What does everybody think of this?

[KC]

Originally posted by Ernest Mandel: Introduction to Capital Volume I
When, however, we look at the capitalist mode of production, everything seems much more complicated and much more obscure, to say the least. No brutal force, personified by an overseer with a whip or some group of armed men, appears to force the worker to give up anything he has produced or owns himself. His relationship with the capitalist appears to be based upon an act of exchange which is identical to that of a small artisan or a farmer, owners of commodities they themselves have produced, who meet in the market place. The worker appears to sell his'labour' in exchange for a wage. The capitalist 'combines' that labour with machines, raw material and the labour of other men to produce finished products. As the capitalist owns these machines and raw materials, as well as the money to pay the wages, is it not 'natural' that he should also own the finished products which result from the 'combination fo these factors?

This is what appears to occur under capitalism. However, probing below the surface, Marx comes up with a series of striking observations which can only be denied if one deliberately refuses to examine the unique social conditions which create the very peculiar and exceptional 'exchange' between labour and capital. In the first place, there is an institutional inequality of conditions between capitalists and workers. The capitalist is not forced to buy labour-power on a continuous basis. He does it only if it is profitable to him. If not, he prefers to wait, to lay off workers, or even to close his plant down till better times. The worker, on the other hand (the word is used here in the social meaning made clear precisely by this sentence, and not necessarily in the stricter sense of manual labourer), is under economic compulsion to sell his labour-power. As he has no access to the means of production, including land, as he has no access to any large-scale free stock of food, and as he has no reserves of money which enable him to survive for any length of time while doing nothing, he must sell his labour-power to the capitalist on a continuous basis and at the current rate. Without such institutionalized compulsion, a fully developed capitalist society would be impossible. Indeed, once such compulsion is absent (for example where large tracts of free land subsist), capitalism will remain dwarfed until, by hook or by crook, the bourgeois class suppresses access to that free land. The last chapter of Capital Volume 1, on colonization, develops this point to great effect. The history of Africa, especially of South Africa, but also of the Portuguese, Belgian, French and British colonies, strikingly confirms this analysis. If people are living under conditions where there is no economic compulsion to sell their labour-power, then repressive juridical and political compulsion has to deliver the necessary manpower to the entrepreneurs; otherwise capitalism could not survive under these circumstances.

The function of trade unions, be it said in passing, is immediately clarified in the light of this analysis. Workers who combine to set up a reserve fund can be freed at least for some weeks from the compulsion to sell their labour-power on a continuous basis at the given market rate. Capitalism does not like that at all. It is contrary to 'nature'; if not to human nature, then at least to the deeper nature of bourgeois society. That is why, under robust nascent capitalism, trade unions were simply banned. That is also why, under senile capitalism, we are gradually returning to a situation in which workers are denied the right to strike - the right to abstain from selling their labour-power at the offered proce whenever they like. In this instance, Marx's insight is clearly confirmed by the highest authorities of the bourgeois state: under capitalism, labour is fundamentally forced labour. Whenever possible, capitalists prefer hypocritically to cloak the compulsion under a smokescreen of 'equal and just exchange' on the 'labour market'. When hypocrisy is no longer possible, they return to what they began with: naked coercion.

What's everybody think of this quote? Don't be vague; I want some intelligent insight!

[Publius]

Alright, I'll give it a resonse.


When, however, we look at the capitalist mode of production, everything seems much more complicated and much more obscure, to say the least. No brutal force, personified by an overseer with a whip or some group of armed men, appears to force the worker to give up anything he has produced or owns himself. His relationship with the capitalist appears to be based upon an act of exchange which is identical to that of a small artisan or a farmer, owners of commodities they themselves have produced, who meet in the market place. The worker appears to sell his'labour' in exchange for a wage. The capitalist 'combines' that labour with machines, raw material and the labour of other men to produce finished products. As the capitalist owns these machines and raw materials, as well as the money to pay the wages, is it not 'natural' that he should also own the finished products which result from the 'combination fo these factors?

Nothing really to respond to, other than the obvious leading nature of the questions.


This is what appears to occur under capitalism.

No, it's what occurs.

That's why it rings so true.


However, probing below the surface, Marx comes up with a series of striking observations which can only be denied if one deliberately refuses to examine the unique social conditions which create the very peculiar and exceptional 'exchange' between labour and capital.

If only that were so.

There is nothing 'peculiar' or 'exceptional' about one type of trade compared to another.


In the first place, there is an institutional inequality of conditions between capitalists and workers.

There is an institutional eqaulity between capitalists and workers.

One cannot exist without the other.


The capitalist is not forced to buy labour-power on a continuous basis. He does it only if it is profitable to him. If not, he prefers to wait, to lay off workers, or even to close his plant down till better times.

You're only looking at a small part of the entire equation, a common fallacy in communistic thinking.

Why should he be forced to buy labor power when it is not in his (Or anyone else's) best interests?

