system of private property that exist today would be radically changed. Land (territory) could only be usufruct possession, and not property; and any means of production that requires more then one person to operate would have to be collective property and not private (being that the right to property, that is- the right to the full product of labor- is only achievable if the means of production that a laborer uses are in the ownership of that laborer), also every rent would be considered illegitimate, to answer your next question- including rent of money.

ThatGuy

3rd July 2013, 21:46

If you make your own work hours, determine your own breakes, manage the way you perform your job, then you're almost certainly self-employed. Employees do none of that, and to say that they do would imply that you have not witnessed a workplace in your life (except for maybe some home-based, IT online job, 'work-place').

No, I had quiet a few jobs where my work-hours, breaks and how I do my job were set. I usually detested it, not because of the work-hours and brakes, but because they were pretty monotonous and I need some creativity in my work, but that wasn't really the fault of people who organized the work place, but of the type of work itself. There's a very limited amount of what can be done, to make assembling car parts require creativity or innovation and schedules are necessary to run an assembly line efficiently.

What about when a self-employed individual does some work for a company, let's say setting up their internal communications, and they agree to pay him by the hour. Does that fall under buying services or wage labor?

If I voluntarily obey orders, that doesn't mean that I am not obeying orders, otherwise it wouldn't be called obeying orders. Subordination is in itself illegitimate, and therefore it's voluntaryness cannot make it legitimate.

I'm really confused about what happens when such a hierarchy occurs in a society where states are no more? So you find it illegitimate, but the people involved in it obviously don't, since they voluntarily accept it. Does somebody intervene and somehow punish the one giving out the orders?

That's just simply not true. You can look at a book called No contest which enumerates and elaborates more then 400 studies that show that cooperatives are much more productive and efficient then businesses with hierarchical workplaces.

I seriously doubt that cooperatives are more efficient than regular businesses, based on the fact that there are very few of them around, even though they are perfectly legit and on my country's historical experience with worker-owned production. However I'm not at all discrediting cooperation and co-owning businesses by workers as always bad for productivity. I'm sure that many people(not even excluding myself) would find co-owning the place where they work a good incentive for performing a better job and a more stimulating form of organization. I'm just not sure that it's suitable for every type of work and that there's a perfect recipe on how to divide ownership in a company, that would suit everyone's preferences and dispositions. However the state getting out of the way should let companies themselves figure out what works best through economic evolution.

Another thing that I'm curious about is how do you view cooperatives and the hierarchy that usually exists in them. Is that legitimate, since workers are also co-owners or at least get to contribute in deciding on what their company is going to do?

Private property is not illegimate in itself, but with the labor theory of property consistently applied- the system of private property that exist today would be radically changed. Land (territory) could only be usufruct possession, and not property; and any means of production that requires more then one person to operate would have to be collective property and not private (being that the right to property, that is- the right to the full product of labor- is only achievable if the means of production that a laborer uses are in the ownership of that laborer), also every rent would be considered illegitimate, to answer your next question- including rent of money.

What exactly is the difference between usufruct possession and property of land? The criteria for abandonment?

The reason I asked about the interest rates in lending money is because I was wondering what happens in a stateless society, when somebody wants to move out of their parent's house? Does he need to save up the money to pay for a new house all at once, since he can't rent or take a credit?

Sotionov

3rd July 2013, 22:19

schedules are necessary to run an assembly line efficiently.Schedules can be made by the workers themselves without any hierarchical authority making it for them, and is most efficiently made by them, being that because they are the ones doing the work- they are the ones the are most likely to know what and how needs to be done.

What about when a self-employed individual does some work for a company, let's say setting up their internal communications, and they agree to pay him by the hour. Does that fall under buying services or wage labor?The differences are: when you sell services the buyer is the consumer of the services, when you sell labor- the buyer of the labor is not the customer, but instead some third person is; and when selling the intangible product of your labor called services- you manage your own labor.

I'm really confused about what happens when such a hierarchy occurs in a society where states are no more? So you find it illegitimate, but the people involved in it obviously don't, since they voluntarily accept it. Does somebody intervene and somehow punish the one giving out the orders?State (a central authority) being absent, a society that is organized (as oppossed to chaotic) implies the widespread participation of the population in the functioning of social organization (it could be said that the entire population becomes both the legislative and the executive body), implying that a great majority supports such a system (making such cases almost non-existent) and also enforces it (enabling an effortless dismatling of such relations if deemed neccessary).

I seriously doubt that cooperatives are more efficient than regular businesses, based on the fact that there are very few of them aroundFor a concise and precise explanation, please read this and the next chapter: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ5.html#secj511

Another thing that I'm curious about is how do you view cooperatives and the hierarchy that usually exists in them.Afaik, today's worker-owned firms are usually non-hierarchical, and being that- as I already said- hierarchy itself is illegitimate, all firms should be non-hierarchical.

What exactly is the difference between usufruct possession and property of land?Possession is right to exclude other from use of something during your use of it, property is something you have title over and thus the right to exclude other from use even though you are not using it.

The criteria for abandonment?Should be informal, in order for it to not be fraudently used to maintain possession over something even though there is no real use. I would figure that when there the unofficial criteria in appoached, the decision would be made judicially on case-to-case basis, being that intent is a major factor there- and that would be done by the populace of the area where the land in question is, being that judicial power would rest in the populace (just like the mentioned legislative and executive).

The reason I asked about the interest rates in lending money is because I was wondering what happens in a stateless society, when somebody wants to move out of their parent's house? Does he need to save up the money to pay for a new house all at once, since he can't rent or take a credit?He can take an interest-free loan form by joining a credit union, most likely a credit union specializing in housing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_society
Or he could join a commune. Have in mind that most anarchists are communist, who would at the genesis of anarchist society form large economic federations where money would not be used, but calculation in natura and (in the begining, and for the able-bodied) labor quotas.

ThatGuy

4th July 2013, 10:37

Schedules can be made by the workers themselves without any hierarchical authority making it for them, and is most efficiently made by them, being that because they are the ones doing the work- they are the ones the are most likely to know what and how needs to be done.

They can, but if some people disagree on what the best schedule is, they can't just decide to adopt their own, there has to be a majority vote on it at least. If everybody agrees on everything, there's no difference between a hierarchical organization or a worker-managed one, but when people disagree and can't find a compromise, there has to be an arbitrary solution to the problem.

State (a central authority) being absent, a society that is organized (as oppossed to chaotic) implies the widespread participation of the population in the functioning of social organization (it could be said that the entire population becomes both the legislative and the executive body), implying that a great majority supports such a system (making such cases almost non-existent) and also enforces it (enabling an effortless dismatling of such relations if deemed neccessary).

But what about if society is not that uniform? What about if 60% of the population sees it your way and 40% my way? From an anarcho-capitalist point of view not engaging in wage labour is perfectly acceptable, but from your point of view engaging in wage labour isn't and such voluntary relations should be dismantled. Won't this lead to a great deal of conflict since people won't be allowed to do something they want to do and that doesn't affect those not involved?

For a concise and precise explanation, please read this and the next chapter: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ5.html#secj511

The problem with expansion in cooperatives is a valid point, but I think that it should count as a problem of economic viability of cooperatives. Really, if the system of ownership is limiting the productive capacities of an enterprise, than it has faults. On the other hand, you don't really need to be wealthy to start an enterprise. The credit unions you mentioned could support cooperatives and even though expansion is generally a problem for cooperatives, a system where workers aren't entitled to the same share of the company could make it viable, allowing cooperatives to grow just like regular companies.

I live in Slovenia, we had worker-management of factories back in Yugoslavia and it didn't turn out very well. Being able to manage the company, but not really own it meant that the workers time-preference rose, since they couldn't sell their share and didn't have a right to it after they stopped working in the company. This means that wages were higher than they might have been under private ownership, but productivity wasn't catching up with the productivity of western industries.

Afaik, today's worker-owned firms are usually non-hierarchical, and being that- as I already said- hierarchy itself is illegitimate, all firms should be non-hierarchical.

I'm not really that familiar with how modern cooperatives usually work, but if we take the example of Mondragon, they do have a CEO. When the company is large scale, it simply needs to be organized hierarchically, because reaching consent on every single issue will be a nightmare otherwise.

Possession is right to exclude other from use of something during your use of it, property is something you have title over and thus the right to exclude other from use even though you are not using it.

Should be informal, in order for it to not be fraudently used to maintain possession over something even though there is no real use. I would figure that when there the unofficial criteria in appoached, the decision would be made judicially on case-to-case basis, being that intent is a major factor there- and that would be done by the populace of the area where the land in question is, being that judicial power would rest in the populace (just like the mentioned legislative and executive).

A case-to-case basis isn't really a good idea for a legal framework. People need stable rules to engage in production processes, otherwise their investments will be less secure and productivity will be hampered. If a cooperative builds a house with the intention of selling it, and a family moves in without buying it, but public opinion decides it's ok, because the family is poor and nobody was using the house at the moment, that will lead to a serious drop in the production of houses, because other businesses will inevitably become concerned for their investments.

Sotionov

4th July 2013, 12:16

They can, but if some people disagree on what the best schedule is, they can't just decide to adopt their own, there has to be a majority vote on it at least. If everybody agrees on everything, there's no difference between a hierarchical organization or a worker-managed one, but when people disagree and can't find a compromise, there has to be an arbitrary solution to the problem.
No matter if there is agreement or not, there is a huge difference between a hierarchical organization where a superior treats the others as subordinate and everyone as equals deliberating and making the decision, e.g. by majority vote.

But what about if society is not that uniform? What about if 60% of the population sees it your way and 40% my way? From an anarcho-capitalist point of view not engaging in wage labour is perfectly acceptable, but from your point of view engaging in wage labour isn't and such voluntary relations should be dismantled. Won't this lead to a great deal of conflict since people won't be allowed to do something they want to do and that doesn't affect those not involved?
There will be teritorial differences then. If there is 60-40 relation of socialism-capitalism view on a larger territory- then the territories will split, and municipalities would be either socialistic or stay pre-revolutionary capitalist ones; and if the same ratio of support is present on a municipality level, my assumption is that the socialists would simply move to the near socialist societies. The question is debatable, but it is my belief that such examples would quickly dissappear once the workers in the capitalist communities see how the socialists communities function- with automony for everyone, and with much higher standard of living- due to higher productivity and the absence of property inequality which will be natural consequence of a classless society.

Really, if the system of ownership is limiting the productive capacities of an enterprise, than it has faults.
It limits the exploitative capacities of an enterprise, not the productive ones. Productivity of a factory can rise only by conditions pertaining to the same factory, if a factory becomes a part of the same company where already a same factory is, the productivity of those two factories respectively will not miraculasly rise, the only thing that would be improved would be amoung of exploitation that the boss can enact by owning two factories instead of one.

a system where workers aren't entitled to the same share of the company could make it viable
There would be no shares, shares are a form of private property, as I said- all means of production that require more then one person to operate would have to be collective property (of the people operating it).

I live in Slovenia, we had worker-management of factories back in Yugoslavia and it didn't turn out very well.
I'm from Serbia, and those weren't worker coops, those were nationalized firms with co-determination. The problem was that the state was the boss, and the workers didn't either own nor fully manage their labor. The bad consequences are perfectly undestandable from a capitalist perspective- they were mainly due to the fact the negative consequences of bad business were not experienced by the laborers, but were covered for by the state.

I'm not really that familiar with how modern cooperatives usually work, but if we take the example of Mondragon, they do have a CEO. When the company is large scale, it simply needs to be organized hierarchically, because reaching consent on every single issue will be a nightmare otherwise.
Afaik, Mondragon is not hierarchical. Their board of directors and the CEO have purely administrative roles, not hierarchical ones, and they're just a federation of almost 300 worker coops, that are all self-managed, and the "central" bodies have the role of assisting coordination, they don't make any decisions instead of the workers in those hundreds of coops.

If a cooperative builds a house with the intention of selling it, and a family moves in without buying it, but public opinion decides it's ok
I was talking about land- territory, as in farmland, which cannot be property because it is not a product of labor. Houses and all other products of labor are property and cannot be simply taken from those whose labor it was- that's the core of socialism. The point is just in that to stop existing property from being used for exploitation of others.

ThatGuy

5th July 2013, 15:12

There will be teritorial differences then. If there is 60-40 relation of socialism-capitalism view on a larger territory- then the territories will split, and municipalities would be either socialistic or stay pre-revolutionary capitalist ones; and if the same ratio of support is present on a municipality level, my assumption is that the socialists would simply move to the near socialist societies. The question is debatable, but it is my belief that such examples would quickly dissappear once the workers in the capitalist communities see how the socialists communities function- with automony for everyone, and with much higher standard of living- due to higher productivity and the absence of property inequality which will be natural consequence of a classless society.

