Is anarcho-capitalism unacceptable for collectivists?

[ThatGuy]

Hi, I'm new to this forum, but I already have a few questions I would like to ask. I'm in no way trying to start a flame war, I'm just trying to see if my theory has any holes or if there's anything I've missed.

So my basic question is what the title of the thread says, is anarcho-capitalism really unacceptable for collectivists?

I understand that the question can seem a bit strange, since anarcho-capitalism is a clearly individualistic ideology and that's the exact opposite of collectivism, but while a-c opposes coercive collectivization, it is perfectly fine with voluntary collectivization. That means, that a group of people could unite and establish a collectivist society within a capitalistic system, and no true adherent to the non-aggression principle should have a problem with that. They could freely trade(they would probably have to unless it was a really massive sub-society) and interact with the outside world if they wanted, but if they didn't want to, they could act as if the rest of the world didn't exist.

A real life example could be the Mondragon corporation. As I understand Mondragon is a democratically-run enterprise, that offers social stability and even free(or is it just affordable?) education to it's members and it exists in a market-oriented system.

If something similar has been asked before I appologize. As I said, I'm new to this forum.

[Rugged Collectivist]

First of all, the dichotomy between collectivism and individualism is a false one.

I suppose peaceful coexistence is possible in theory. That is, assuming everyone follows the non aggression principle, but I wouldn't count on that. Neither side would benefit from non aggression. Not to mention, the very existence of markets would mean that the autonomous communes would rely on them which would mean they would still have to contend with private ownership and they wouldn't truly be autonomous.

Someone more knowledgeable should probably respond...

[Decolonize The Left]

Capitalism is unacceptable for leftists, let alone collectivists. So... yes.

[Skyhilist]

We don't accept their beliefs as viable. But during the Spanish revolution people in anarchist-controlled areas weren't forced to collectivize. 30% chose not to, in fact, and it didn't really hurt anything. They were just worse off. If ancaps want to try their experiments post-revolution, let them. We'll just be there to pick up the pieces when it fails after a few months.

[G4b3n]

It is a waist of time to even ponder the question OP.
"Anarcho-capitalism" can never exist. The state is a tool of the ruling class. In capitalist society the state is used to protect private property and those who posses it (the bourgeoisie). The system is essentially advocating for bourgeois society with no bourgeoisie. In order to abolish the state, you would need to abolish class society i.e, capitalism.

The concept was understood by classical liberals such as Adam Smith, it is even spelled out very clearly in "Wealth of Nations". If only any "Anarco" capitalists would bother to study even the slightest bit of modern economic history and not blindly advocate for pseudo-classical economics.

[tuwix]

So my basic question is what the title of the thread says, is anarcho-capitalism really unacceptable for collectivists?


It is unacceptable for logic and knowledge. Term 'anarcho-capitalism' is an oxymorone. It is based on imposible to accomplish free market. And free market is imposible due to its own deifinition.

[liberlict]

Of course it's unacceptable. How could people possibly want to participate in free enterprise unless they are being repressed? The existence of any commercial activity signifies subversive forces of repression.

[Blake's Baby]

There is no such thing as 'free enterprise'. There is only 'social enterprise'. Anyone claiming to have the right to expropriate the rest of society is indeed a subversive force.

[#FF0000]

The very existence of "property" in the first place is reliant on force, so uh, there's that.

Not to mention the fact that if you put any sort of thought into "anarcho-capitalism", it becomes pretty clear that it's basically neo-feudalism seeing as anyone who owned a significant parcel of land would be acting as a state on their own

[liberlict]

The very existence of "property" in the first place is reliant on force, so uh, there's that.

Not to mention the fact that if you put any sort of thought into "anarcho-capitalism", it becomes pretty clear that it's basically neo-feudalism seeing as anyone who owned a significant parcel of land would be acting as a state on their own

Property being communal requires force, because it depends on a constituted body of persons empowered to enforce the law, protect possessions, and limit civil disorder. So it's functionally the same thing. A "sate' doesn't cease to exist just because it has no place in communist schema.

[MarxArchist]

Property being communal requires force, because it depends on a constituted body of persons empowered to enforce the law, protect possessions, and limit civil disorder. So it's functionally the same thing. A "sate' doesn't cease to exist just because it has no place in communist schema.


How long have you been a, what is it, anarchist? What's the basis of your critique of capitalism?

[Akshay!]

"Anarcho"-"capitalism" is redundant. It's like saying Marxist socialism.

[#FF0000]

"Anarcho"-"capitalism" is redundant. It's like saying Marxist socialism.

Capitalism requires a state, and there are (were) other strains of socialism beyond Marxist socialism.

[BIXX]

"Anarcho"-"capitalism" is redundant. It's like saying Marxist socialism.

Quoted for ignorance.


Learn a little about anarchist theory a little bit. We reject illegitimate authority (you know, with the whole no rulers thing), which automatically means we reject capitalism.

[Akshay!]

Quoted for ignorance.


Learn a little about anarchist theory a little bit. We reject illegitimate authority (you know, with the whole no rulers thing), which automatically means we reject capitalism.

But the way you go about "rejecting" it has never been successful and actually weakens the socialist movement. That in turn results in strengthening capitalism - which may or may not have been the intention.

[Per Levy]

But the way you go about "rejecting" it has never been successful

i mean russia, china, nepal, vietnam and many more show that your kind of "socialism" is succesful afterall.


and actually weakens the socialist movement.

there is a socialist movement? where is that? or do you mean the many small partys who claim to be the "vanguard" of the proles?


That in turn results in strengthening capitalism - which may or may not have been the intention.

and i ask again, you were an anarch when you joined here, how come you know so little about anarchists?

[Conscript]

Yes.

It's more appropriate for you to explain why we have an interest in working in your supposedly free society.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

While Akshay is often insanely biased towards anti-communist political movements, I have to agree with him there. The rejection of political power in the otherwise very powerful CNT in favour of 'mass strikes' was one of the major nails in the coffin for the Spanish socialist movement.

[Akshay!]

i mean russia, china, nepal, vietnam and many more show that your kind of "socialism" is succesful afterall.


USSR not Russia.


there is a socialist movement? where is that?

I didn't expect someone like you to be cognizant of it. In fact, I'm glad that you're not associated with it.


and i ask again, you were an anarch when you joined here,
Ad Hominem.

[BIXX]

USSR not Russia.

Irrelevant to the argument.


I didn't expect someone like you to be cognizant of it. In fact, I'm glad that you're not associated with it.

This isn't an argument... Huh... Sounds familiar to insulting the author of the argument rather than attacking the argument itself... What's that called again?


Ad Hominem.

Oh thank you for reminding me!

[#FF0000]

I didn't expect someone like you to be cognizant of it. In fact, I'm glad that you're not associated with it.

"you can't join my roleplaying circle so nyah"

[ThatGuy]

There have been lots of answers, but I think this one sums them up:


Yes.

It's more appropriate for you to explain why we have an interest in working in your supposedly free society.

Well, basically because it's not very probable, that people will ever have the same idea of what's right for them. So if we have a portion of the population, that's capitalist and a portion that's collectivist, wouldn't this be the solution to a peaceful coexistence? Those who want to have a communist economy can collectivize their property and form a society, that can be even closed off to outsiders. Law abiding capitalists will leave you alone, because it's your property and you can do what you want with it. If you recognize the right of those outside your community to have private property, no conflict should arise at all, save for criminals, who disregard private property.