Profitibility is a gauge of efficiency. If a capitalist is not profitable, he should not be running a company. Either he (or somone under him) is innefficient, or his product is not desirable. Without the prospect of profit and loss, efficiency is non-existence. Waste is uniform.

Why should he employ workers when the product of their labor is not desirable?

Why run the factory when no good could come of running it?

The capitalist cannot dictate these things, only the consumer can.


The worker, on the other hand (the word is used here in the social meaning made clear precisely by this sentence, and not necessarily in the stricter sense of manual labourer), is under economic compulsion to sell his labour-power.

Naturally, one must work to produce, and one must produce to have anything to trade, and one must trade to get what he does not have.

There is no salience to this point.

Without SOMEONE producing the necessary items, they obviously don't get produced.

SOMEONE is forced to produce them.


As he has no access to the means of production, including land, as he has no access to any large-scale free stock of food, and as he has no reserves of money which enable him to survive for any length of time while doing nothing, he must sell his labour-power to the capitalist on a continuous basis and at the current rate.

Or he could sell his labor to another capitalist at a higher rate of pay.

Or he could save up enough money to buy some means of production.

Or he could buy land and use it.


Without such institutionalized compulsion, a fully developed capitalist society would be impossible.

Yes, without people working, a capitalist society will collapse.

The choice is either the 'compulsion to produce' (Which exists under ANY society) or the destruction of the society.

Gee, which to choose?

Communism merely erects an illusion in front of this dictum, that you don't have to work to live.

Perhaps YOU don't, but SOMEONE does.


Indeed, once such compulsion is absent (for example where large tracts of free land subsist), capitalism will remain dwarfed until, by hook or by crook, the bourgeois class suppresses access to that free land.

So he's saying that if people can get free land, they'll take it and farm it?

Of course.

I assume this was written some years ago?


The last chapter of Capital Volume 1, on colonization, develops this point to great effect. The history of Africa, especially of South Africa, but also of the Portuguese, Belgian, French and British colonies, strikingly confirms this analysis.

I'm not going to defend the history of colonization, but I ask this: If not for the influence of Western capital, how were these places to advance?


If people are living under conditions where there is no economic compulsion to sell their labour-power, then repressive juridical and political compulsion has to deliver the necessary manpower to the entrepreneurs; otherwise capitalism could not survive under these circumstances.

Again, I'm not going to defend colonization/imperialism, but I disagree with the assessment that it is necessarily part of capitalism.

It's a governmental fault as much as an economic one, if not more so.



The function of trade unions, be it said in passing, is immediately clarified in the light of this analysis. Workers who combine to set up a reserve fund can be freed at least for some weeks from the compulsion to sell their labour-power on a continuous basis at the given market rate.

Yes, by colluding to sell their product at an artificially high rate and by forming a small monopoly on the commodity of labor, unions can amass enough money to do that.


Capitalism does not like that at all. It is contrary to 'nature'; if not to human nature, then at least to the deeper nature of bourgeois society. That is why, under robust nascent capitalism, trade unions were simply banned. That is also why, under senile capitalism, we are gradually returning to a situation in which workers are denied the right to strike - the right to abstain from selling their labour-power at the offered proce whenever they like.

I disagree with such laws.

I agree with the assumption that, if allowed, capitalists will use the state to their advantage.

Why allow them?


In this instance, Marx's insight is clearly confirmed by the highest authorities of the bourgeois state: under capitalism, labour is fundamentally forced labour. Whenever possible, capitalists prefer hypocritically to cloak the compulsion under a smokescreen of 'equal and just exchange' on the 'labour market'. When hypocrisy is no longer possible, they return to what they began with: naked coercion.

Labor is forced, simply because if no labor were exacted, no commodities would be produced, and trade itself would not be possible.

In order to trade, you need something to trade.

Communism, again, reflects this simple fact.

Labor is just as forced under communism.

Personally, I find the labor under communism to be more onerous and far less 'free', but that's a topic for another thread I would say.



What's everybody think of this quote? Don't be vague; I want some intelligent insight!

Specious.

Like all communist talk, it's specious.

Sound on the surface, flawed underneath.

[KC]

You're only looking at a small part of the entire equation, a common fallacy in communistic thinking.

Why should he be forced to buy labor power when it is not in his (Or anyone else's) best interests?

Profitibility is a gauge of efficiency. If a capitalist is not profitable, he should not be running a company. Either he (or somone under him) is innefficient, or his product is not desirable. Without the prospect of profit and loss, efficiency is non-existence. Waste is uniform.

Why should he employ workers when the product of their labor is not desirable?

Why run the factory when no good could come of running it?

The capitalist cannot dictate these things, only the consumer can.

I don't think he implied that the capitalist should be forced to buy labor power when he said this. I think he was just stating this as a fact. Which I'm sure you agree with.




Naturally, one must work to produce, and one must produce to have anything to trade, and one must trade to get what he does not have.

There is no salience to this point.

Without SOMEONE producing the necessary items, they obviously don't get produced.

SOMEONE is forced to produce them.

Again, he is just stating this as a fact of capitalist society.