I'm not sure they would disappear. Different people think differently and collaboration of any sort always raises some conflicts and in the end, private property is the simplest solution to many of them. I'm not advocating it only for it's simplicity, I also believe it's fair and ethical, but when you have a large population that's not particularly bright and educated, simplicity will play a mayor role in what can actually work.

Do you really think that territorial segregation is the only solution for anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists to coexist? I see no reason that there couldn't be a functional integrated community of both. The criteria of abandonment with regard of the possession of land is something that could be easily worked out imo, especially because workable land isn't really scarce, and I could see libertarian socialists not interfering with voluntary hierarchies, that they don't agree with, but aren't part of. Just like you can have religious communities coexisting peacefully, even though they disagree with some of each others views or practices, as long as they don't interfere negatively with each others lives.

It limits the exploitative capacities of an enterprise, not the productive ones. Productivity of a factory can rise only by conditions pertaining to the same factory, if a factory becomes a part of the same company where already a same factory is, the productivity of those two factories respectively will not miraculasly rise, the only thing that would be improved would be amoung of exploitation that the boss can enact by owning two factories instead of one.

Actually two factories using the same marketing and distribution channels will have less overhead and thus their production costs will be lower(per unit of production). It's simple economies of scale.

I'm from Serbia, and those weren't worker coops, those were nationalized firms with co-determination. The problem was that the state was the boss, and the workers didn't either own nor fully manage their labor. The bad consequences are perfectly undestandable from a capitalist perspective- they were mainly due to the fact the negative consequences of bad business were not experienced by the laborers, but were covered for by the state.

Pozdravljen :grin: Yeah, I guess the state did change the indicators of productivity for businesses, and of course it had a major role in the whole economy, so it's hard to say if the level of worker management that there was had a beneficial effect on the economy or not.. Still, when workers manage a business, but don't really own it, their time preference does shift. If you'll be entitled to the same benefits in your current occupation and in any other you may join, it means, that you're not that concerned with the long-term success of the current business, but you'd rather have a higher pay now. To me it would be logical, that cooperatives are more attractive to employes, because they offer more from the start, but aren't as good at capital accumulation as privately owned businesses. Of course a better pick of employees and a possibly greater motivation could make cooperatives more productive in some cases, but I don't think it would happen in all cases and not even in most cases.

Afaik, Mondragon is not hierarchical. Their board of directors and the CEO have purely administrative roles, not hierarchical ones, and they're just a federation of almost 300 worker coops, that are all self-managed, and the "central" bodies have the role of assisting coordination, they don't make any decisions instead of the workers in those hundreds of coops.

I must admit I was mainly guessing here, I don't really know how Mondragon works. I just hear it brought up often, when people point it out as an example of socialism working, while I find it an example of the free market working, since it's a corporation made up of individuals voluntarily joining forces and resources for their own and each others benefit, without having to impose anything on those who aren't part of it. I find it ironic that people who promote the idea of state-run social security bring up Mondragon as an example of how solidarity benefits people.

Sotionov

5th July 2013, 15:46

I'm not sure they would disappear. Different people think differently
People don't think that much differently. The only people who would choose capitalism in a situation like that would be more-or-less S&M D/s people. That's the only reason why anyone would choose subordination and giving a huge amount of one's earnings to one's idle superior instead of autonomy and taking what you earn for yourself, which is the case in socialism.

I also believe it's fair and ethical,
I vehemently disagree.

but when you have a large population that's not particularly bright and educated, simplicity will play a mayor role in what can actually work.
Sorry, but only people without capacity (children and mentally impaired) are "not bright and educated" enough so as not to be capable of working under the guidance of a superior, even a lot of such people (without capacity) are capable of working and contributing to society perfectly fine without any sort of superior- guidance by co-workers is enough. That kind of elitism is just plain wrong, look at some documentaries about workers' cooperatives, a some blue-collar coops are composed of workers that don't have high-school, and they're doing just fine.

Do you really think that territorial segregation is the only solution for anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists to coexist?
Yes. Socialist view of capitalism is similar to the relation of liberals to slavery, we simply find it fundamentally wrong and don't want to tolerate it.

and I could see libertarian socialists not interfering with voluntary hierarchies, that they don't agree with, but aren't part of.
That's like talking about a situation of abolitinists not interfering with slave plantations around them because they're not part of them. Not likely.

Just like you can have religious communities coexisting peacefully, even though they disagree with some of each others views or practices, as long as they don't interfere negatively with each others lives.
Also, [libertarian] socialist, even religious ones (myself included), are oppossed to hierarchical religions, which includes pretty much includes all mainstream traditional religious groups.

Actually two factories using the same marketing and distribution channels will have less overhead and thus their production costs will be lower(per unit of production). It's simple economies of scale.
Which doesn't improve productivity. Workers being the owners and managers of their workplace does- greatly.

Pozdravljen
Isto :)

Yeah, I guess the state did change the indicators of productivity for businesses, and of course it had a major role in the whole economy, so it's hard to say if the level of worker management that there was had a beneficial effect on the economy or not..
Well, I'm pretty sure it was a better place to live in then USSR. Capitalist firms that employ co-determination show rises in employee morale, productivity and efficiency (and that's pefectly explainable when you apply to the work-place and the firm the austrian theory's problem of calculaction, that is- the notion that information are less mobile and usable to the proportion of the amount of centralization, and that efficiency is decreaced proportionally to the decrease of information mobility), but that's not what socialists want, we want self-management- workers' direct control over production.

I find it ironic that people who promote the idea of state-run social security bring up Mondragon as an example of how solidarity benefits people.
Well, Mondragon centrainly can be used of people benefing when solidaric social security exists, as oppossed to it not existing at all (being replaced by for-profit insurances or charities, which is what capitalists advocate).

ThatGuy

6th July 2013, 10:09

People don't think that much differently. The only people who would choose capitalism in a situation like that would be more-or-less S&M D/s people. That's the only reason why anyone would choose subordination and giving a huge amount of one's earnings to one's idle superior instead of autonomy and taking what you earn for yourself, which is the case in socialism.

I don't think managers are actually idle in a business and for most people the decision if they would rather work in a company or a cooperative will be settled by which pays more. Most people aren't very idealistic and having a boss doesn't bother them, actually some might view having to organize production themselves as extra work.

I vehemently disagree.

We wouldn't be having this debate if you didn't.

Sorry, but only people without capacity (children and mentally impaired) are "not bright and educated" enough so as not to be capable of working under the guidance of a superior, even a lot of such people (without capacity) are capable of working and contributing to society perfectly fine without any sort of superior- guidance by co-workers is enough. That kind of elitism is just plain wrong, look at some documentaries about workers' cooperatives, a some blue-collar coops are composed of workers that don't have high-school, and they're doing just fine.

Ok, that might have come up wrong, but some people will rather accept security over freedom any day of the week. That's why we have democracy today. People know it has its problems, that there's corruption, misallocation, coercion etc, but they would rather have it than insecurity. I would be interested in getting more familiar with cooperatives though. Which documentaries do you suggest?

Yes. Socialist view of capitalism is similar to the relation of liberals to slavery, we simply find it fundamentally wrong and don't want to tolerate it.

That's like talking about a situation of abolitinists not interfering with slave plantations around them because they're not part of them. Not likely.

Comparing wage labour with slavery is simply wrong, because the former is a voluntary form of hierarchy and the latter is, well slavery. The best metaphor I can come up with is comparing prostitution with rape.

Which doesn't improve productivity. Workers being the owners and managers of their workplace does- greatly.

I don't have hard proof to the contrary, I'm just not sure it's true. Some research might be in order. However, productivity alone is not what brings up the competitiveness of products, in the end it's just a factor in the battle of who will sell more stuff.

Well, I'm pretty sure it was a better place to live in then USSR. Capitalist firms that employ co-determination show rises in employee morale, productivity and efficiency (and that's pefectly explainable when you apply to the work-place and the firm the austrian theory's problem of calculaction, that is- the notion that information are less mobile and usable to the proportion of the amount of centralization, and that efficiency is decreaced proportionally to the decrease of information mobility), but that's not what socialists want, we want self-management- workers' direct control over production.

I don't think that centralized work-places are an obstacle for information mobility except for worker wages, because it becomes harder for managers to accurately measure how much did each worker help the work process, but cooperatives must suffer from the same problem too, surely. You as a worker must also judge the input of others to create a fair wage distribution and which worker will voluntarily admit, they did less work than a colleague and that they deserve less salary? How do actually wages work in a cooperative? Is there a fixed wage model, where every worker earns a share of the profit based on what they do? Is the profit distributed uniformly?

Well, Mondragon centrainly can be used of people benefing when solidaric social security exists, as oppossed to it not existing at all (being replaced by for-profit insurances or charities, which is what capitalists advocate).

I also advocate voluntary solidarity networks(formal and informal), and Mondragon is a clear possibility on how some people would organize themselves once states are no more.

Sotionov

6th July 2013, 14:06

Most people aren't very idealistic and having a boss doesn't bother them
Because they are shaped by the system they live in to suppress their "instinct for freedom" as Bakunin called it.

An analogy could be made with slavery- a common argument was that the blacks were inherently inferior and that they basically want slavery ("they'd choose security over liberty any day", "they would view organizing their own life extra work") but that was not the case- the blacks were not inherently inferior and thus natural slaves, but were suppressed into inferiority by the institution of slavery, and degraded by it in various degrees from their normal human (freedom-loving) nature. A clear evidence for that is that now with the slavery abolished there are no blacks wanting to be slaves. It is my firm belief that after the abolition of capitalism there will likewise be no worker wanting to be someone's subordinate.

Which documentaries do you suggest?
I really don't remeber. Start with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEzXln5kbuw&list=PLBDA6E45AF4015DBD&index=1
Also take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Comparing wage labour with slavery is simply wrong, because the former is a voluntary form of hierarchy and the latter is, well slavery.
Sorry, but you're wrong. With liberalism it is not only forced enslavement that was abolished, but also selling oneself into slavery, which is a voluntary contract, similarly like pactus subjectionis and coverture marriage were abolished, and they also were voluntary contracts. Employment contract is a contract that treats people like property, being that it's content is selling of labor-hours, that is- renting of humans, and being that selling oneself to slavery is a contract that treats a human like property by selling it (and it is a voluntary contract) the comparison is very precise.

I don't have hard proof to the contrary, I'm just not sure it's true.
As I said- book No Contest.

You as a worker must also judge the input of others to create a fair wage distribution and which worker will voluntarily admit, they did less work than a colleague and that they deserve less salary?
Workers in the same workplace know very well how much is any one of them working, and they will all together discuss it at their democratic meetings. I'd say that being surrounded by co-workers that are all also the managers of the firm is the best mechanism you can have against slacking or slackers being able to hide.

How do actually wages work in a cooperative?
It is decided democratically. If they use job rotation they will most likely assign same percentage of earning to everyone (doing the same hours); if they don't use job rotation, and agree that some jobs deserve higher renumeration- an hour's work on that job position will bring a bigger piece of earning to the worker doing it then the worker doing an hour's work on some other job position.

Baseball

6th July 2013, 15:13

It is my firm belief that after the abolition of capitalism there will likewise be no worker wanting to be someone's subordinate.

Well-- if its to be a true democratic worker committee, with freedom to speak one's mind guaranteed in some fashion in these commitees, then it would seem that there will always be workers on the losing side of an issue. Those workers who have lost a free, fair and democratic vote would have to accept the dictates of the majority and work according to their prescription. That is being a "subordinate."

Sorry, but you're wrong. With liberalism it is not only forced enslavement that was abolished, but also selling oneself into slavery, which is a voluntary contract, similarly like pactus subjectionis and coverture marriage were abolished, and they also were voluntary contracts. Employment contract is a contract that treats people like property, being that it's content is selling of labor-hours, that is- renting of humans, and being that selling oneself to slavery is a contract that treats a human like property by selling it (and it is a voluntary contract) the comparison is very precise.

Do the workers who lose in a democratic vote have a right to disregard the results of the vote? That is, can they arrange their work according to what they wish to do as opposed the decision of majority?

If not, can they freely leave the enterprise and seek to join a differing enterprise more to their liking?
Reason I am wondering is that, if yes, how exactly does that differ from having labor "rented out"?

Workers in the same workplace know very well how much is any one of them working, and they will all together discuss it at their democratic meetings. I'd say that being surrounded by co-workers that are all also the managers of the firm is the best mechanism you can have against slacking or slackers being able to hide.

Infliction of terror (the extreme logical result of your solution) may indeed be a form of cooperation and organization. I do not think though it is a particularly noble or effective one.
From an economic side of things, a hard working worker is not neccessarilly a more valuable employee.