[Per Levy]

USSR not Russia.

same thing in case of the argument. and lets be honest the ussr was rusia more than anything.


I didn't expect someone like you to be cognizant of it. In fact, I'm glad that you're not associated with it.

after we established that im not part of the "socialist movement" could you still point me at the direction of said "socialist movement"? where could i find it?


Ad Hominem.

i dont get this to be honest, you were an anarchist, you had a anarcho-syndicalist profile pic, anarchist was written under your user name where marxist-leninist stands now. so how do all of you critizisms of anarchism come down to "anarchists dont live in the real world", "anarchists support capitalism" wich pretty much sounds all like you think anarchists are some kind dreamy hippies or something. anyway, as far as critique its just really, really weak. dont get me wrong anarchists as any communist tendencie needs to be crizised(mine as well) but if you do so, please do it better and with something of substanze and actual arguments and not something that sounds like "anarchists are stupid and smell bad".

[BIXX]

There have been lots of answers, but I think this one sums them up:



Well, basically because it's not very probable, that people will ever have the same idea of what's right for them. So if we have a portion of the population, that's capitalist and a portion that's collectivist, wouldn't this be the solution to a peaceful coexistence? Those who want to have a communist economy can collectivize their property and form a society, that can be even closed off to outsiders. Law abiding capitalists will leave you alone, because it's your property and you can do what you want with it. If you recognize the right of those outside your community to have private property, no conflict should arise at all, save for criminals, who disregard private property.

Peaceful coexistence isn't really an option, because the capitalists will never cease in trying to gain more land and workers to make more money.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And the workers will not limit the socially-organised economy because someone has a piece of paper that says a particular piece of the means of production is theirs.

[ThatGuy]

Peaceful coexistence isn't really an option, because the capitalists will never cease in trying to gain more land and workers to make more money.

See, I don't think that's true. Land is not that big a deal to entrepreneurs, because there's really plenty of it around. If the communist society was sitting on some oil or something similar, there might be a bigger incentive to violate it's private property, but invasion is incredibly expensive, and I really don't believe it would happen. The reason that the US is so imperialistic today is not that it's a capitalist nation and that it wants more money, but that some business men have taken over part of the government and led the nation in wars and spending, that is hurting it. If this businesses had to bear the costs of running an empire themselves, there's no way that they could afford it or profit from it.

While the communist society doesn't care about profit, they could care about the well being of the people, so a reverse scenario, where communists would try to expropriate somebody not belonging to their society would also be possible. But still with violence being costly I think that it would be unlikely to happen.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

See, I don't think that's true. Land is not that big a deal to entrepreneurs, because there's really plenty of it around. If the communist society was sitting on some oil or something similar, there might be a bigger incentive to violate it's private property, but invasion is incredibly expensive, and I really don't believe it would happen.
This kind of reminds me of what happened to native americans in US history. A group of people who didn't have a society based around private property came up against a group of people who did and then ended up basically suffering in genocide, exploitation and being forced onto smaller and smaller patches of land.


The reason that the US is so imperialistic today is not that it's a capitalist nation and that it wants more money, but that some business men have taken over part of the government and led the nation in wars and spending, that is hurting it.
This fundamentally ignores the fact that the United States basically began its life as a bunch of businessmen and landowners deciding they wanted to control the government. There was no 'taken over' as the bourgeoisie have always been the ruling class in the US. Just think about who could vote in the early years of US history (or pretty much any bourgeois democracy in the world): people who owned property. That's no voting for working class people, women or slaves. It was only through class struggle that this relationship has been changed with universal suffrage eventually being established after hundreds of years of working class movements fighting against the bourgeois state and even then it still is essentially fundamentally in the clutches of the capitalist class who utilise the state to facilitate their business.


If this businesses had to bear the costs of running an empire themselves, there's no way that they could afford it or profit from it.
True enough. Which is why it's always the working class who suffer and are exploited in imperialist wars and not the capitalists. This allows them to ensure they can profit.


While the communist society doesn't care about profit, they could care about the well being of the people, so a reverse scenario, where communists would try to expropriate somebody not belonging to their society would also be possible. But still with violence being costly I think that it would be unlikely to happen.
If communists truly cared about people they would do their best to ensure that no-one was shackled in the confines of an exploitative class system. There is no way for a communist society and a capitalist society to co-exist.

[ThatGuy]

This kind of reminds me of what happened to native americans in US history. A group of people who didn't have a society based around private property came up against a group of people who did and then ended up basically suffering in genocide, exploitation and being forced onto smaller and smaller patches of land.

The native americans actually had private property. They divided up the land between families and tribes, and others weren't allowed to hunt/fish on it. If the colonialists truly cared about private property rights, they would have to trade for the land with native americans, but clearly they didn't.


This fundamentally ignores the fact that the United States basically began its life as a bunch of businessmen and landowners deciding they wanted to control the government. There was no 'taken over' as the bourgeoisie have always been the ruling class in the US. Just think about who could vote in the early years of US history (or pretty much any bourgeois democracy in the world): people who owned property. That's no voting for working class people, women or slaves. It was only through class struggle that this relationship has been changed with universal suffrage eventually being established after hundreds of years of working class movements fighting against the bourgeois state and even then it still is essentially fundamentally in the clutches of the capitalist class who utilise the state to facilitate their business.

The bourgeois is not a homogenous class. It's an arbitrarily divided part of society, that is at odds against itself, just like the rest of society. In the beginning the US were very non interventionist, that changed only after the first world war, when there was an excuse to raise public spending. War doesn't hurt just the lower class, but everyone who doesn't actually profit from it(oil industry, weapons industry), because they still have to pay for it.


True enough. Which is why it's always the working class who suffer and are exploited in imperialist wars and not the capitalists. This allows them to ensure they can profit.

The poor are probably worse off when there's a war, true, but if you work in an industry that's getting rich on the war you also profit from it, the worker/capitalist differentiation really doesn't draw a good distinction between those who profit from the war and those who don't.


If communists truly cared about people they would do their best to ensure that no-one was shackled in the confines of an exploitative class system. There is no way for a communist society and a capitalist society to co-exist.

If you're trying to force your views on people who don't accept them, that's just wrong. It's really the same as when people try to force others to convert to their religion "for their own good". I believe most communists would be willing to respect property rights of people outside their society if they themselves were allowed to do what they wanted.

[Conscript]

Well, basically because it's not very probable, that people will ever have the same idea of what's right for them. So if we have a portion of the population, that's capitalist and a portion that's collectivist, wouldn't this be the solution to a peaceful coexistence? Those who want to have a communist economy can collectivize their property and form a society, that can be even closed off to outsiders. Law abiding capitalists will leave you alone, because it's your property and you can do what you want with it. If you recognize the right of those outside your community to have private property, no conflict should arise at all, save for criminals, who disregard private property.