It is decided democratically. If they use job rotation

Wouldn't the enterprise be better off if workers were skilled in particular tasks, as opposed to constantly being reassigned (the old "jack of all trades and a master of none")? Does not the firm benefit more by having masters of tasks as opposed to jacks?

they will most likely assign same percentage of earning to everyone (doing the same hours); if they don't use job rotation, and agree that some jobs deserve higher renumeration- an hour's work on that job position will bring a bigger piece of earning to the worker doing it then the worker doing an hour's work on some other job position.

OK-- so what might be some rationales to determine that some jobs deserve greater renumeration to the worker than others?

Rural Comrade

6th July 2013, 15:38

Anarcho-Capitalism is lawlessness and would lead to the rise of a state. A man of wealth would build an army loyal to himself and conquer the people for his gain.

Sotionov

6th July 2013, 18:05

Well-- if its to be a true democratic worker committee, with freedom to speak one's mind guaranteed in some fashion in these commitees, then it would seem that there will always be workers on the losing side of an issue. Those workers who have lost a free, fair and democratic vote would have to accept the dictates of the majority and work according to their prescription. That is being a "subordinate." Being subordinate to a person and being "subordinate" to a decision making structure that includes oneself are in no way similar to each other.

Reason I am wondering is that, if yes, how exactly does that differ from having labor "rented out"?In the fact that you are not rented by anyone, thereby making you your own boss, and giving you what you're entitled to- the full product of your labor.

Infliction of terror (the extreme logical result of your solution)Infliction of terror is not anything near any logical result of what I'm talking about, the only thing it is- it's intellectually dishonest false analogy playing to the emotional connotation of the word in use for the purpose of flame baiting.

I do not think though it is a particularly noble or effective one.There is nothing but nobleness and effectiveness in a egalitarian and solidaric workplace.

Wouldn't the enterprise be better off if workers were skilled in particular tasksNo. This is not the late middle ages with it's manu facere workshops, a lot of jobs in today's firms are unskilled.

ThatGuy

6th July 2013, 20:57

I guess I'll just pick off from your response to Baseball on some questions.

Being subordinate to a person and being "subordinate" to a decision making structure that includes oneself are in no way similar to each other.

That would mean that being subordinate to today's democratic governments is better than being subordinates to the monarchs of the age of enlightenment? That does not seem to be true. Before WWI, when most of Europe was made up off privately owned monarchies, wars were much less devastating for civilians, and taxation was much much lower. To me personally that's way better. People were much more free and well off under monarchies than now. If there's nothing wrong with being part of a decision making structure that includes you, why are you against having a democratic state, like the ones we have today?

In the fact that you are not rented by anyone, thereby making you your own boss, and giving you what you're entitled to- the full product of your labor.

The more I debate this point, the more I get the idea that in the end it all comes down to technicalities. Pretty much any business we have today could be replicated with a network of self-employed professionals renting their services out to one-another, and that seems completely in line with what you advocate.

Does your ideal system have any form of social solidarity for those who for some reason don't work?

There is nothing but nobleness and effectiveness in a egalitarian and solidaric workplace.

There also seems to be coercion for those who don't want it.

No. This is not the late middle ages with it's manu facere workshops, a lot of jobs in today's firms are unskilled.

Job rotation means, that people can't possibly specialize in some form of work and will thus never be able to improve their productivity. Cooperatives make some sense to me economically, but work rotation simply doesn't.

ThatGuy

6th July 2013, 21:20

An analogy could be made with slavery- a common argument was that the blacks were inherently inferior and that they basically want slavery ("they'd choose security over liberty any day", "they would view organizing their own life extra work") but that was not the case- the blacks were not inherently inferior and thus natural slaves, but were suppressed into inferiority by the institution of slavery, and degraded by it in various degrees from their normal human (freedom-loving) nature. A clear evidence for that is that now with the slavery abolished there are no blacks wanting to be slaves. It is my firm belief that after the abolition of capitalism there will likewise be no worker wanting to be someone's subordinate.

Still, while slavery is abolished as a compulsive system, it might be legally recreated voluntarily. Blacks, or people of any ethnic background really could voluntarily start working fore someone in return for food and shelter. People just don't choose to work this way, because they don't want to. Cooperatives are a completely legal alternative to wage labor and workers don't chose to work in them, because they don't want to either. It seem that from the point of view of workers cooperatives are closer to slavery than privately owned companies, since they seem to be choosing the latter.

Sorry, but you're wrong. With liberalism it is not only forced enslavement that was abolished, but also selling oneself into slavery, which is a voluntary contract, similarly like pactus subjectionis and coverture marriage were abolished, and they also were voluntary contracts. Employment contract is a contract that treats people like property, being that it's content is selling of labor-hours, that is- renting of humans, and being that selling oneself to slavery is a contract that treats a human like property by selling it (and it is a voluntary contract) the comparison is very precise.

If employees were property of the employer, he could kill them without any repercussions. That is of course not the case, because you don't give up your rights when you take a job at a firm, you just make a contract to sell your labor. Just like you might sell some other product or service. Why don't you also oppose contracts? Don't they also enforce a kind of hierarchy on people?

Practically, it's impossible to know when a contract pushes someone into what resembles slavery more than freedom. While you might ban people from signing contracts with the word "slavery" in them, you can never completely ban contracts that are equivalent to slavery in practice, because the possibilities for making such contracts are limitless. While I abhor the idea of selling oneself into slavery by contract, I don't think such contracts are illegitimate, if people really accept them voluntarily, and aren't forced into them.

Sotionov

7th July 2013, 15:55

That would mean that being subordinate to today's democratic governments is better than being subordinates to the monarchs of the age of enlightenment?Which it is. It's better to have an elective oligarchy then a non-elective one or a monarchy, but that doesn't mean any of those are good systems. Having a democratic republic is the good system, taking into consideration ethical axioms of non-imposition of harm and non-establishment of hierarchies (which we know are ethical axioms because they are a priori norms of argumentation).

Before WWI, when most of Europe was made up off privately owned monarchies, wars were much less devastating for civilians, and taxation was much much lower. .... People were much more free and well off under monarchies than now. That's just not true- the people was more and blatantly oppressed. E.g. you could have a princ (Djordje Karadjordjevic) beat his servant to death and not to be considered by the law so as he has done anything wrong, but he was put in jail by the next ruler- his son, because they had a fight. People not having a job at the palace were also treated like this, because that was permited by law. As I said, that doesn't make the liberal capitalist system good, but it does make it less bad, similarly like feudalist monarchies were less bad then slave systems.

If there's nothing wrong with being part of a decision making structure that includes you, why are you against having a democratic state, like the ones we have today?We have elective oligarchies, not democracies.

Pretty much any business we have today could be replicated with a network of self-employed professionals renting their services out to one-another, and that seems completely in line with what you advocate.You cannot rent your services, you can sell your services. The "replication" would lack the most important features- workplace hierarchy and denial of the full product of people's labor by the exploiter class.

Does your ideal system have any form of social solidarity for those who for some reason don't work?Sure. Anarchist are for all organizations being voluntary (as well as horizontal), and the organizations that most anarchist would form post revolution, such as mutualist forming agro-industrial federations, anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists forming large collective economies- those organization are in fact solidaric organizations where those unable to work would be given care by the community organized in those ways.

There also seems to be coercion for those who don't want it.No such thing there.

Job rotation means, that people can't possibly specialize in some form of work and will thus never be able to improve their productivity. Cooperatives make some sense to me economically, but work rotation simply doesn't.A lot of coops (like worker coop grocaries) use job rotation, and they're doing just fine.

Still, while slavery is abolished as a compulsive system, it might be legally recreated voluntarily.Slavery is not abolished as a compulsive system, being that voluntary contracts of selling oneself into slavery are also abolished. Slavery is abolished because it treats people like property, and people cannot be legitimate property. Likewise capitalism should be abolished because it, similarly to slavery, treats people like property, just not by sale of people, but by their renting. Just like after the abolition of the selling oneself contract no one wants to sell themselves, similarly after the abolition of the renting oneself contract no one will want to resurrect the practice.

If employees were property of the employer, he could kill them without any repercussions. That is of course not the caseWhich I didn't say it was. If I rent you my car, can you destroy it or damage it without any repercussions? Of course not, being that you're just renting it. Similarly employees are not selling themselves to employers, but are renting themselves, and the employeer, during that rent time, has powers over the rented person similar to those that the slaveowner had over the bought person, with the mentioned difference.

you just make a contract to sell your labor.And being that labor is de facto inalienable, de jure alienating it is a void contract. Which is why such a thing is not to exist.

Why don't you also oppose contracts? Don't they also enforce a kind of hierarchy on people?Contracts are transfers of titles. If we leave only legitimate contracts- those where there is a tranfes of title that is actually transferable, there can be no hierarchy and no exploitation, which is (libertarian) socialism.

ThatGuy

7th July 2013, 18:36

Which it is. It's better to have an elective oligarchy then a non-elective one or a monarchy, but that doesn't mean any of those are good systems. Having a democratic republic is the good system, taking into consideration ethical axioms of non-imposition of harm and non-establishment of hierarchies (which we know are ethical axioms because they are a priori norms of argumentation).

Elective oligarchies seem to be very prone to high taxation and warmongering, as well as dictating how people should run their lives, when compared to monarchies in the 19th century. From my point of view they are worse then having actual monarchs, and I'm in no way trying to make a case for monarchy.

That's just not true- the people was more and blatantly oppressed. E.g. you could have a princ (Djordje Karadjordjevic) beat his servant to death and not to be considered by the law so as he has done anything wrong, but he was put in jail by the next ruler- his son, because they had a fight. People not having a job at the palace were also treated like this, because that was permited by law. As I said, that doesn't make the liberal capitalist system good, but it does make it less bad, similarly like feudalist monarchies were less bad then slave systems.

Because democratically elected leaders never kill innocents. The president of the US has the power to arbitrarily decide to kill anyone, anywhere. And they are a country that prides itself on how its rulers are held accountable. The only thing that's changed is that now politicians put on a nicer facade, so they'll get reelected.

We have elective oligarchies, not democracies.

Why, because we have parties instead of directly voting on issues? It's just another way of organizing a democracy, people can still enter a party or form a new one if they want, competition is not really being restricted, except for the minimal criteria for establishing a party.

You cannot rent your services, you can sell your services. The "replication" would lack the most important features- workplace hierarchy and denial of the full product of people's labor by the exploiter class.

Workplace hierarchy can also be recreated, by setting clear conditions for the purchase of services. When you go to get a haircut, the guy who does it, can't just do it any way he likes, the market will discipline him into doing it exactly the way people want it to be done. Just like an employer can tell workers exactly how they must perform their work, if they want him to buy it. And people always pay less for goods and service than what they're really worth to them, so I don't see why that can't be considered denial of the full product of their labor by the exploitative buyer class.

No such thing there.

You said that the community would intervene if someone tried to pay people for their work, and they all agreed. This is clearly coercion on part of the community towards those people. It's majority rule and it's clearly incompatible with self-determination.

A lot of coops (like worker coop grocaries) use job rotation, and they're doing just fine.

I'm sure most don't however. Specialization is practical, it increases productivity and lets people find what they're good at and stick to it.

Slavery is not abolished as a compulsive system, being that voluntary contracts of selling oneself into slavery are also abolished. Slavery is abolished because it treats people like property, and people cannot be legitimate property. Likewise capitalism should be abolished because it, similarly to slavery, treats people like property, just not by sale of people, but by their renting. Just like after the abolition of the selling oneself contract no one wants to sell themselves, similarly after the abolition of the renting oneself contract no one will want to resurrect the practice.

Under our current law, it's legal to make a contract, that puts someone into what's basically slavery. To use the example of the pen maker and the trader, if you sign a contract to make a thousand pens a week for a year, and it takes you 14 hours a day, every day of the week to make those 1000 pens, he'd basically be a slave to that contract. Since he transferred the title of his products and not his labour directly, I guess this would be legitimate even in socialism? As long as you have binding legal contracts, people can voluntarily enslave one another.

And being that labor is de facto inalienable, de jure alienating it is a void contract.

I think this is the central point of most of our debate. Could you point me towards some reading that convinced you that labor is morally inalienable?

tuwix

8th July 2013, 06:15

Why, because we have parties instead of directly voting on issues?

Because parliament parties are easily corruptable. And this is why you are for indirect "democracy" and we are for direct democracy. If there is direct democracy, people's one of first decisions will be getting from the rich and giving to the poor. And thusly your loved capitalism would collapse. And thi is why you are against it.

ThatGuy

8th July 2013, 15:00

Because parliament parties are easily corruptable. And this is why you are for indirect "democracy" and we are for direct democracy. If there is direct democracy, people's one of first decisions will be getting from the rich and giving to the poor. And thusly your loved capitalism would collapse. And thi is why you are against it.

I completely agree, except I'm also against parliamentary democracy, not just direct democracy. Anything but self-determination is unacceptable to me.

Sotionov

8th July 2013, 18:22

Elective oligarchies seem to be very prone to high taxation
Income tax rates for people on median income are around the lowest they've been in the past seventy-five years, income tax rates for the rich are around the lowest they've been in the past seventy-five years, income tax rates for corporations are around the lowest they've been in the past seventy-five years. http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#taxation

warmongering, as well as dictating how people should run their lives, when compared to monarchies in the 19th century.
Religious wars internationally. Religious wars intranationally.

Because democratically elected leaders never kill innocents. The president of the US has the power to arbitrarily decide to kill anyone, anywhere. And they are a country that prides itself on how its rulers are held accountable. The only thing that's changed is that now politicians put on a nicer facade, so they'll get reelected.
Increaced numbers of casualties is due to progress in war technology, taking that out of the picture, the 'facade' does dempen the wrongs we would have today if it weren't for it. To have feudalist primitivity with today's weaponry would be instant world destruction.

Why, because we have parties instead of directly voting on issues?
Yes, that is the core of democracy- people ruling, that is- there not being someone ruling over the people.

Workplace hierarchy can also be recreated, by setting clear conditions for the purchase of services. When you go to get a haircut, the guy who does it, can't just do it any way he likes, the market will discipline him into doing it exactly the way people want it to be done.
A customer is not a superior. He doesn't dictate when you must come to work, when can you leave, what you must wear, when you can have breakes, etc etc.

And people always pay less for goods and service than what they're really worth to them, so I don't see why that can't be considered denial of the full product of their labor by the exploitative buyer class.
You're babbling. One- if the pay an amount of money- then that's what it's worth to them. A buyer by definition cannot be an exploitatior, being that exploitation is taking of unearned income, that is- profits of an employer, rent of the rentier.

You said that the community would intervene if someone tried to pay people for their work, and they all agreed. This is clearly coercion on part of the community towards those people. It's majority rule and it's clearly incompatible with self-determination.
Stopping fraud is not coercion.

Specialization is practical, it increases productivity and lets people find what they're good at and stick to it.
This isn't middle ages, most jobs are unskilled.

Under our current law, it's legal to make a contract, that puts someone into what's basically slavery.
Stop talking nonsense. Selling oneself into slavery is impossible in today's legal sistems.

To use the example of the pen maker and the trader, if you sign a contract to make a thousand pens a week for a year, and it takes you 14 hours a day, every day of the week to make those 1000 pens, he'd basically be a slave to that contract.
Slave is a person that is de jure property of another person. You are using words in ways that doesn't coincide with their meaning. People stop that.

Could you point me towards some reading that convinced you that labor is morally inalienable?
Labor is not morally inalienable, it is de facto- in reality- inalinable. Until of the making of sci-fi machines by which someone can control another's body, only I can control my own labor, meaning- it is non-transferable (inalienable).

ThatGuy

9th July 2013, 15:57

Income tax rates for people on median income are around the lowest they've been in the past seventy-five years, income tax rates for the rich are around the lowest they've been in the past seventy-five years, income tax rates for corporations are around the lowest they've been in the past seventy-five years. http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#taxation

Income tax isn't the only tax around. Government spending is increasing relative to GDP:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_20c.png

Religious wars internationally. Religious wars intranationally.

Religion is just an excuse for what's been happening in the middle east and it had no real part in WW2 or in all the wars that the US has been involved in to "counter communism".

To have feudalist primitivity with today's weaponry would be instant world destruction.

Feudal lords had a greater interest in the long-term thriving of their subjects than democratic governments have today. There's no reason to expect less restraint in war from someone who has an actual economic motivation to keep his taxpayers alive than from someone who will be out of office in a few years anyway, and has some friends in the military complex.

Yes, that is the core of democracy- people ruling, that is- there not being someone ruling over the people.

Well, in democracy a majority will still rule over the rest of the people, even without parties. Only if self-determination is possible, can people live freely and without someone ruling over them. Are you pro or against democracy? Pure democracy, without parties that is.

A customer is not a superior. He doesn't dictate when you must come to work, when can you leave, what you must wear, when you can have breakes, etc etc.

Sure he does. A hair stylist can't choose to work at midnight and still expect to have clients. A bar-owner can't decide to have his bar open just from 7am to 3pm and only during the week if he wants his bar to stay open. A body guard can't take a bathroom break when he's supposed to be protecting his client. Doctors would experience a severe lack of clients if they ever came to work with corpsepaint on :grin:

The market disciplines people into doing what their customers expect, just like a boss would discipline his employee. This doesn't happen with people who sell products instead of services, because services are much more time and place constrained. Labor is just another service people sell to one another.

You're babbling. One- if the pay an amount of money- then that's what it's worth to them. A buyer by definition cannot be an exploitatior, being that exploitation is taking of unearned income, that is- profits of an employer, rent of the rentier.

So you have never bought something for less then the max price you would be prepared to pay for it? Things don't have an objectively determined value, value is subjective. Buyers aren't exploiters, just like employers aren't exploiters. If you value your time less than you value what an employer is giving you in return you might consider taking the job and if you don't, you won't consider it. Just like if you're selling your car, you'll only sell it if somebody offers you more than it's worth to you.

Stopping fraud is not coercion.

If people understand and agree on the terms of employment, how could that possibly be fraud?

This isn't middle ages, most jobs are unskilled.

Actually in the middle ages most jobs were unskilled, and now that's not the case anymore. That's why we have years and years of education to be able to perform them, while in the middle ages there wasn't really any education to go around and people still managed. Today you need to study years to become a doctor, while you could teach middle-age medicine in a two-week course.

Stop talking nonsense. Selling oneself into slavery is impossible in today's legal sistems. Slave is a person that is de jure property of another person. You are using words in ways that doesn't coincide with their meaning. People stop that.

Not literal and legal slavery, but you may sign contracts, that would make you work all day on subsistence-level income. It's the practical equivalent of slavery.

Labor is not morally inalienable, it is de facto- in reality- inalinable. Until of the making of sci-fi machines by which someone can control another's body, only I can control my own labor, meaning- it is non-transferable (inalienable).

So.. wait. If labor is inalienable in practice, how are employers exploiting workers by alienating their labor? Are employees just selling their services, like businesses? If yes, why is it exploitation, if no, what's really going on between workers and employers then?

Sotionov

9th July 2013, 18:22

Feudal lords had a greater interest in the long-term thriving of their subjects than democratic governments have today.
Which is irrelevant to their comparison being that "democratic" governments have both restrainst and duties that feudal lords didn't have anything similar to.

Well, in democracy a majority will still rule over the rest of the people, even without parties. Only if self-determination is possible, can people live freely and without someone ruling over them. Without hierarchy there is no rule of anyone over anyone. Democracy is self-determination, being that is free of hierarchy. Any form of hierarchy is contradictory to self-determination, as soon as one is in a position of a subordinate, he is not self-determined, but determined by his superior.

Sure he does.Didn't I ask you to stop talkin nonsense? Are you going to try and argument a claim that there is hierarchy between a sellen and a buyer? If yes, then you're an idiot that has no comprehension of what a hierarchy is. If no, please stop babbling nonsense.

Buyers aren't exploiters, just like employers aren't exploiters.Buyers don't rent people and don't violate their right to property, which is their right to the full product of their labor, which employers do- making them exploiters.

Just like if you're selling your car, you'll only sell it if somebody offers you more than it's worth to you.You can sell a car, but you cannot legitimately sell labor because labor is physically nontransferable.

If people understand and agree on the terms of employment, how could that possibly be fraud?Because the contract is unfulfillable and void. Their belief cannot make it fulfillable, just like a belief of person defrauded by being given a faulty product cannot make the product not be faulty. If the contract is false, but the signee believes is to be true- that's by definion fraud. And every employment contract is false, because it is unfulfillable.

Actually in the middle ages most jobs were unskilled, and now that's not the case anymore. That's why we have years and years of education to be able to perform them, while in the middle ages there wasn't really any education to go around and people still managed. Today you need to study years to become a doctorYou are againg talking like an idiot. I said most jobs today are unskilled. Are you going to argue that most jobs of today are doctor jobs? If yes, then you're an idiot. If not, please turn off the stupid button. Virtually every job in the middle ages besides agriculture required apprenticeship. Most blue, white, gray and pink collar jobs today require no education for the job at all.

If labor is inalienable in practice, how are employers exploiting workers by alienating their labor?By de jure alienating it. Before the law, the labor of the workers (and thus the product of their labor) is the property of their boss, which is lie because it is physically inalienable. The goal of socialism is to make law conform to reality by the abolition of this fraudelent contract.

ThatGuy

9th July 2013, 19:45

Which is irrelevant to their comparison being that "democratic" governments have both restrainst and duties that feudal lords didn't have anything similar to.

Feudal lords also have restraints and duties. They may not have been elected into office, but if they start over-exploiting their peasants, the peasants will revolt, and they will loose all they have, maybe even their life. revolts were much more rare than elections, but they were a much greater risk for feudal lords than non being elected is for presidents or prime ministers today. Their duties were primarily territorial defense, and if they didn't perform them, another feudal lord would have taken their peasants. I'm not arguing for feudalism or monarchy here, I'm just pointing out how private ownership of the state is in some ways better than democracy btw.

Without hierarchy there is no rule of anyone over anyone. Democracy is self-determination, being that is free of hierarchy. Any form of hierarchy is contradictory to self-determination, as soon as one is in a position of a subordinate, he is not self-determined, but determined by his superior.

Democracy isn't self determination, it is tyranny of the majority and mob-rule. Let's say I have four room-mates. We're peers and don't impose any formal hierarchy on one another, but we decide to vote on who will take out the thrash each week. What if three of the five form a coalition and always democratically assign one of the other two to garbage duty? What if those two see the game is rigged and don't want to vote anymore, but want a more fair system? And what if they have to have majority support to change the system? Is this self-determination or is this democratic thrash-slavery?

Didn't I ask you to stop talkin nonsense? Are you going to try and argument a claim that there is hierarchy between a sellen and a buyer? If yes, then you're an idiot that has no comprehension of what a hierarchy is. If no, please stop babbling nonsense.

No, I don't think there's a hierarchy between sellers and buyers, I think that sellers and buyers can have a stronger bargaining position though, and that's what happens when somebody sells their services to someone else through an employment contract nowadays.

Buyers don't rent people and don't violate their right to property, which is their right to the full product of their labor, which employers do- making them exploiters.

I disagree on the part about employers. I still see no difference between selling services and selling labor however, they seem one and the same to me. And I've never really heard any good explanation on why it isn't from anyone so far. Labor being the most commonly sold service doesn't really make a big difference to me, but maybe I'm wrong.

You can sell a car, but you cannot legitimately sell labor because labor is physically nontransferable.

Well, then I fail to see how what employers are buying today is just another service after all.

Because the contract is unfulfillable and void. Their belief cannot make it fulfillable, just like a belief of person defrauded by being given a faulty product cannot make the product not be faulty. If the contract is false, but the signee believes is to be true- that's by definion fraud. And every employment contract is false, because it is unfulfillable.

But who is committing fraud here, workers? Employers think they're getting labor, but clearly, they are getting just a series of services from their employees, since labor is not transferable. So it's employers who are getting screwed in this deal if it was labor they wanted.

You are againg talking like an idiot. I said most jobs today are unskilled. Are you going to argue that most jobs of today are doctor jobs? If yes, then you're an idiot. If not, please turn off the stupid button. Virtually every job in the middle ages besides agriculture required apprenticeship. Most blue, white, gray and pink collar jobs today require no education for the job at all.

Please, let's try to keep this civil. I really enjoyed this debate so far, there's no need to get personal. Agriculture also required apprenticeship in the middle ages and it still does today. So did hunting and gathering. Everything requires apprenticeship. But on the other hand, very few people were literate back in the middle ages. They had no schools, because they didn't really have any need for them. And they fared just fine, because their technology was way simpler and didn't require so much learning, but that changed and today you can't really get a job anywhere if you can't read. Of course a lot of jobs still require people with no particular skills, or can be learned pretty quickly, but those same jobs required exactly the same amount of on-site learning in the middle ages, or less. What's really changed is that those jobs aren't the only jobs around anymore. Most people today don't work in agriculture, like then, but in service production. We have bankers, teachers, IT people, marketing people, analysts, doctors(the kind that cure you more often than they kill you), lawyers, politicians(sadly), musicians, philosophers... A lot of jobs have remained pretty simplistic and available to anyone, but there has been an enormous shift towards specialized and complex jobs. I'm not sure how we're even debating this.

By de jure alienating it. Before the law, the labor of the workers (and thus the product of their labor) is the property of their boss, which is lie because it is physically inalienable. The goal of socialism is to make law conform to reality by the abolition of this fraudelent contract.