Why? Do we not already do so through the economy and our very human quality that is socialized production? We can't just segregate the world, the only way it would be reached would be through stalemated conflict in the first place. Even if we could, the two entities are too much of a contradiction, with both having a real interest in the destruction of each other: to expand the market and thus the rule of capitalists or to expand the commons and thus the rule of the working class. That, and communism cannot survive isolated from a significant portion of humanity, because their labor and the capital of their rulers will be used in a predatory fashion (probably with the assistance of the state, which tends to be viciously reactionary in the bourgeois world) against the socialist economy, similar to how it was in east-west relations in the old days.

The communists are not trying to forge a lifestyle independent from everyone else like you are. That is the fundamental difference between you and us. We are trying to accelerate humanity into a commonly held world with no states and no national boundaries, which you thrive on, and into a position of relative abundance, with the abolishing of wage-labor, and an end to the division of labor, which capitalism simply has no interest in. There is no profit to be made in those conditions, but that is exactly how we reach 'to each according to his need' and let laborers receive the full value of their labor.

If the communists could do such things isolated or with a fraction of the world, I'm sure they would as it would be the most peaceful way to socialism. However, since that would render capitalist production in the other world bankrupt and dissolve the market, their states would step in and it would be revolution vs reaction all over again.

Our interests and goals are just too contradictory, just like labor and capital.

[ThatGuy]

Why? Do we not already do so through the economy and our very human quality that is socialized production? We can't just segregate the world, the only way it would be reached would be through stalemated conflict in the first place. Even if we could, the two entities are too much of a contradiction, with both having a real interest in the destruction of each other: to expand the market and thus the rule of capitalists or to expand the commons and thus the rule of the working class. That, and communism cannot survive isolated from a significant portion of humanity, because their labor and the capital of their rulers will be used in a predatory fashion (probably with the assistance of the state, which tends to be viciously reactionary in the bourgeois world) against the socialist economy, similar to how it was in east-west relations in the old days.

The communists are not trying to forge a lifestyle independent from everyone else like you are. That is the fundamental difference between you and us. We are trying to accelerate humanity into a commonly held world with no states and no national boundaries, which you thrive on, and into a position of relative abundance, with the abolishing of wage-labor, and an end to the division of labor, which capitalism simply has no interest in. There is no profit to be made in those conditions, but that is exactly how we reach 'to each according to his need' and let laborers receive the full value of their labor.

If the communists could do such things isolated or with a fraction of the world, I'm sure they would as it would be the most peaceful way to socialism. However, since that would render capitalist production in the other world bankrupt and dissolve the market, their states would step in and it would be revolution vs reaction all over again.

Our interests and goals are just too contradictory, just like labor and capital.

Labor and capital aren't completely contradictory, that's why companies and factories actually exist and thrive. And I think out goals are neither. We all want a more peaceful and plentiful existence, but we have different ideas on how to achieve it. Religion works in similar ways actually. People have a different view on what is right and what is wrong and this doesn't necessarily mean that they must be in constant conflict all the time. They can peacefully coexist provided someone doesn't try to use their beliefs to start a conflict, that will benefit only him.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I would have no interest in starting a fight with a communist society, ever. What would I gain? More land that I'm not using and I don't need? A wider target market, that doesn't want what i sell and is resentful to the fact that I attacked them?

Also, I'm not defending state lines or whatever, it says anarcho-capitalism right in the title of the thread. I would be sad if all my left-wing fiends decided they wanted to be communists and move away. There's no reason, why our societies couldn't be integrated and still function, as long as we understand and tolerate our different views of what's good and what's not. The idea that communism is or must be global, or it doesn't exist is to me the worst offense in the communist ideology, because it simply means that no dissent of opinion can be tolerated.

An end division of labor? Seriously? How can this possibly not lead to a loss of production, starvation, disease and death? Or do we have a different take on the division of labor?

[Hermes]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I would have no interest in starting a fight with a communist society, ever. What would I gain? More land that I'm not using and I don't need? A wider target market, that doesn't want what i sell and is resentful to the fact that I attacked them?


What exactly would you be selling, and how is it that you'd produce it?

[Zukunftsmusik]

"Anarcho"-"capitalism" is redundant. It's like saying Marxist socialism.

Stop with your snarky, ignorant posts, you just make yourself look dumb

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The native americans actually had private property. They divided up the land between families and tribes, and others weren't allowed to hunt/fish on it. If the colonialists truly cared about private property rights, they would have to trade for the land with native americans, but clearly they didn't.
Native Americans had areas which they called their own but it wasn't private property in the sense of the capitalist economic system. They didn't lay claim to land so that they could invest and garner profit but so that they could provide for their extended families. That relationship to property is completely different.


The bourgeois is not a homogenous class. It's an arbitrarily divided part of society, that is at odds against itself, just like the rest of society.
Never claimed it wasn't.


In the beginning the US were very non interventionist, that changed only after the first world war, when there was an excuse to raise public spending.
Guess you've never heard of Manifest Destiny, the Barbary wars, the Mexican-American wars, all the wars against independant states in the Pacific and independant Native American tribes, the interventions in China during the Opium Wars, the seizure of Panama, the interventions in Chile and Brazil, the Spanish-American war that lead to the occupation and subjugation of the Philipines, the intervention in the Boxer Rebellion in China, the occupations of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and the intervention in the Mexican Civil War? Sounds really non-interventionist to me, you're right. :rolleyes:


War doesn't hurt just the lower class, but everyone who doesn't actually profit from it(oil industry, weapons industry), because they still have to pay for it.
Wars benefit the ruling class and hurt the working class, who have to fight it. Whether it be the banning of working class organisations such as trade unions because of 'patriotic' reasons or the seizure of the opposition's capital, the vast majority of the results of war benefit the bourgeoisie. And yes the bourgeoisie is divided amongst different segments just as the working class is. There are national elements that seek to control resources on a global scale and on a lesser scale simple competition over who get's the production rights of war materials. None of which is really that beneficial to the working class.


The poor are probably worse off when there's a war, true, but if you work in an industry that's getting rich on the war you also profit from it, the worker/capitalist differentiation really doesn't draw a good distinction between those who profit from the war and those who don't.
That's a load of shit, I'm afraid. During war time profits rise and wages fall in these industries; mainly because trade unionism gets attacked for being 'unpatriotic' and workers have no voice in which to challenge wage cuts at the risk of being considered a 'subversive' and arrested. There's also the unfortunate added danger of being a target for an enemy bomb for working in a factory producing bombs.


If you're trying to force your views on people who don't accept them, that's just wrong. It's really the same as when people try to force others to convert to their religion "for their own good". I believe most communists would be willing to respect property rights of people outside their society if they themselves were allowed to do what they wanted.
I won't accept people suffering and being exploited in order to have a nice life in which I can do what I want. That's bourgeois logic that lets them sleep soundly at night whilst their industries destroy the lives of people across the world. Communism is international because we don't accept the exploitation of anyone, anywhere and not just in our little corner of this planet. If you want to talk about forcing views on people let's talk about the capitalist education system which has essentially turned into a factory to produce skilled and compliant workers who won't challenge authority.

[ThatGuy]

Native Americans had areas which they called their own but it wasn't private property in the sense of the capitalist economic system. They didn't lay claim to land so that they could invest and garner profit but so that they could provide for their extended families. That relationship to property is completely different.