But if it's inalienable in practice, how can law change this. If we write a law saying that the tides must stop coming in I seriously doubt that would happen. What really makes selling labor different from selling a service? You had no answer regarding my theory, that with other services you also have a schedule, and that buyers also regulate how those providing services do their work.

Sotionov

9th July 2013, 21:36

Let's say I have four room-mates. We're peers and don't impose any formal hierarchy on one another, but we decide to vote on who will take out the thrash each week. What if three of the five form a coalition and always democratically assign one of the other two to garbage duty?
Then they're establishing hierarchy, which is contradictory to democracy, which must be horizontalist.

and that's what happens when somebody sells their services to someone else through an employment contract nowadays.Employment contracts are sales of labor (to a boss), not of services; services are intangible products sold to customers.

I still see no difference between selling services and selling labor however, they seem one and the same to me.Then you're just blind. If I paint walls as a self-employed painter, and John comes as a customer- I go and paint his walls, he gives me money and that's that. If I am an employee of Mark's, when I paint John's walls the money he pays for the painting of the walls is never mine- it is de jure Mark's because my labor is de jure his. Services are alienable, they're products, labor is not. Selling services (to customers)- ok. Selling labor (to bosses)- void contract.

But who is committing fraud here, workers? Employers think they're getting labor, but clearly, they are getting just a series of services from their employees, since labor is not transferable. So it's employers who are getting screwed in this deal if it was labor they wanted.You're not only being idiotic, but cheecky too. The employers defraud the workers of the fruit of their labor, thereby violating their right to property, being that the right to property = right to the full product of one's labor.

But if it's inalienable in practice, how can law change this.By recogizing it and abolishing such contracts. You're again being idiotic. If I defraud you by giving you a faulty product, and we signed a contract where it says that I am selling you a fine product, what are our options? Option one- making reality meet the contract; option two- making contract meet the reality. or option three- hell with the contract.

In the employment contract the option nuber one is impossible, because no one can actually transfer the control of his body to someone else, and thus sell labor. The option two is impossible, being that you cannot make a contract establishing a hierarchy, because contracts are title transers, not promises. The only option is the third one- abolish the employment contracts.

If we write a law saying that the tides must stop coming in I seriously doubt that would happen.That's what employment does. Accepts that labor can be transfered, which is impossible. Employment contract is systemic fraud.

, that with other services you also have a schedule, and that buyers also regulate how those providing services do their work. The seller and buyer come to an agreement of a dead-line. If a boss would to say to his employees- "make these products for me, I don't care how, when, where or how- I just need them at this time" that would effectively make his not a boss but a customer. The products of the workers would be the property of the workers that they have in advance sold to a customer, and they also have other customers, also they themselves manage the production. There is simply no such boss in existence, those are customers. And to say it for the tenth time- services are just products like any other with the difference that they're intangible.

ThatGuy

9th July 2013, 22:47

Then they're establishing hierarchy, which is contradictory to democracy, which must be horizontalist.

So a system where a majority can force a decision on someone isn't democratic? I don't think that's the standard definition of democracy. Democracy as we know it, parliamentary or direct, comes down to majority rule, always. A system where people are able to decide what to do for themselves, as long as they don't break laws is not standard definition democracy.

Employment contracts are sales of labor (to a boss), not of services; services are intangible products sold to customers.

And labor is an intangible product sold to employers. It behaves just like a service in all ways, but you keep insisting it's not one, because it has been differentiated from other services historically.

If I am an employee of Mark's, when I paint John's walls the money he pays for the painting of the walls is never mine- it is de jure Mark's because my labor is de jure his.

Every service creates excess value for those who pay for it. If I buy a painting from an artist, and sell it for double what I paid him, didn't I alienate him from the full product of his labor?

You're not only being idiotic, but cheecky too. The employers defraud the workers of the fruit of their labor, thereby violating their right to property, being that the right to property = right to the full product of one's labor.

Of course I don't think that workers are really frauds, both parties understand fully what is expected of them when signing an employment contract, just like with any other service.

By recogizing it and abolishing such contracts. You're again being idiotic. If I defraud you by giving you a faulty product, and we signed a contract where it says that I am selling you a fine product, what are our options? Option one- making reality meet the contract; option two- making contract meet the reality. or option three- hell with the contract.

In the employment contract the option nuber one is impossible, because no one can actually transfer the control of his body to someone else, and thus sell labor. The option two is impossible, being that you cannot make a contract establishing a hierarchy, because contracts are title transers, not promises. The only option is the third one- abolish the employment contracts.

You missed my point. If labor is inalienable, what exactly are workers exchanging with employers in return for wages? It has to be something, since employers aren't complaining. Could it be that they're just performing a service?

The seller and buyer come to an agreement of a dead-line. If a boss would to say to his employees- "make these products for me, I don't care how, when, where or how- I just need them at this time" that would effectively make his not a boss but a customer. The products of the workers would be the property of the workers that they have in advance sold to a customer, and they also have other customers, also they themselves manage the production. There is simply no such boss in existence, those are customers. And to say it for the tenth time- services are just products like any other with the difference that they're intangible.

I agree that services are products, but your arguments on labor not being a service aren't convincing.

What about customers, that dictate how a service should be provided, where and when then? It can happen through market forces, as I explained earlier, or customers can actually tell someone who sells services exactly what they should be doing. Ever ordered a cab? You tell them when and where they pick you up, where they have to take you, and on the way there you can tell them which way to take if you feel they're trying to cheat you. Not to mention bodyguards. They perform a service, that's in no way being sold on, but they have to offer protection to their clients precisely when, where and which way needed.

If you look closely at it, some jobs are more like services, and some services are much like jobs. Doesn't that make you think, that they may be one and the same, it's just that some are more restrictive(bodyguard, factory worker), and some less(journalist, painter)?

Sotionov

10th July 2013, 11:41

Democracy as we know it, parliamentary or direct, comes down to majority rule, always.Democracy cannot be indirect, if it's indirect that means it's oligarchy, not democracy. Democracy means rule of the people, and not any person or group ruling over the people (and I would add- whether that group that rules is a minority or a majority).

And labor is an intangible product sold to employers.Labor is actions of someone, not a product of those actions.

It behaves just like a service in all waysExcept that services are "consumed" by the one that purchases them- the customer, and that the purchaser of services has no hierarchical control over the provider of services, and that the laborer is not deprives of the fruits of his labor. "It behaves just like services in all ways" except in a few ways that are the core of it's definition, that making it nothing similar to services.

If I buy a painting from an artist, and sell it for double what I paid him, didn't I alienate him from the full product of his labor?No, because the value is not objective, and therefore trading of property cannot be exploitation. Trading of labor is exploitation, because trading of labor is a false and void contracts, just like trading of people- it is de jure recognition of something that is de facto impossible.

Of course I don't think that workers are really frauds, both parties understand fully what is expected of them when signing an employment contract, just like with any other service.Workers sign a contract that is unfulfillable but are lead to believe that it is fulfillable, and as a consequence of that contract they are deprived of their fruits of labor, that is- their right to property is violated. Every employment contract is a deception, because it is unfulfillable, and making material gain (in this case- taking the product of someone else's labor) trough deception is the definition of fraud. Capitalism is built on fraud, and therefore should be abolished.

If labor is inalienable, what exactly are workers exchanging with employers in return for wages?They are "giving" employers obedience and all they have made- same the slaves "gave" to their masters.

Could it be that they're just performing a service?It could be if you are a moron that doesn't know what a service is (even though it's been explained to you a few times).

What about customers, that dictate how a service should be provided, where and when then?There are no such customers. If I were to go into a shoe workshop and tell the shoemaker I want him to make me 100 pairs of shoes, that during the next month he is to make only those shoes I told him and not have other customers, that he has to come to his workshop when I say, leave when I say, he has to wear what I say, he can go on breakes only when I say he can, he would have told me to get the f-ck out and propably throw a shoe at me.

If you look closely at it, some jobs are more like services, and some services are much like jobs.If you look at all- you would see that there is nothing similar between employment and providing of services.

If I am a self-employed SERVICE-PROVIDER, and someone comes as CUSTOMER, I sell him my services, he pays me, and that's that.

If I am a SERVICE-PROVIDER that is employed to a BOSS, I still provide my services to CUSTOMERS, and not to the boss, he is just an exploiter who before the law owns my labor-hours, and therefore what the customer pays for the services doesn't belong to me as the service provider, but belongs to the boss. And the boss gets to order me around, unlike a customer which doesn't do any such thing.

Baseball

12th July 2013, 02:19

Democracy cannot be indirect, if it's indirect that means it's oligarchy, not democracy. Democracy means rule of the people, and not any person or group ruling over the people (and I would add- whether that group that rules is a minority or a majority).

There is no backdoor to the Garden of Eden. "Oligarchy" is rule for the benefit of the rulers-- that is the nature of democracy- direct or otherwise. Unless your conception of "democracy" is what one saw/sees in the national elections of the USSR, Cuba, N. Korea, where 99% of the population voted the same way, there will always be rulers and the ruled-- even in a socialist community.

There are no such customers. If I were to go into a shoe workshop and tell the shoemaker I want him to make me 100 pairs of shoes, that during the next month he is to make only those shoes I told him and not have other customers, that he has to come to his workshop when I say, leave when I say, he has to wear what I say, he can go on breakes only when I say he can, he would have told me to get the f-ck out and propably throw a shoe at me.

Such a scenario is true in the socialist community as well. However, such is how production must occur in the socialist community-- threats and intimidation.
The capitalist shoemaker can work when he wishes, produce what he wants. sell or not sell where he desires. Unfortunately for that capitalist shoemaker, another capitalist shoemaker can come along and produce to what customers desires, and sell where people wish. Naturally, in such situations his work must be structured so as to satisfy that goal. The latter shoemaker is the one who will prosper; the former will vanish.
Because ALL customers in any rationale economy dictate what is produced. There is no other reason for goods and services to be produced and provided. The socialist idea that the workers in the various factories will control production decisions is an absurdity.

And the boss gets to order me around, unlike a customer which doesn't do any such thing.

As above-- all production is, or ought to be, about providing to the customer what he or she desires. So yes, the customer "bosses" around the provider. It is barely noticeable in the capitalist community since the capitalist has to provide that which the customer demands. One would think this ought be true in the socialist community, but, as above, the socialist community tends to take the opposite tack-- the producers "boss" around the customers.

Sheepy

12th July 2013, 02:22

If you're wondering what "Anarcho-Capitalism" would look like, just think of National "Socialism" and you'll basically have the same idea.

tuwix

12th July 2013, 06:13

There is no backdoor to the Garden of Eden. "Oligarchy" is rule for the benefit of the rulers-- that is the nature of democracy- direct or otherwise.

And what is a basis of this opinion? Your own ignorance? :P

I ask because I can't even imagine how decisions made by majority of all people could result in oligarchy when oligarchy is something exactly opposite to direct democracy... Oligarchy means rule of minority and (direct) democracy means rule of majority.

Sotionov

13th July 2013, 12:03

There is no backdoor to the Garden of Eden. "Oligarchy" is rule for the benefit of the rulers-- that is the nature of democracy- direct or otherwise.
Oligarchy is the nature of democracy as much as being white is the nature of the black color. Don't be an idiot with babbling such nonsense, oligarchy and democracy are diametrically opposed to each other, like black and white, and saying that they're same or similar or connected only makes you an idiot.

there will always be rulers and the ruled-- even in a socialist community.
A socialist community by definition means there being to rules and the ruled, but the working people self-organizing the economy and their political life.

The socialist idea that the workers in the various factories will control production decisions is an absurdity.
Sorry mate, but you are an absurdity.

As above-- all production is, or ought to be, about providing to the customer what he or she desires.
Which has nothing to with hierarchy. A wife can do what her husband desires because she loves him in a modern, formally egalitarian marriage, or she can do what he desires because he is her superior who bought her into coverture marriage and will kick out on the street if she doesn't. Two very different situations, even though in both the wife does that her husband wants.

ThatGuy

13th July 2013, 18:07

Democracy cannot be indirect, if it's indirect that means it's oligarchy, not democracy. Democracy means rule of the people, and not any person or group ruling over the people (and I would add- whether that group that rules is a minority or a majority).

As I said, nobody ruling over people isn't a standard definition of democracy. Nobody ruling over anybody else sounds as the perfect definition of anarchy actually and I have no problem with that, since it basically means self-determination. Democracy on the other hand always comes down to majority rule. From the debates I've had on this forum, under communism the economy would be directed democratically, by means of voting. Unless people can choose not to participate in such a system(communism must be global from what I gather, so that isn't a possibility), this is a coercive system of majority rule and an example of traditional democracy.

Labor is actions of someone, not a product of those actions.

And it is the product of those actions that employers are interested in. They can however choose which actions they will pay for, just like buyers of services can.

Except that services are "consumed" by the one that purchases them- the customer, and that the purchaser of services has no hierarchical control over the provider of services, and that the laborer is not deprives of the fruits of his labor. "It behaves just like services in all ways" except in a few ways that are the core of it's definition, that making it nothing similar to services.

If I commission a painting, I pay an artist for his services, I get to decide what he should paint, where he should do it and possibly even give him a schedule. Then I can sell his painting for more than I gave him. Does this mean that painting for customers is also work and not a service?

No, because the value is not objective, and therefore trading of property cannot be exploitation. Trading of labor is exploitation, because trading of labor is a false and void contracts, just like trading of people- it is de jure recognition of something that is de facto impossible.

If those employment contracts would say, that the employer is buying services over an extended period of time from the employee, instead of saying, that the employee works for the employer, would that change anything in regard to the nature of what the employer and the worker do?

Workers sign a contract that is unfulfillable but are lead to believe that it is fulfillable, and as a consequence of that contract they are deprived of their fruits of labor, that is- their right to property is violated. Every employment contract is a deception, because it is unfulfillable, and making material gain (in this case- taking the product of someone else's labor) trough deception is the definition of fraud. Capitalism is built on fraud, and therefore should be abolished.

See what I wrote above. Btw, your system sounds like a restricted version of capitalism to me. Possession of property in the way you described it is pretty close to private property with a weaker stance on abandonment, otherwise we agree on a lot except the right to own means of production privately, when they can only be operated by more than one person. You restrictions on trade(employment & rent are illegitimate) do contrast with my views, but all in all, the system you proposed is closer to capitalism than what we have now. From my point of view at least.

They are "giving" employers obedience and all they have made- same the slaves "gave" to their masters.

And when I go to a restaurant people "give" me food.

It could be if you are a moron that doesn't know what a service is (even though it's been explained to you a few times).

More insult, very nice.

There are no such customers. If I were to go into a shoe workshop and tell the shoemaker I want him to make me 100 pairs of shoes, that during the next month he is to make only those shoes I told him and not have other customers, that he has to come to his workshop when I say, leave when I say, he has to wear what I say, he can go on breakes only when I say he can, he would have told me to get the f-ck out and propably throw a shoe at me.

If you came in the shop with a bag full of money he might be more agreeable than you'd think.

If you look at all- you would see that there is nothing similar between employment and providing of services.

I disagree.

If I am a self-employed SERVICE-PROVIDER, and someone comes as CUSTOMER, I sell him my services, he pays me, and that's that.

If I am a SERVICE-PROVIDER that is employed to a BOSS, I still provide my services to CUSTOMERS, and not to the boss, he is just an exploiter who before the law owns my labor-hours, and therefore what the customer pays for the services doesn't belong to me as the service provider, but belongs to the boss. And the boss gets to order me around, unlike a customer which doesn't do any such thing.

So you dislike the wording of current employment contracts. What if they were changed into "prolonged service providing" contracts or something in the way I elaborated before? Now your client no longer owns your labor-hours, you just perform various services for him during your shift, at a fixed hourly price. Once you sell him your services, that's that, because you transferred the title of the results of those service by a contract that should be legitimate, since it's services and not labor that you're selling. Your client of course gets to quit the contract if he didn't like the quality of services you were providing him, and you can also quit that same contract if you find a better client or for any other reason. Why would such an arrangement not be legitimate?

tuwix

14th July 2013, 05:58

Nobody ruling over anybody else sounds as the perfect definition of anarchy actually and I have no problem with that, since it basically means self-determination.

And this is why so-called "anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with anarchism. despite it is completely imposible. In capitalism employer rules over employee. And it's excludes anarchy, as you said. :)

ThatGuy

14th July 2013, 10:46

And this is why so-called "anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with anarchism. despite it is completely imposible. In capitalism employer rules over employee. And it's excludes anarchy, as you said. :)

Read a few more previous comments, I'm contending that there's no real difference between selling services(which left anarchists seem to be ok with) and working for someone. As I see it, and all other an-caps as well probably, working for someone doesn't mean being ruled by them, it's just another form of voluntary cooperation or trade.

Also, why do you think it's impossible? You may find that paying someone to work for you is wrong, but as a system it clearly works. Somalia has been anarcho-capitalist for 20 years now, and things are slowly getting better in the region. The US was also almost stateless in the beginning, and it was a functioning private property society. States don't really have a body able to govern them in any significant way, so interstate relations are basically anarcho-capitalist in nature since always.

tuwix

14th July 2013, 12:06

working for someone doesn't mean being ruled by them

Indeed it is.

Also, why do you think it's impossible?

Because private property can't exist without state or something very close to state. And not only according to Marx. According to Adam Smith too. And he wasn't socialist.

ThatGuy

14th July 2013, 13:11

Indeed it is.

I'm having this exact conversation with Sotionov, and I don't really feel like starting all over again. Just comment on something that has been discussed so far if you want to join in.

Because private property can't exist without state or something very close to state. And not only according to Marx. According to Adam Smith too. And he wasn't socialist.

I never said socialists have a monopoly on being wrong :grin:

All that is required for private property to exist is the common belief that it is legitimate and some means of protecting your property from people who don't agree with its legitimacy and people who knowingly commit aggression. States must infringe private property laws to exist(taxes), so they aren't really able to uphold them. What you are left with is personal defense of your property(owning a weapon) or contracting a private protection agency. I don't see how any of this can't exist, since they both exist presently and I don't think private protection resembles a state in any way.

Sotionov

14th July 2013, 14:16

As I said, nobody ruling over people isn't a standard definition of democracy.
But is it's etymological definition- that is- it's what the word means.

Nobody ruling over anybody else sounds as the perfect definition of anarchy actually and I have no problem with that, since it basically means self-determination. Yes, the only way to really have self-determination is to have no superior who makes the determinations for you, and you just obey.

Democracy on the other hand always comes down to majority rule.There will be no rule. Sure, collective decisions can be made by majority vote, but the majority cannot give orders to any minority, it can only establish principles of action, and thus such actions will be enacted voluntarily.

Unless people can choose not to participate in such a system(communism must be global from what I gather, so that isn't a possibility), this is a coercive systemI agree, I consider such a system as oppressive and not being representative of anarchy and democracy. As Malatesta said- "Imposed communism would be the most detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist — as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."

And it is the product of those actions that employers are interested in. They can however choose which actions they will pay for, just like buyers of services can.If it were only the product of labor they are interested in, then they wouldn't be bosses, but customers. As I said, the receiver of services is also a customer, not a boss, and if I have a plumbing problem I don't get to manage the plumbers labor, I only agree with him that I will pay his service of fixing my plumbing.

If I commission a painting, I pay an artist for his services, I get to decide what he should paint, where he should do it and possibly even give him a schedule. Yeah right- you get to tell him when to come to work, when to leave, when he can have a break, what to wear, etc. Don't be an idiot, that's then employment, not buying a service.

If those employment contracts would say, that the employer is buying services over an extended period of time from the employeeThat's not selling a service, that's again selling of labor-hours, which is impossible, being that labor is inalienable.

Btw, your system sounds like a restricted version of capitalism to me. Except it lack the defining features of capitalism- employmee-employer relation, property of land, and rent of anything.

If you came in the shop with a bag full of money he might be more agreeable than you'd think.Which is irrelevant, being that contracts are not promises, and thus cannot be promises of obedience, but are transfers of title, and being that control of one's actions, including labor, is nontransferable, conctracts transfering titles over labor-hours are void, so even if he agrees to the mentioned conditions, such a contract cannot legitimately exist.

What if they were changed into "prolonged service providing"Service providing to whom? Services are provided to customers, not to bosses. Bosses are exploiters, people who buy labor-hours of people, which is illegitimate.

you just perform various services for him during your shift, at a fixed hourly price.That would mean that e.g. factory workers own the products of their labor and can choose not to give them to the "boss", and also that the boss cannot manage their labor process, they can wear what they want, come and leave when they want, independant of the "bosses" desires and orders. The position of the boss, the one that owns the factory- becomes devoid of any sense, he would have no profit whatsoever in acquiring such services from factory workers, the only way that such any connection could be made so that the factory owner would have any profit were his to rent the factory to a group of workers and they run a worker cooperative but pay rent for use of the means of production. But such an arangement would also be impossible, being that rent is also illegitimate.

ThatGuy

14th July 2013, 15:46

There will be no rule. Sure, collective decisions can be made by majority vote, but the majority cannot give orders to any minority, it can only establish principles of action, and thus such actions will be enacted voluntarily.

What do you mean by principles of actions? Laws?

I agree, I consider such a system as oppressive and not being representative of anarchy and democracy. As Malatesta said- "Imposed communism would be the most detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist — as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."

That is a very refreshing view from a socialist. I would never support a system, where people weren't allowed to collectivize anything they wanted, and I can't understand people who insist that the only system where people can truly be free is a system where everything you have or make is collectivized, even if you never agreed to it.

If it were only the product of labor they are interested in, then they wouldn't be bosses, but customers. As I said, the receiver of services is also a customer, not a boss, and if I have a plumbing problem I don't get to manage the plumbers labor, I only agree with him that I will pay his service of fixing my plumbing.

Still, you might hire another plumber if the first one you contacted said he could only fix your problem in a few weeks, between 3am and 5am and he isn't prepared to come to your house to do it.

Yeah right- you get to tell him when to come to work, when to leave, when he can have a break, what to wear, etc. Don't be an idiot, that's then employment, not buying a service.

You do actually. When you commission a painting, the artist usually paints you when you have time and at the location you choose. He's pretty free about taking breaks and dressing in what he wants though, but a lot of jobs don't care about your outfit and don't require you to follow a strict schedule. Freelance insurance salesmen have no real bosses on the other hand, but they are usually dressed pretty nice, because it gives more confidence to their clients. And people at hot dog stands never take breaks during lunch hour, because they'll loose clients to other service providers.

Except it lack the defining features of capitalism- employmee-employer relation, property of land, and rent of anything.

I seriously doubt, that you could make up a rule as to which service providing contracts are legitimate and which aren't, and therefore that employment wouldn't persist in your world under such contracts, because I think it's a false, arbitrary distinction. Also I'm not sure exactly who would police such contracts, if all involved in them do it voluntarily..

Possession is close enough to property, that I don't really see your views as conflicting with mine. I still don't understand your views on rent, but they don't really restrict what people can do that much, so yeah, I don't find your beliefs so far away from capitalism after all.

That would mean that e.g. factory workers own the products of their labor and can choose not to give them to the "boss", and also that the boss cannot manage their labor process, they can wear what they want, come and leave when they want, independant of the "bosses" desires and orders.

If you get a haircut, can the barber decide not to give it to you once he's done?

Other than that, yes, workers could do whatever they please, but if their employer didn't like it, he could terminate their contract, stop any further payments and have them escorted off of his property or possession. In the same way as clients can stop purchasing your services if they don't find them to their liking. This would make it the interest of "employees" to fulfill their "bosses" desires and voilá, a perfect replica of our current employment relations, using a different terminology.

Sotionov

14th July 2013, 16:20

What do you mean by principles of actions? Laws?
Or policies of a firm.

I seriously doubt, that you could make up a rule as to which service providing contracts are legitimate and which aren't
All service contracts are legitimate, all employment contracts are illegitimate. It is very easy to see the difference between the two, and it is very easy to abolish employment contracts- by making every firm a workers' cooperative, where the workers of a firm own their means of production and manage their production process.

because I think it's a false, arbitrary distinction.
Which I have explained multiple times that there is a clear and a radical distinction. If a shirt factory is a workers' coop, the workers own the means of production, manage the process of production and own the shirts produced, none of which is the case if it's a capitalist shirt factory- where both the means of production and the produced shirts are the property of the capitalist, and he is the final authority which decides about how will the factory function. It's same with a plumbing firm, which provides plumbing services. If it's a coop, the workers collectively own all the means of production, and they also manage the functioning of a coop and they own the money that the customers pay for plumbing services, whereas if it's a capitalist plumbing firm- the capitalist owns the means of production, manages the functioning of the firm and owns the money that the customers pay for the provided plumbing services. The difference is clear cut and a transition to a system without exploitation in therefore also clear cut.

tuwix

14th July 2013, 17:28

I never said socialists have a monopoly on being wrong :grin:

Because you are. :p

What you are left with is personal defense of your property(owning a weapon) or contracting a private protection agency. .

And this "private protection agency" constitutes new state. In fact a primitive state, but it has basic quality of state: protecting a private proterty.

And owning gun won't protect you against any organized crime at all...