Their modes of production weren't industrial, but what is farming if not investment & profit? If the native americans had weapons that could match those of the Europenas, they would be able to defend themselves and their property rights would have been respected, resulting in peaceful and beneficial trading instead of genocide. That humans tend to kill each other when able is not a result of capitalism, but it's a dark part of who we are.


Guess you've never heard of Manifest Destiny, the Barbary wars, the Mexican-American wars, all the wars against independant states in the Pacific and independant Native American tribes, the interventions in China during the Opium Wars, the seizure of Panama, the interventions in Chile and Brazil, the Spanish-American war that lead to the occupation and subjugation of the Philipines, the intervention in the Boxer Rebellion in China, the occupations of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and the intervention in the Mexican Civil War? Sounds really non-interventionist to me, you're right. :rolleyes:

Maybe I exaggerated, no state has ever been truly non-interventionist, but it's definitely gotten much worse since the world wars, once government spending in the US started to rise and less things are left to the market.


Wars benefit the ruling class and hurt the working class, who have to fight it. Whether it be the banning of working class organisations such as trade unions because of 'patriotic' reasons or the seizure of the opposition's capital, the vast majority of the results of war benefit the bourgeoisie. And yes the bourgeoisie is divided amongst different segments just as the working class is. There are national elements that seek to control resources on a global scale and on a lesser scale simple competition over who get's the production rights of war materials. None of which is really that beneficial to the working class.

They have to fight it when there's a draft. Nowadays they decide to fight it, but it still hurts them and it's still the poor who enlist. And again, I'm not saying that war is beneficial to the working class, but neither is it beneficial to the capitalist class. It is beneficial to small parts of both and it happens, because a segment of the capitalist class succeeds in bringing the state into conflicts it could and should avoid.


That's a load of shit, I'm afraid. During war time profits rise and wages fall in these industries; mainly because trade unionism gets attacked for being 'unpatriotic' and workers have no voice in which to challenge wage cuts at the risk of being considered a 'subversive' and arrested. There's also the unfortunate added danger of being a target for an enemy bomb for working in a factory producing bombs.

That's my bad for having done no extensive research on this, but if war creates new jobs, that provide society a disservice, but offers a better alternative to someone, that's working for a low pay or unemployed, isn't he then better off? I didn't really mean to make a point on how poor people want to go to war to profit off of it though, we agree that war is started in the interest of people from the upper class, what I wanted to point out was, that it's not in the interest of the whole upper class, bot of a small part of it, that has economic interests in imperialism or in war production itself.


I won't accept people suffering and being exploited in order to have a nice life in which I can do what I want. That's bourgeois logic that lets them sleep soundly at night whilst their industries destroy the lives of people across the world. Communism is international because we don't accept the exploitation of anyone, anywhere and not just in our little corner of this planet. If you want to talk about forcing views on people let's talk about the capitalist education system which has essentially turned into a factory to produce skilled and compliant workers who won't challenge authority.

I completely agree that public schools are wrong and students/parents should be able to choose what is taught in their school, but you can't really say that colleges today aren't inclined toward the left. I'll bet you there's way more Marx than Mises taught in schools across the west.

This is however not a problem of people not being able to live the way they want, since I see no reason to limit transition from a capitalist society to a communist one or the other way around, it's a problem of coercion of people into a system they don't accept. There is nothing wrong with advertising the communist system to people in the capitalist society, but forcing them to collectivize their possessions even if they don't agree its wrong.

[MarxArchist]

I have an issue with the term "collectivist" (no offense to the poster "Rugged Collectivist). It builds the image Orwell wrote about in 1984. The overwhelming conformist society under the control of an oppressive state. As is individualism and communism are oil and water.

[liberlict]

Yes I believe 'double-speak' is the term Orwell coined for referring to things like 'capitalism' as 'freedom' etc.

[Remus Bleys]

The reason that the US is so imperialistic today is not that it's a capitalist nation and that it wants more money, but that some business men have taken over part of the government and led the nation in wars and spending, that is hurting it. If this businesses had to bear the costs of running an empire themselves, there's no way that they could afford it or profit from it.
Your argument is that the US is warmongering because of business men, but that business men themselves aren't warmongerers?:laugh:
If the business had to bear the cost themselves, now maybe thats an argument. But look at the US military-industrial complex. The large part of the US military is privately owned, the rest could be created by a private company. The business men would, if they wanted to, round up together and contribute some of their resources together into this private army, and hire it for the invasion. Now, you may have a logical point with the how would they pay for it? The same way they do now. Taxes, in a round about way. Instead of the State taking part of your paycheck, the business men would just pay you less, then taking the money they got from docking your pay, fund the war!

And why would you want to live in a capitalist society when you live next to a communist one anyway?

[ThatGuy]

the business men would just pay you less, then taking the money they got from docking your pay, fund the war!

How could they just take money from your pay though? Why would your employer go along with that if a reduced paycheck would mean you would be inclined to change your job? If they could pay you less, why wouldn't they rather keep the money themselves?


And why would you want to live in a capitalist society when you live next to a communist one anyway?

Me personally, because I think communism isn't economically viable and I think it creates a lack of personal freedom.

[Luís Henrique]

True individual development is only possible in a communist society.

Capitalism on the other hand is a quite brutish brand of collectivism, in which all individuality must be sacrificed to the collective process of accumulation.

So the whole question is posed upside down.

Luís Henrique

[Remus Bleys]

Re
How could they just take money from your pay though? Why would your employer go along with that if a reduced paycheck would mean you would be inclined to change your job? If they could pay you less, why wouldn't they rather keep the money themselves.
:confused:
They would all be doing it in this scenario...or if they aren't a majority would.
Even then they dock your pay by definition. When you work, you produce, but you don't get paid for the amount you produce, now do you? So in a sense, you already pay to work for someone. They already pocket your work.
I feel like you think competition would be constant in ancap society and it wouldn't turn into someone really good at manipulating the market and monopolizing.
You also fail to see how beneficial war is to the capitalist economy. Its a very profiable way to do away with overproduction.

Anyway the question is ultimately pointless for two reasons firstly the amount of ancaps in the world would equate to what, one town? Secondly, this presupposes anyone on the revolutuionary left would work with ancaps. Were not going to for reasons you have probably been told about, and no amount of whining can change that.

[ThatGuy]

:confused:
They would all be doing it in this scenario...or if they aren't a majority would.
Even then they dock your pay by definition. When you work, you produce, but you don't get paid for the amount you produce, now do you? So in a sense, you already pay to work for someone. They already pocket your work.

Who's they? The military complex or the "capitalist class". Rich people aren't a homogenous group and they aren't all friends with each other. What is good for some of them is bad for the rest of them.


I feel like you think competition would be constant in ancap society and it wouldn't turn into someone really good at manipulating the market and monopolizing.

That's precisely what I think. It's impossible to be a monopolist if you don't have some means of suppressing competition when it's economically sensible for competition to exist. Today's monopolies rely on states and would not be possible without them.


You also fail to see how beneficial war is to the capitalist economy. Its a very profiable way to do away with overproduction.

War isn't beneficial or profitable to anybody but people who make weapons and politicians(those who make it out alive). Broken windows don't create wealth.


Anyway the question is ultimately pointless for two reasons firstly the amount of ancaps in the world would equate to what, one town? Secondly, this presupposes anyone on the revolutuionary left would work with ancaps. Were not going to for reasons you have probably been told about, and no amount of whining can change that.

Actually if we're all trying to get rid of the state we have to help each other if we like it or not. The question is how do we live after there are no more states, do we fight over principles of political philosophy, or do we let everyone live by their own standards?

[Remus Bleys]

Today's monopolies rely on states and would not be possible without them.
...

Actually if we're all trying to get rid of the state we have to help each other if we like it or not. The question is how do we live after there are no more states, do we fight over principles of political philosophy, or do we let everyone live by their own standards?

First off, implying they wouldn't have other ways of suppressing these so called free market. Secondly, private property requires a state or some other use of force (which is just as bad as a state).

Most anarchists are fiercely anti capitalist. I'm more anticapitalist than antistate. And there is so much more to anarchism then antistatism, but ancaps are fine with hierarchy that Resemble the STATE.
Now this whole you need us bullcrap. No we don't need you. We need those from the worker movement, we need the proletariat. We need the frustration at capitalism. We don't need to work with nap bullcrappers. And ancaps are such a minority, your help that you could provide is just so minmal. The few times you are in you insist we should be open to capitalism, which is just counterproductive at best.
One top of that, most anarchists would rather work with leninists and *shudders* liberals than with capitalists.
Anarchist philosophy is opposition to hierarchy, not freedom to become a slave.
You are antistate and all about freedom, but you aren't anarchists. Your ideas, logic, reasoning, thoughts, everything is just so fundamentally different to anarchist thought that it would be counterrevolutionary to let you in.
And what makes ancap theory any better than other markets like mutualism? And what the hell is so great about markets anyway?

[helot]

You are antistate and all about freedom, but you aren't anarchists.


I disagree with this... No, i don't disagree that these people aren't anarchists (that's pretty obvious once you look at anarchism) but that they're anti-state. They're not, they do not oppose state functions just that they ought to be provided via the market mechanism.

[Remus Bleys]

I disagree with this... No, i don't disagree that these people aren't anarchists (that's pretty obvious once you look at anarchism) but that they're anti-state. They're not, they do not oppose state functions just that they ought to be provided via the market mechanism.
Thats true comrade, but it helps end that bickering.
I just don't like the comparison of fascism (which isn't all that far off they are both about competition and struggle) which is in the end wrong, they are feudalist. I have given up on the argument of a private entity being as bad as a state one. They are too ignorant for it.

[ThatGuy]

private property requires a state or some other use of force (which is just as bad as a state).

So does personal property and private possession. No society could work without a police of some sort, unless crime is just going to disappear.


Most anarchists are fiercely anti capitalist. I'm more anticapitalist than antistate. And there is so much more to anarchism then antistatism, but ancaps are fine with hierarchy that Resemble the STATE.

The one thing that separates the state from other private entities is the right to tax. We oppose any private entity, that would try to force people to pay for something they didn't want and we oppose any hierarchy, that forces people into it. Try to find a state that ever didn't do any of these two things.


Anarchist philosophy is opposition to hierarchy, not freedom to become a slave.

If you decide what other people can and can't do, aren't you creating a hierarchical relation?


You are antistate and all about freedom, but you aren't anarchists. Your ideas, logic, reasoning, thoughts, everything is just so fundamentally different to anarchist thought that it would be counterrevolutionary to let you in.

I'm not trying to get into anything, I'm simply saying if it wouldn't be best to find a system, that could let people coexist without constant conflict once states actually fall. Of course if your goal is to tell people what they must do with their time and property, we might have a problem.


And what the hell is so great about markets anyway?

They provide a sensible resource allocation system. But really, if you support private property, they are the only mechanism human cooperation left. If you can't take someone's stuff or services, you have to trade with him for them.

[Remus Bleys]

So does personal property and private possession. No society could work without a police of some sort, unless crime is just going to disappear.



The one thing that separates the state from other private entities is the right to tax. We oppose any private entity, that would try to force people to pay for something they didn't want and we oppose any hierarchy, that forces people into it. Try to find a state that ever didn't do any of these two things.

Actually, personnal property is so minimalistic, and so easy to get your own, no one would steal it. And there is tons of evidence that crime is a result of the class war, so yeah eliminate the class war, provide free healthcare to everyone, you will eliminate crime.
You kinda pay your boss to work for them. That's kinda like a tax. And forcing you to buy something? Oh boo hoo go cry me a river. Assuming that tax is the worst part of hierarchy, that's why no one on the left thinks your an anarchist (except that idiot) You completely ignore wage slavery. Why don't you go be a mutualist or something so you can find real anarchist that tolerate, and some may even like you.,
I highly doubt you'll find anarchism in one country subscribers.

[ThatGuy]

Actually, personnal property is so minimalistic, and so easy to get your own, no one would steal it. And there is tons of evidence that crime is a result of the class war, so yeah eliminate the class war, provide free healthcare to everyone, you will eliminate crime.

Could you show me some of this evidence? Personal property is less than private property, but people still violate it. Ever heard of rape or murder?


You kinda pay your boss to work for them. That's kinda like a tax.

Actually employers usually pay employees.


And forcing you to buy something? Oh boo hoo go cry me a river. Assuming that tax is the worst part of hierarchy, that's why no one on the left thinks your an anarchist (except that idiot) You completely ignore wage slavery.

I do ignore wage slavery, because I find it ridiculous to compare a voluntary system to a forced one. Employes can leave their employer if they want, slaves can't leave their master and taxpayers can't secede from their government. Which two are the most alike?

Taxes are not the worst part of a forced hierarchy, but they're what enables governments to do the criminal things they to to their own people and to those in other countries. Any organization that says it has the right to tax is inherently corrupt and criminal.


Why don't you go be a mutualist or something so you can find real anarchist that tolerate, and some may even like you.,
I highly doubt you'll find anarchism in one country subscribers.

I don't adopt ideologies to make fiends.

[helot]

I do ignore wage slavery, because I find it ridiculous to compare a voluntary system to a forced one. Employes can leave their employer if they want, slaves can't leave their master and taxpayers can't secede from their government. Which two are the most alike?


It's voluntary in the same way it's voluntary to hand over your wallet to a mugger.

The comparison you make to government is hilarious as it contradicts your point. If wage labour is voluntary because you can quit and work for someone else then is that not the same with government? You can move and live in an area under a different government.

[ThatGuy]

It's voluntary in the same way it's voluntary to hand over your wallet to a mugger.

The comparison you make to government is hilarious as it contradicts your point. If wage labour is voluntary because you can quit and work for someone else then is that not the same with government? You can move and live in an area under a different government.

But you still have to be under A government. If a worker wants to live independently of employers, he can start producing goods and services by himself and he can live a free life. What exactly are my options if I want to live without a government? I have to sell my property, that means more to me than just a patch of land, it's my home. I have to leave everyone I know behind. And after I went through all of this, I still live under a different government. I mentioned secession instead of emigration precisely because I don't think people should lose so much to be just a little more free.

Also governments are expanding and unifying. In the future moving somewhere might not even be a possibility.