ThatGuy

14th July 2013, 17:44

Which I have explained multiple times that there is a clear and a radical distinction. If a shirt factory is a workers' coop, the workers own the means of production, manage the process of production and own the shirts produced, none of which is the case if it's a capitalist shirt factory- where both the means of production and the produced shirts are the property of the capitalist, and he is the final authority which decides about how will the factory function. It's same with a plumbing firm, which provides plumbing services. If it's a coop, the workers collectively own all the means of production, and they also manage the functioning of a coop and they own the money that the customers pay for plumbing services, whereas if it's a capitalist plumbing firm- the capitalist owns the means of production, manages the functioning of the firm and owns the money that the customers pay for the provided plumbing services. The difference is clear cut and a transition to a system without exploitation in therefore also clear cut.

Actually I'm getting the feeling, that you completely ignore the parts of my replies, that show the similarities between jobs and services, and only give examples of how things would work if everyone was in a cooperative etc. If an art dealer commissions a painting, he pays the painter for his services and owns the money that he receives when he sells the painting, the painter only gets what he bargained for with the dealer, just like in a capitalist company. If a trucker pays a mechanic to maintain his truck, it clearly needs more than himself to fully operate said truck, but it's still the trucker who owns it, just like a capitalist owns factories or land. If a singer hires a bodyguard, she can manage where and when his services will be provided, just like a capitalist manages the actions of workers inside his firm.

If a service contract can be exploitative and illegitimate without ever transferring the right to someone's labor, but simply by being restrictive or something, then you should have a clear set of rules on exactly what kinds of services count as exploitation, or else the difference can't possibly be clear cut. Try to make such a compilation of rules and I promise you, there will always be loopholes to "exploit" workers.

tuwix

14th July 2013, 18:03

Actually I'm getting the feeling, that you completely ignore the parts of my replies, that show the similarities between jobs and services, and only give examples of how things would work if everyone was in a cooperative etc.

As well, as you completely ignore the fact that employer rules over employee. But as you have said yet it makes anarchy imposible.

Sotionov

14th July 2013, 18:47

Actually I'm getting the feeling, that you completely ignore the parts of my replies, that show the similarities between jobs and services
You completely ignore the fundamental differences of the two. It's like I'm explaining the difference between a free self-employed peasant, and you say something in the manner of- "but what if a guy comes and says he wants to buy wheat, not the regular wheat, but he wants the peasant to plant some other kind of wheat, and the peasant agrees and does that, and the next year the guy buys that wheat- a-ha! you see, the peasant obeyed him, that's similar to slavery, therefore having customers is not much different then slavery." That's not showing similarities, that's being an idiot. Just like being a slave is radically different from not being one, likewise being an employee is radically different from being self-employed.

If a service contract can be exploitative and illegitimate without ever transferring the right to someone's labor, but simply by being restrictive or something, then you should have a clear set of rules on exactly what kinds of services count as exploitation,No service counts as exploitation, but no service contract can include promises to obey orders, because contacts cannot legitimately be promises, they can only be transfers of titles. Service contracts can include only details about the intangible product sold- that is- the service, and it's specifications, but they cannot (because no contract can legitimately) containg anything that says that the customer will manage the work of the laborer, that is- give him orders.

there will always be loopholes to "exploit" workers.Exploitation means depriving someone of their fruit of labor directly- by being their boss, and indirectly- by collecting usury on rent of anything. By having all workers being the owners of their means of production and banning of any rent, exploitation is abolished. By banning hierarchy, oppression is abolished.

ThatGuy

16th July 2013, 21:52

You completely ignore the fundamental differences of the two. It's like I'm explaining the difference between a free self-employed peasant, and you say something in the manner of- "but what if a guy comes and says he wants to buy wheat, not the regular wheat, but he wants the peasant to plant some other kind of wheat, and the peasant agrees and does that, and the next year the guy buys that wheat- a-ha! you see, the peasant obeyed him, that's similar to slavery, therefore having customers is not much different then slavery." That's not showing similarities, that's being an idiot. Just like being a slave is radically different from not being one, likewise being an employee is radically different from being self-employed.

I never compared selling products or services to slavery. I compared it to wage labor.

No service counts as exploitation, but no service contract can include promises to obey orders, because contacts cannot legitimately be promises, they can only be transfers of titles. Service contracts can include only details about the intangible product sold- that is- the service, and it's specifications, but they cannot (because no contract can legitimately) containg anything that says that the customer will manage the work of the laborer, that is- give him orders.

Contracts can define when and where services will be provided and at what price, right? That's enough to perfectly recreate wage labor. "Bosses" could tell "employees" what they wish they would do and if the employees would choose not to do it, bosses would stop purchasing their services. What part of that do you find illegitimate?

Exploitation means depriving someone of their fruit of labor directly- by being their boss, and indirectly- by collecting usury on rent of anything.

We didn't have much debate on rent yet, but I am interested on why you find it illegitimate. I don't believe it really involves no labor to rent something to someone, there's always the possibility of damage, there's maintaining etc. But even without all this, you had to put in labor to make/buy the thing you're renting. And if I buy a house and flip it for profit, I just made money without labor as well, didn't I?

Sotionov

16th July 2013, 23:38

I never compared selling products or services to slavery. I compared it to wage labor.To which it has nothin similar, but is in fact diametrically opposed to it. Having a boss cannot be in any way equated with not having a boss, being that is the exact opposite to it, no matter if the boss is a slaveowner, a feudalist, a capitalist or a party/state bureaucrat.

Selling products as a self-employed worker lacks any boss. Even with the boss, the products (tangible or intangible) are sold to the customer, but if there is a boss, he is someone that fraudelenlty inserts himself between the laborer and the customer as some sort of middle-man, exploiting the laborer. Socialism means cutting out that middle-man exploiter.

Contracts can define when and where services will be provided and at what price, right? That's enough to perfectly recreate wage labor. It would do nothing of the sort, because in the employer-employee relation, the boss can order virtually anything to his employees during the time they are rented to obey him, whereas a service-buyer can ask only things that concern the product, he cannot give ANY orders. Again, besides managing production, the workers would also own their means of production, and would thus recieve the full product of their labor.

I don't believe it really involves no labor to rent something to someone, there's always the possibility of damage, there's maintaining etc.Which is not rent, or usury. If you lend me something rent-free - of cource that I'm liable to any damages and wear-and-tear caused by my use.

But even without all this, you had to put in labor to make/buy the thing you're renting.You can also put in labor to make/ buy a weapon, doesn't give you the right to attack someone with it; likewise your legitimate acquisition of property cannot justufy your using it to aquire illegitimate property, such as unearned income. And unearned income is illegitimate by the fact that it is unearned, being that property is by definition a product of labor.

And if I buy a house and flip it for profit, I just made money without labor as well, didn't I?If you sell a house, you by definition no longer own it. If you rent a house to someone, you didn't give him anything, yet you are collecting income (as I said- recompensation for damages and stuff used up in the proccess of use are not rent).

ThatGuy

17th July 2013, 08:47

It would do nothing of the sort, because in the employer-employee relation, the boss can order virtually anything to his employees during the time they are rented to obey him, whereas a service-buyer can ask only things that concern the product, he cannot give ANY orders. Again, besides managing production, the workers would also own their means of production, and would thus recieve the full product of their labor.

I've explained how bosses could persuade employees to do precisely what they want by no longer buying services from those employees, who do not perform them to their wishes. No orders are being given and it still works. It assumes people wishing to work in such a way, but besides that I see no flaw in my logic and it is the complete equivalent of wage labor. Would such behavior be considered illegitimate or could it persist in a(your) socialist world?

Which is not rent, or usury. If you lend me something rent-free - of cource that I'm liable to any damages and wear-and-tear caused by my use.

But if there is rent, and you maintain the house instead of your tenant(because houses do need maintenance & this is the way it's usually done), it is not profit without labor, since maintenance is labor.

You can also put in labor to make/ buy a weapon, doesn't give you the right to attack someone with it; likewise your legitimate acquisition of property cannot justufy your using it to aquire illegitimate property, such as unearned income. And unearned income is illegitimate by the fact that it is unearned, being that property is by definition a product of labor.

I'll never understand how you can compare voluntary transactions with the initiation of force..

If you sell a house, you by definition no longer own it. If you rent a house to someone, you didn't give him anything, yet you are collecting income (as I said- recompensation for damages and stuff used up in the proccess of use are not rent).

Well, couldn't then landlords start charging their tenants for wearing down their house during their stay? I mean, houses do wear down, it's not like they're making it up, so if your house has an estimated 100 years of life, and you sell those years separately instead of selling them all at once, isn't that pretty much ok?

Also if you rent a house to someone, you ARE giving him a place to live, that's hardly nothing.. Are hotels also illegitimate, since you rent rooms?

On another note, what's your definition of socialism? Public ownership of the means of production?

tuwix

17th July 2013, 12:48

I've explained how bosses could persuade employees to do precisely what they want by no longer buying services from those employees, who do not perform them to their wishes.

And this means ruling over workers. And as you have said it has nothing to do with anarchy.

Sotionov

17th July 2013, 13:35

I've explained how bosses could persuade employees to do precisely what they want by no longer buying services from those employees, who do not perform them to their wishes. They cannot do any such thing, being that no conctract could contain promises to obey any orders, contracts would only be tranfers of title, and could specify details of that transfer and not anything else.

but besides that I see no flaw in my logic and it is the complete equivalent of wage labor.Then you are an idiot, because nothing similar to employer-employee relation would exist. A customer cannot say to the seller of products that he want's him to work specific work-hours, take specific breakes while working, wear specific clothing while working, or anything of the sort, the producer will be the manager of his production process and the customer cannot have any say in it.

But if there is rent, and you maintain the house instead of your tenant(because houses do need maintenance & this is the way it's usually done), it is not profit without labor, since maintenance is labor.Then you charge your services of the maintaince of the house during the rent-free stay of your tenant.

I'll never understand how you can compare voluntary transactions with the initiation of force..In that they are both illegitimate. Fraud is also voluntary, there is no aggression in it, yet it is illegitimate, and there is no voluntaryiest that going to defend it "there are no positive rights, therefore I can't have a positive right to tell the truth to people, including in transaction, therefore- all fraud is legitimate because there is no initiation of force". So, even voluntaryists are for banning stuff that don't include aggression, likewise, I am just pointing out to the fact that it is not just simple fraud that is illegitimate, but that also direct and indirect exploitation are also illegitimate, being that they are in contradiction with the defintion of property- and they should be banned just like simple fraud.

Well, couldn't then landlords start charging their tenants for wearing down their house during their stay?Sure. But that means he gets nothing if there is no use, or if the tenant himself maintains the house so that there is no wearing down.

Also if you rent a house to someone, you ARE giving him a place to live, that's hardly nothing..You can play with words all you want, but you are not transfering to him any title of any tangible property you own, and you are not providing him any service. Rent is income based of the permission to use something, and giving permision is not labor.

Are hotels also illegitimate, since you rent rooms?Yes, they would have to operate differently in order to continue to exist in socialism.

On another note, what's your definition of socialism? Public ownership of the means of production?Workers recieving the full product of their labor, that is- there being no employer-emploee relation and there being to unearned income (any type of rent). That means that the workers own their means of production and manage their production, but it is also implied that besides the fact that there is no economic ruling class over the workers, there is also no political ruling class over the workers. Therefore, socialism is simply emancipation of laborers (from oppression and exploitation).

ThatGuy

17th July 2013, 15:24

And this means ruling over workers. And as you have said it has nothing to do with anarchy.

I don't really find voluntary trade to be the same as being ruled, but if you think this kind of a relation is hierarchical and thus wrong, do you think selling/buying goods and services in general is also wrong? Or do you find my elaboration on why wage labor is a service bogus?

ThatGuy

17th July 2013, 16:02

They cannot do any such thing, being that no conctract could contain promises to obey any orders, contracts would only be tranfers of title, and could specify details of that transfer and not anything else.

They don't even need contracts! This could be all done completely informally, just like you could buy a beer in a bar without getting a receipt post-states. People would do what the wealthy guy wants to be done so they get paid. He wouldn't need to drag them to court if he didn't like what they were doing, he could just stop paying them. There's no transfer of illegitimate titles involved, just people performing voluntary services for money. And the question is not if people would want to work in such a way, but if they could. On what grounds could society force them to stop trading in the way they're trading?

Then you are an idiot, because nothing similar to employer-employee relation would exist. A customer cannot say to the seller of products that he want's him to work specific work-hours, take specific breakes while working, wear specific clothing while working, or anything of the sort, the producer will be the manager of his production process and the customer cannot have any say in it.

Except if the customer puts a bag of money on the counter. In that case the seller of products might comply. What happens then? Is wage labor back in town, or do they get punished by the community?

Then you charge your services of the maintaince of the house during the rent-free stay of your tenant.

You do realize that's exactly what would happen, so rent would never actually go away, right?