EDIT: In all fairness, I could live without a government(at least before they are forced to submit to a new one) if I moved to Somalia. That would mean, that currently I could actually live without a government, in exchange for a life of poverty and danger. And when outside forces push another state on Somalia, taxes and coercion would be back and I would only be left with poverty and danger. If I believed that Somalia will actually stay an anarcho-capitalist region, I might honestly start seeking out some way of moving there.

[helot]

But you still have to be under A government. If a worker wants to live independently of employers, he can start producing goods and services by himself and he can live a free life. What exactly are my options if I want to live without a government? I have to sell my property, that means more to me than just a patch of land, it's my home. I have to leave everyone I know behind. And after I went through all of this, I still live under a different government. I mentioned secession instead of emigration precisely because I don't think people should lose so much to be just a little more free.


Please tell me how a worker can produce goods by him/herself when you need capital to do it and by right of being working class the worker lacks capital? It results in the same thing, all this "freedom of choice" is merely a pious fraud. At present you cannot live without being subject to a government and for the vast majority of people on the planet they cannot live without being the subordinate of a capitalist. Their lack of capital and need of food guarantees this.

How do we solve this problem? By guaranteeing to everyone automatic access to all that's necessary to produce without asking leave of master or owner and without having to surrender the lion's share of the product of their labour to the capitalist or the landlord. Then we can talk about self-determination and liberty.


And for the record, im an anarchist and an active one at that.

[ThatGuy]

Please tell me how a worker can produce goods by him/herself when you need capital to do it and by right of being working class the worker lacks capital? It results in the same thing, all this "freedom of choice" is merely a pious fraud. At present you cannot live without being subject to a government and for the vast majority of people on the planet they cannot live without being the subordinate of a capitalist. Their lack of capital and need of food guarantees this.

How do we solve this problem? By guaranteeing to everyone automatic access to all that's necessary to produce without asking leave of master or owner and without having to surrender the lion's share of the product of their labour to the capitalist or the landlord. Then we can talk about self-determination and liberty.


And for the record, im an anarchist and an active one at that.

Active in what way?

Workers have quiet a few options for starting a business. They can start small. By finding something they're at least decent at and then getting better and accumulating capital to expand or take up something more capital intensive. They can work for someone for a while, save up, and use that capital to start a business. They can join a cooperative. They can take a loan for starting investments. Maybe there's even some other option I'm not aware of at the moment. The cost of sustenance should be included in their assessment of the needed starting capital.

If private property is truly abolished, personal freedom goes along with it. If anyone can take anything from anyone, how can you be entitled to the product of your labor? If property doesn't exist it's not yours, even if you produced it. Sure, you can take anything you want from others too, but what if you don't want to? What what you were making is what you really wanted, and you can't have it, because others felt it doesn't belong to you and took it from you? How can this be freedom? If you're ok with such a system and voluntarily participate in it I have no problem with, but forcing someone who doesn't want to be part of it is coercion.

Also, this debate wasn't really about would you live in an anarcho-capitalist society, but if having a framework of anarcho-capitalism, wherein collectives with public property and groups of people with private property can coexist. Isn't that basically an "everyone is happy" scenario, since people could decide freely which system to use?

[Remus Bleys]

Could you show me some of this evidence? thats like a basic criminolgical fact. I am not your fact finder.




I do ignore wage slavery, because I find it ridiculous to compare a voluntary system to a forced one. Employes can leave their employer if they want, slaves can't leave their master and taxpayers can't secede from their government. Which two are the most alike?
Someone already pointed the absurdity of this argument.
But let me get into wage slavery. Your boss pays you x amount of money to do work. You produce y. X has to be less than Y, else he would not profit. So, even though you did the work to create Y amount of money, you only got paid X. Lets do X-Y=Z. You essentially paid your boss Z to work for him



I don't adopt ideologies to make fiends. Then dont expect to find any.

[ThatGuy]

thats like a basic criminolgical fact. I am not your fact finder.

When someone says "that's a fact" without any attempt of proving it, I usually substitute "a fact" with "something I made up because it suits me" in my head.


Someone already pointed the absurdity of this argument.
But let me get into wage slavery. Your boss pays you x amount of money to do work. You produce y. X has to be less than Y, else he would not profit. So, even though you did the work to create Y amount of money, you only got paid X. Lets do X-Y=Z. You essentially paid your boss Z to work for him

So if you have to make a delivery, and you hire a cab to take you to the address where you have to deliver your package, and pay the cab driver X, but get paid Y for making the delivery, where X<Y because you wouldn't be making the delivery by cab otherwise, is the cab driver paying you to deliver stuff? There's no real difference between employers and any other sort of buyers.


Then dont expect to find any.

If that's how you plan to convert people to communism I'm afraid it won't work.

[Remus Bleys]

When someone says "that's a fact" without any attempt of proving it, I usually substitute "a fact" with "something I made up because it suits me" in my head. My brother is a crimologist. I go to the conventions with him. Its a pretty uniform thought.




So if you have to make a delivery, and you hire a cab to take you to the address where you have to deliver your package, and pay the cab driver X, but get paid Y for making the delivery, where X<Y because you wouldn't be making the delivery by cab otherwise, is the cab driver paying you to deliver stuff? There's no real difference between employers and any other sort of buyers. Analogy is completely off. The cab driver spends X, and you pay him Y. The cab driver is his own person in this analogy. The amount you make on a delivery (although even more fucked, who doesn't deliver their own crap if they are getting paid to do it) has nothing to do with what the cab driver is producing.

[ThatGuy]

My brother is a crimologist. I go to the conventions with him. Its a pretty uniform thought.

That is still hearsay. But we can also approach this more theoretically, because I seriously doubt any statistic about crime could really point to "class warfare". What do you consider class warfare, and why do you think it creates crime?


Analogy is completely off. The cab driver spends X, and you pay him Y. The cab driver is his own person in this analogy. The amount you make on a delivery (although even more fucked, who doesn't deliver their own crap if they are getting paid to do it) has nothing to do with what the cab driver is producing.

Well, maybe I could have put a bit more work into the scenario, but there's nothing theoretically wrong with it. The amount you make on a delivery must be higher than what the cab driver will charge you, or else you wouldn't be making the delivery. Other than that, there's really no difference to the cab driver how much profit you will make, so why should it matter to a worker how much his boss is getting paid, as long as he pays the worker his wage?

[Remus Bleys]

That is still hearsay. But we can also approach this more theoretically, because I seriously doubt any statistic about crime could really point to "class warfare". What do you consider class warfare, and why do you think it creates crime?
Lets consult the all knowing wikipedia.

Class conflict, frequently referred to as class warfare or class struggle, is the tension or antagonism which exists in society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) due to competing socioeconomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics) interests and desires between people of different classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class). which creates poverty. which is the source of 99% of crime.




Well, maybe I could have put a bit more work into the scenario, but there's nothing theoretically wrong with it. The amount you make on a delivery must be higher than what the cab driver will charge you, or else you wouldn't be making the delivery. Other than that, there's really no difference to the cab driver how much profit you will make, so why should it matter to a worker how much his boss is getting paid, as long as he pays the worker his wage? Except it isnt a boss worker relationship.

[ThatGuy]

Lets consult the all knowing wikipedia.
which creates poverty.