In that they are both illegitimate. Fraud is also voluntary, there is no aggression in it, yet it is illegitimate, and there is no voluntaryiest that going to defend it "there are no positive rights, therefore I can't have a positive right to tell the truth to people, including in transaction, therefore- all fraud is legitimate because there is no initiation of force". So, even voluntaryists are for banning stuff that don't include aggression, likewise, I am just pointing out to the fact that it is not just simple fraud that is illegitimate, but that also direct and indirect exploitation are also illegitimate, being that they are in contradiction with the defintion of property- and they should be banned just like simple fraud.

Fraud is appropriation of property through an illegitimate contract and it's aggression, same as theft. If I agreed that fraud was being committed in signing an employment contract, I'd be right behind you, but if both parties understand what they're entitled to and what are their obligations when signing the contract, where's the fraud?

Sure. But that means he gets nothing if there is no use, or if the tenant himself maintains the house so that there is no wearing down.

The owner of the house can prohibit any modifications to the house, so maintenance by the tenant would likely not be possible.

You can play with words all you want, but you are not transfering to him any title of any tangible property you own, and you are not providing him any service. Rent is income based of the permission to use something, and giving permision is not labor.

How is that playing with words? If someone rents a house, he has a place where he can sleep. There was no wordplay involved at all.

Yes, they would have to operate differently in order to continue to exist in socialism.

But would they have to operate differently, because there's something morally wrong with how hotels work, or just to fit the system?

Workers recieving the full product of their labor, that is- there being no employer-emploee relation and there being to unearned income (any type of rent). That means that the workers own their means of production and manage their production, but it is also implied that besides the fact that there is no economic ruling class over the workers, there is also no political ruling class over the workers. Therefore, socialism is simply emancipation of laborers (from oppression and exploitation).

Well, not really. I mean, I understand that's your version of socialism, but the more common interpretation of the word is different and means public ownership of the means of production. By that definition you're not a socialist. I also see my own views as the only possible version of anarchism, but I understand where anarchy comes from historically, and I don't try to redefine the word.

Sotionov

17th July 2013, 17:02

They don't even need contracts! This could be all done completely informally, just like you could buy a beer in a bar without getting a receipt A contract can be verbal and it can be implied-in-fact. If someone were to "informally" become someone's slave, such a thing should be prevented even though there was no writter or verbal contract, and voluntaryist agree with that. It would be the same with employment in socialism.

People would do what the wealthy guy wants to be done so they get paid.Which wouldn't exist in socialism being that everyone would have means of production to life by, and no one would be able to make income if he's not labouring, the only way you could be wealthy is to work A LOT more then everyone else.

Except if the customer puts a bag of money on the counter. In that case the seller of products might comply. What happens then?The community takes the money from the customer as a punishment for trying to establish an illegitimate relation, if he tries it again, another punishment is enacted, as the community decides.

You do realize that's exactly what would happen, so rent would never actually go away, right?If a tenant is there rent-free, then by the definition the rent was done away with.

Fraud is appropriation of property through an illegitimate contract and it's aggression, same as theft.Sorry, no, there is no initiation of force in fraud, the defrauded party gives his consent, he is not forced into anything. Fraud is not a breach of voluntaryism-per-se, which just shows that voluntaryism cannot be a legitimate system on it's own.

The owner of the house can prohibit any modifications to the house, so maintenance by the tenant would likely not be possible.Such an owner of the house would then by the community be prohibited to have any tenants, because he's an idiot. And everyone supporting would go to jail under the charges of being idiots.

But would they have to operate differently, because there's something morally wrong with how hotels workRent is illegitimate.

Well, not really. I mean, I understand that's your version of socialism, but the more common interpretation of the word is different and means public ownership of the means of production.Commonness doesn't determine correctness, sound arguments do.

I also see my own views as the only possible version of anarchismBeing that anarchism means opposition to all hierarchy, and that you are a capitalist (which implies hierarchy) your views are diametrically oppossed to anarchism.

tuwix

17th July 2013, 17:39

do you think selling/buying goods and services in general is also wrong?

When there is money involved in trade, there is always exploitation in some degree. The monetary trade always is to make and profit is always over someone. This is one of reasons why Pierre-Jospeh Proudhon, the man who first time used a word anarchy and anarchism, stated that property is just theft.

ThatGuy

17th July 2013, 17:58

A contract can be verbal and it can be implied-in-fact. If someone were to "informally" become someone's slave, such a thing should be prevented even though there was no writter or verbal contract, and voluntaryist agree with that. It would be the same with employment in socialism.

How can you become a slave informally and without the use of aggression? There is simply no way of regulating services in a free society. You should really accept that if your vision of socialism came to be and it had people who wanted to engage in wage labor, they would easily find a way to make it happen.

Which wouldn't exist in socialism being that everyone would have means of production to life by, and no one would be able to make income if he's not labouring, the only way you could be wealthy is to work A LOT more then everyone else.In you version of socialism people would only have the means of production they would homestead or buy, just like in capitalism, so some people would still be able to get way wealthier than the rest, and some people would still be homeless.

The community takes the money from the customer as a punishment for trying to establish an illegitimate relation, if he tries it again, another punishment is enacted, as the community decides.But the customer wasn't trying to employ the seller, he just had special requirements about the product. Does that mean, that services can be illegitimate too?

If a tenant is there rent-free, then by the definition the rent was done away with.If the rent is disguised as some maintenance service, then no.

Sorry, no, there is no initiation of force in fraud, the defrauded party gives his consent, he is not forced into anything. Fraud is not a breach of voluntaryism-per-se, which just shows that voluntaryism cannot be a legitimate system on it's own.Aggression doesn't always require force. If I steal crops from you, I committed aggression by invading your right to private property without resulting to force. The defrauded party didn't give consent, because the transaction that took place was not the one they agreed to.

Such an owner of the house would then by the community be prohibited to have any tenants, because he's an idiot. And everyone supporting would go to jail under the charges of being idiots.So when you let someone in a building you own, they can demolish a wall, and it's ok, because you let them in?

EDIT: lots of people going to jail in this free society of yours

Rent is illegitimate.So how would hotels work? You buy a new house every time you go on vacation and order catering? You must join some kind of couch-surfing commune to ever be able to travel anywhere? Because if hotels were free, but the owner could refuse access to people not wishing to pay for his various services, it wouldn't change at all.

Commonness doesn't determine correctness, sound arguments do.In this instance I wasn't arguing the correctness of your views, but what you should call them.

Being that anarchism means opposition to all hierarchy, and that you are a capitalist (which implies hierarchy) your views are diametrically oppossed to anarchism.If I accepted employment as hierarchy rather than voluntary trade, then yes, but I don't, so in my small world capitalism and anarchy are one and the same.

Sotionov

17th July 2013, 18:31

How can you become a slave informally and without the use of aggression?
I have already explained that slavery can easily come into being without aggressio, but by voluntary contract, and that kind of contract, like any other, doesn't have to in writing, it can be verbal or implyied.

You should really accept that if your vision of socialism came to be and it had people who wanted to engage in wage labor, they would easily find a way to make it happen.
In socialism people would want to enter into employment contract as much as people today want to enter into slave contracts.

In you version of socialism people would only have the means of production they would homestead or buy, just like in capitalism, so some people would still be able to get way wealthier than the rest, and some people would still be homeless.
They simply couldn't being that there would be no unearned incomes.

But the customer wasn't trying to employ the seller, he just had special requirements about the product.
Then what that's buying services, like I described- the customer doens't have any say in the management of the production process.

If the rent is disguised as some maintenance service, then no
Rent is rent, maintenance service is mentainance service, to confuse the two is to show you are an idiot.

If I steal crops from you, I committed aggression by invading your right to private property without resulting to force.
Likewise, capitalist invade right to property by exploiting people.

The defrauded party didn't give consent, because the transaction that took place was not the one they agreed to.
Which is irrelevant, being that if only voluntaryism is taken into account, there are no positive rights, and thus not right to be told the truth, and if you agree to a transaction based of false information, that's your fault for not acquiring right information and agreeing to trade based on the information you had- you did it voluntarily.

lots of people going to jail in this free society of yours
No, just idiots like you, that can't unsterstand things explained to them multiple times.

So how would hotels work?
As restaurants with a place to sleep.

In this instance I wasn't arguing the correctness of your views, but what you should call them.
Words have etymologies and historical origins, and thus correct meanings.

If I accepted employment as hierarchy rather than voluntary trade, then yes, but I don't, so in my small world capitalism and anarchy are one and the same.
If there is no employment, that's not capitalism, anarchism and capitalism cannot be compatible.

ThatGuy

17th July 2013, 19:22

I have already explained that slavery can easily come into being without aggressio, but by voluntary contract, and that kind of contract, like any other, doesn't have to in writing, it can be verbal or implyied.

How can there be slavery when it's only implied? If you want to leave, the "slaver" has no means to make you stay, since there's no contract.

In socialism people would want to enter into employment contract as much as people today want to enter into slave contracts.

That may be, but it still doesn't mean they couldn't if they tried.

They simply couldn't being that there would be no unearned incomes.

Yes they could. A small cooperative could get crazy rich just like a company can today, one of the workers could take his share and leave and try to start a business by my model. You can still get rich through work today, it's just being made difficult by the state. In a free economy(well, semi-free, but with less restrictions than today) it should be much easier.

Then what that's buying services, like I described- the customer doens't have any say in the management of the production process.

Not if the seller doesn't wish him to, but in reality, sellers are very agreeable, and are usually willing to please the customer.

Rent is rent, maintenance service is mentainance service, to confuse the two is to show you are an idiot.

...

Likewise, capitalist invade right to property by exploiting people.

Are we even trying to have the same conversation anymore?

Which is irrelevant, being that if only voluntaryism is taken into account, there are no positive rights, and thus not right to be told the truth, and if you agree to a transaction based of false information, that's your fault for not acquiring right information and agreeing to trade based on the information you had- you did it voluntarily.

The seller has no obligation to disclose everything he knows to the customer, but if the contract transfers rights, that the seller doesn't posses, it's not binding, and any transfer made by it is considered theft if it isn't rolled back.

No, just idiots like you, that can't unsterstand things explained to them multiple times.

Things told to them you mean. No satisfying explanation has been offered.

As restaurants with a place to sleep.

And can you sleep in it even if you don't eat anything? If not, the owner has the potential of making profit off of you sleeping in that room, call it what you want. If yes, I'm moving to a hotel.

Words have etymologies and historical origins, and thus correct meanings.

Sure, but unfortunately(not surprisingly though), early socialists were all over the place and public ownership of the means of production is one of the few views, that tie most socialist together. I personally find you on the outskirts of socialism, and consider your views more on the capitalist side of things. But you know, it's just a label after all.

If there is no employment, that's not capitalism, anarchism and capitalism cannot be compatible.

I disagree on both statements.

Well it has been entertaining and educational at times, but I'm getting a bit frustrated by being called an idiot, by big parts of my posts being completely ignored and by the repetitiveness of this debate, so I'm leaving it. I guess you won.

Sotionov

17th July 2013, 23:00

How can there be slavery when it's only implied? If you want to leave, the "slaver" has no means to make you stay, since there's no contract.
Likewise in the "informal" employment that you talk about, if a factory owner were to "informaly" agree with some workers to work in his factory, he would have not means to make them obey him in managing production or to stop them from taking the products of their labor with them, being that there is no employment contract (even if there were, it would be illegitimate). Therefore, no "informal" employment could exist in socialism.

A small cooperative could get crazy rich just like a company can todayCooperatives cannot expand like capitalist firms do, when they expand, that means that more workers are in the picture, leaving the earnings of individual workers not much increased.

, one of the workers could take his share and leave There are no shares in the company ownership, firms would be collectively owned by the workers in them.

and try to start a business by my model. No, he could not try and start a business that would imply hierarchy, or any other illegitimate thing, like imposition of harm, theft, fraud, exploitation.

Not if the seller doesn't wish him to, but in reality, sellers are very agreeable, and are usually willing to please the customer.If you come to a self-employed service provider today and tell him you will buy his services on the condition that he be your slave for a while, no one would agree to that. Even if they did, such a relation should be dismantled, and you put in a labor camp. Likewise would happen in socialism if someone would want to establish hierarchical relations and subordinate other people.

The seller has no obligation to disclose everything he knows to the customer, but if the contract transfers rights, that the seller doesn't posses, it's not binding, and any transfer made by it is considered theft if it isn't rolled back.In which it is implied that people have the positive right to be told the truth.

Well it has been entertaining and educational at times, but I'm getting a bit frustrated by being called an idiotThen stop acting like one. When something is explained to you- use a little common sense and don't ask follow-up question that not even a retarded person would ask; and don't repeatedly make statemenst and ask questions that have already been adressed.