What it is doesn't explain how it creates poverty and neither how it creates crime.


Except it isnt a boss worker relationship.

There's no formal contract, because it's a one-time arrangement, but while you're in that cab you're basically the driver's boss. You can tell him where to go, where to stop, which road to take.. If you don't like haw he's driving you can fire him, by telling him to pull over and if you're obnoxious, he can pull over and tell you to leave, practically quitting.

[BIXX]

What it is doesn't explain how it creates poverty and neither how it creates crime.

Because when you're in poverty you're more desperate, and this you're more likely to steal or sell drugs (which is a point of contention on whether or not that should even be considered wrong) or whatever. Of course there will be non-economic crimes, such as murder (which in many cases has an economic base) and rape. Rape will also decrease most likely due to people not being under economic stress, and they'll get support, etc... So that would make rape cases go down.



There's no formal contract, because it's a one-time arrangement, but while you're in that cab you're basically the driver's boss. You can tell him where to go, where to stop, which road to take.. If you don't like haw he's driving you can fire him, by telling him to pull over and if you're obnoxious, he can pull over and tell you to leave, practically quitting.

In this case however, the can driver has a choice in whether or not to drive for you, but he MUST drive for someone. His situation is better than say, a construction worker, because he will almost always be able to find someone who will want him to drive them. Plus, even though he is not driving, this is far different than being unemployed, cause he has a practical guarantee that someone is gonna need to be picked up in a minute. The construction worker, however, cannot quit as often, a construction worker cannot immediately get up and go to a new workplace. Sometimes he may even need to go to school and go further into debt if he wants to get another construction job. And if he doesn't wanna go that deep into debt, he pretty much has fast-food type job opportunities. Either way, he's kinda fucked. And he can't start a business with not reputation, no capital to start with, and an inability to be an employer because he has no capital/way to pay employees.

[ThatGuy]

Because when you're in poverty you're more desperate, and this you're more likely to steal or sell drugs (which is a point of contention on whether or not that should even be considered wrong) or whatever. Of course there will be non-economic crimes, such as murder (which in many cases has an economic base) and rape. Rape will also decrease most likely due to people not being under economic stress, and they'll get support, etc... So that would make rape cases go down.

I'm not contending the link between poverty and crime, but I still don't understand how class warfare creates either.. Or that it even exists, since I don't believe in the marxist definition of classes.


In this case however, the can driver has a choice in whether or not to drive for you, but he MUST drive for someone. His situation is better than say, a construction worker, because he will almost always be able to find someone who will want him to drive them. Plus, even though he is not driving, this is far different than being unemployed, cause he has a practical guarantee that someone is gonna need to be picked up in a minute. The construction worker, however, cannot quit as often, a construction worker cannot immediately get up and go to a new workplace. Sometimes he may even need to go to school and go further into debt if he wants to get another construction job. And if he doesn't wanna go that deep into debt, he pretty much has fast-food type job opportunities. Either way, he's kinda fucked. And he can't start a business with not reputation, no capital to start with, and an inability to be an employer because he has no capital/way to pay employees.

I'm not really sure cab drivers have it that easy. Actually I think they are much much worse off than construction workers. Otherwise, construction workers could all start driving cabs, and construction companies would have to greatly improve their working conditions.

On the other hand, how can you understand how hard it is to set up a working business, but still say, that employers are idle expropriators of the working class? If employers really do nothing but rip off workers, shouldn't it be incredibly easier to make money without them?

[MarxArchist]

So does personal property and private possession. No society could work without a police of some sort, unless crime is just going to disappear.

I can defend myself from a person attempting to steal my shoes without the institution of private property. A capitalist cannot defend their claim to vast amounts of land and resources without the help of the state. A working class itself had to be created through the state violently separating the masses of people from free access to the earths land/resources. Industrialization would have been impossible without the state, without prior generations of coercion which separated people from traditional means of survival. In a world where human beings were actually free, one with no state, the most a "voluntary free market" could produce is a sort of small village Quaker economy not a global industrial market system. The very essence of the property based market system is a lack of choice to participate. This requires, obviously, coercion.




The one thing that separates the state from other private entities is the right to tax. We oppose any private entity, that would try to force people to pay for something they didn't want and we oppose any hierarchy, that forces people into it. Try to find a state that ever didn't do any of these two things.

You're privatization of everything would force people to pay every time they needed to use a road. To use a bridge. To perhaps cross someones property on foot. It would be far more despotic than a poor person giving up 15% of their paycheck to the capitalist state. Again, in your system it would be people with concentrated wealth who would accumulate even more wealth and the majority poor who are kept down. The state also taxes because war is necessary in order for the global property based industrial market system to exist. I'm aware "free market" capitalists deny this. Don't waste my time doing so because I will spend 10 minutes explaining why war is necessary (but deny it you will). In short, market expansion is perpetually needed. Profits must constantly compound. New markets must be exploited, more avenues of profit must be created. This process cannot be voluntary. You're silly way around this will be to champion "free trade". What you need to realize is not every culture/continent has wanted to play along with opening up their societies to capitalism. This has traditionally been done by force. It's how wealth is allocated back into the hands of capitalists who originated in the global north west hemisphere. There can be no capitalism without it being global and it cannot be global with force/coercion. "Free trade" is another "free market" myth.


Another reason taxes are necessary is because of the social upheaval capitalism created. Not only did it make traditional means of survival impossible but it is the first economic system in human history that creates a perpetually unemployed population. Profits cannot happen under full employment. On top of that fact a "Reserve Army Of Labor" is systemically created via boom and bust cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29

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



If you decide what other people can and can't do, aren't you creating a hierarchical relation?

If we decide dispossessing humanity of the ability to survive without subjecting themselves to wage labor, rent or interest is immoral and must be ended it is self defense. In a socialist society you can't exploit human beings. No.




I'm not trying to get into anything, I'm simply saying if it wouldn't be best to find a system, that could let people coexist without constant conflict once states actually fall. Of course if your goal is to tell people what they must do with their time and property, we might have a problem.

Where would you get a factory? How would you build it with your own two hands? If the majority of the population has not been forcibly dispossessed of the means to survive outside of capitalist relations where would you get your work force to build your "property". When your "property's" foundation is the subjugation of multitudes of millions of people yes we have a problem. You need to understand how a working class was created. Here, ignore this book you little swine.

http://libcom.org/files/The%20Invention%20of%20Capitalism.pdf




They provide a sensible resource allocation system. But really, if you support private property, they are the only mechanism human cooperation left. If you can't take someone's stuff or services, you have to trade with him for them.

Oh ya, capitalism is just people trading things. I've heard this a thousand times from you free market religious types. "Ya....just people trading things. You know, if I produce a pair of shoes and sell it for a profit what's wrong with that"?. Well, who made the shoes? If you make a pair of shoes with your own two hands and want to trade them by all means go right ahead.

[BIXX]

I'm not contending the link between poverty and crime, but I still don't understand how class warfare creates either.. Or that it even exists, since I don't believe in the marxist definition of classes.



I'm not really sure cab drivers have it that easy. Actually I think they are much much worse off than construction workers. Otherwise, construction workers could all start driving cabs, and construction companies would have to greatly improve their working conditions.

On the other hand, how can you understand how hard it is to set up a working business, but still say, that employers are idle expropriators of the working class? If employers really do nothing but rip off workers, shouldn't it be incredibly easier to make money without them?



Confirmed for ignorance/inability to listen/stupid.

However I'll try to explain why you're wrong.



I'm not contending the link between poverty and crime, but I still don't understand how class warfare creates either.. Or that it even exists, since I don't believe in the marxist definition of classes.

What is your definition? And why don't you believe the Marxist definition?


I'm not really sure cab drivers have it that easy. Actually I think they are much much worse off than construction workers.

I should have clarified that I only meant in a certain regard.


Otherwise, construction workers could all start driving cabs, and construction companies would have to greatly improve their working conditions.

Well, then why doesn't every taxi driver become a fast food worker? They technically have a safer job (as far as I can tell) and have a more guaranteed pay, cause they're paid whether or not they serve someone. Of course they can be fired but that's a whole other can of worms. I'm just saying that some jobs are better in certain regards and some jobs are worse in some regards.


On the other hand, how can you understand how hard it is to set up a working business, but still say, that employers are idle expropriators of the working class? If employers really do nothing but rip off workers, shouldn't it be incredibly easier to make money without them?

These people who own these huge businesses didn't start out from the very bottom, they had capital and thus were able to exploit workers from the beginning. Their businesses get large enough to where they don't even really have to do any work. Maybe sign a few papers. But I wouldn't call that labour.

Also your last sentence doesn't make sense, or it's based in a misunderstanding or Marxist thought. I can't tell.

[liberlict]

Yes, because communists define 'private property' as a 'state'. And communism must me stateless.

[blake 3:17]

To the OP: Yes.

[ThatGuy]

What is your definition? And why don't you believe the Marxist definition?

I find it arbitrary and lacking logic. What happens when an employee owns a share of the company where he works then? Is he a capitalist or a worker? What about when someone is self-employed? What about people who don't have a job and don't own any "means of production"(which is basically anything)? Are the worker-class even if they don't work? What about a manager, that is not the owner of his company, is he worker-class?

Dividing the population into a high, middle and lower class can be useful in conversation, but it's usually a colloquial term that is usually set arbitrarily and doesn't really give us any new information and may even distort it.


Well, then why doesn't every taxi driver become a fast food worker? They technically have a safer job (as far as I can tell) and have a more guaranteed pay, cause they're paid whether or not they serve someone. Of course they can be fired but that's a whole other can of worms. I'm just saying that some jobs are better in certain regards and some jobs are worse in some regards.

My guess would be because fast food worker pays crap. Some jobs are better for some people than for others, sure, but what does that mean in regard of them being exploitation? We're loosing the main point of this debate, if work is basically equal to selling services, which I think it is.


These people who own these huge businesses didn't start out from the very bottom, they had capital and thus were able to exploit workers from the beginning. Their businesses get large enough to where they don't even really have to do any work. Maybe sign a few papers. But I wouldn't call that labour.

That is basically impossible. Big businesses had to star from somewhere, it's not like they have been there since always.

I'm not saying rich people don't have it easy. They can close shop whenever they want and live off their savings indefinitely. But if they want to stay rich, or even get richer, they must be good at what they do and they must invest a lot of work into it. And a lot of businesses are starting from scratch all the time. Some will grow into something, if properly led and most of them will fail. By working for someone you give up on the real profits of doing business, but you skip the risk of failure, since you(usually) have a fixed salary.


Also your last sentence doesn't make sense, or it's based in a misunderstanding or Marxist thought. I can't tell.

What I meant was, if employers are exploiters, shouldn't workers be better off if they were on their own? If you have a parasite, such as a leech, and get rid of it, you life gets immediately better. If a worker quits his job, he can't just continue on doing what he was doing before and reap even more of the rewards. Clearly the employer was providing him with something, that facilitated his life in some way, so why say that they don't contribute anything to the production of final goods and that they are exploiters?

[tuwix]

What I meant was, if employers are exploiters, shouldn't workers be better off if they were on their own?

Indeed. And socialism is all about. But it means that only workers are owners of means of production. However, naming worker a freelancer or self-employed doesn't mean he ceases to be a worker. There must be no exploitation de facto and not only de iure .

[ThatGuy]

Indeed. And socialism is all about. But it means that only workers are owners of means of production. However, naming worker a freelancer or self-employed doesn't mean he ceases to be a worker. There must be no exploitation de facto and not only de iure .

Umm.. Not sure if we're on the same page..

Let's use actual slavery as a benchmark, since everybody here will agree, that slavery is exploitation. There's a slaver, he has a plantation and slaves, that work on it. There's also a capitalist, who has a factory, where people work. One day both the factory and the plantation go out of business, and the slave-owner and capitalist both set their slaves and workers free.

Wouldn't this be a very good day for the slaves and a very sad day for the workers? If no, how do you think they would feel then? If yes, so why are both relations exploitation and why is wage labor actually referred to as wage slavery by socialists?

[tuwix]

The workers could fell happy due to freedom of slaves and slaves could be worried due o perspective of competition for job. The feeling could be very different.

But imagine worker (classic slave or wage slave), when they start to know that they don't have to work to live. I'm sure they will be happy. And socialism is all about it.

[ThatGuy]

The workers could fell happy due to freedom of slaves and slaves could be worried due o perspective of competition for job. The feeling could be very different.

Yes, I'm sure the slaves will be terrified by the prospect of needing to find a new job, that actually pays, and where the person you work for can't decide to kill you, because you were trying to learn to read. And the worker would be happy, because his oppressive job is gone, even though he could have quit even before and with the same consequence. That's how the real world works.


But imagine worker (classic slave or wage slave), when they start to know that they don't have to work to live. I'm sure they will be happy. And socialism is all about it.

No, they would still need to work. Even in communism nothing gets done without work you know. It's just the distribution of wealth that changes. And if the worker had a good salary in that factory he might actually be worse off in communism.

[ThatGuy]

This debate is really going off topic btw. Let's just assume this scenario:

The revolution finally happens, once social democracies drive their economies into the ground, and the world becomes communist, except for one nation. That nation is not aggressive, but it's inhabitants have voted on it and decided they don't want communism.

What happens now? Do you think that the people in the nation are wrong in wanting to keep their system of production, and need to be convinced/coerced into communism? Should the rest of the world start the final communist peace by subduing them into compliance with a war? Or is it ok to keep their capitalist ways as long as they leave you alone?

[tuwix]

Even in communism nothing gets done without work you know.

And know you pretend to know more about communism than communist, huh?
:D :D :D



This debate is really going off topic btw. Let's just assume this scenario:

The revolution finally happens, once social democracies drive their economies into the ground, and the world becomes communist, except for one nation. That nation is not aggressive, but it's inhabitants have voted on it and decided they don't want communism.

What happens now? Do you think that the people in the nation are wrong in wanting to keep their system of production, and need to be convinced/coerced into communism? Should the rest of the world start the final communist peace by subduing them into compliance with a war? Or is it ok to keep their capitalist ways as long as they leave you alone?

Such stet would just collapse. But whole that example is rather imposible. I can't even imagine that even where in one place one has to work and in other doesn't. The level of ignorance there would have to be similiar to that of North Korea.