Naturally, one must work to produce, and one must produce to have anything to trade, and one must trade to get what he does not have.

There is no salience to this point.

Without SOMEONE producing the necessary items, they obviously don't get produced.

SOMEONE is forced to produce them.

He is saying that without compulsion for the worker to sell his labour-power to the capitalist, capitalist society cannot exist. If there was some free land for the worker to farm, as a hypothetical second option, the capitalist needs the worker to sell his labour-power to him instead of going and farming that land. If the worker chooses the land, then the capitalist has nobody to work for him (I'm using generalities; by worker I hope you know I mean working class). Since the capitalist has nobody to work for him, the capitalist system fails. It's not about labour, it is about the selling of labour.



So he's saying that if people can get free land, they'll take it and farm it?

Of course.

I assume this was written some years ago?

I'm not entirely sure when it was written. Sometime between 1940 and 1995. Why is that relevant?



I'm not going to defend the history of colonization, but I ask this: If not for the influence of Western capital, how were these places to advance?

He is stating that, because free land exists, a problem with capitalism exists where people can choose to not participate in the capitalist system. He is not saying that this is "bad" nor is he implying so. He is merely using these examples of colonization as evidence to prove this fact. (I might be saying this completely wrong though; I had trouble typing what was in my head. It seems pretty accurate though!)




Labor is forced, simply because if no labor were exacted, no commodities would be produced, and trade itself would not be possible.

In order to trade, you need something to trade.

Communism, again, reflects this simple fact.

Labor is just as forced under communism.

Personally, I find the labor under communism to be more onerous and far less 'free', but that's a topic for another thread I would say.


Again, he is not saying that forced labour is the problem; he is saying that labour is forced because the worker is required to sell his labour-power to live.

As for my opinion of what you wrote:




[1]Or he could sell his labor to another capitalist at a higher rate of pay.

[2]Or he could save up enough money to buy some means of production.

[3]Or he could buy land and use it.


Option 1 doesn't solve the problem. Options 2 and 3 aren't possible for the majority of people.

You can agree with me that for someone to live in a capitalist society they must sell their labour-power to a capitalist or become one themselves, right?
You can also agree with me that labour-power is a commodity in itself and therefore the market dictates the price at which the worker receives for his labour-power?

[quincunx5]

Or he could sell his labor to another capitalist at a higher rate of pay.

Or he could save up enough money to buy some means of production.

Or he could buy land and use it.


He could also save enough money to buy a share or several shares of a public corporation's means of production, therefore getting a fraction of the profits himself.

He does not even need to fully pay for the land before he can use it for making profits. His mortgage payment will just be another expense. He can also provide his services to multiple companies as an independant contractor. You know this but the commies still need to learn.

[Publius]

I don't think he implied that the capitalist should be forced to buy labor power when he said this. I think he was just stating this as a fact. Which I'm sure you agree with.

Yes, I agree with it.



He is saying that without compulsion for the worker to sell his labour-power to the capitalist, capitalist society cannot exist. If there was some free land for the worker to farm, as a hypothetical second option, the capitalist needs the worker to sell his labour-power to him instead of going and farming that land. If the worker chooses the land, then the capitalist has nobody to work for him (I'm using generalities; by worker I hope you know I mean working class). Since the capitalist has nobody to work for him, the capitalist system fails. It's not about labour, it is about the selling of labour.

So if everyone had enough land to live off of, or had the means to produce for himself, none would work for a capitalist?

As labor is a commodity, if your labor produces more value for you in farming (Or whatever), why WOULD you sell it to a capitalist?

You probably wouldn't.

So yes, the 'capitalist system' as we know it would fail, but only because people were excercising the freedom to employ their labor in a different manner.




I'm not entirely sure when it was written. Sometime between 1940 and 1995. Why is that relevant?

The way he was speaking of farming led me to believe this was somewhat older.

It's relevent because farming has changed a great deal over the years.



He is stating that, because free land exists, a problem with capitalism exists where people can choose to not participate in the capitalist system. He is not saying that this is "bad" nor is he implying so. He is merely using these examples of colonization as evidence to prove this fact. (I might be saying this completely wrong though; I had trouble typing what was in my head. It seems pretty accurate though!)

People should be free to choose where they employ their labor.

If people want to farm, let them.



Again, he is not saying that forced labour is the problem; he is saying that labour is forced because the worker is required to sell his labour-power to live.

Naturally one is required to sell one's labor to live as one is required to trade one's money for food.

I don't see why this a problem.

With the gains of the working class in the last 100 years firmly in hand, I doubt many people are angry at their plight and being forced to work.

What is so wrong with the selling of one's labor?




Option 1 doesn't solve the problem. Options 2 and 3 aren't possible for the majority of people.

Why not?

It's not hard to amass a certain level of money, particularly if you save and invest it.

Most just choose not to.

This says to me that people are content.



You can agree with me that for someone to live in a capitalist society they must sell their labour-power to a capitalist or become one themselves, right?

Yes.



You can also agree with me that labour-power is a commodity in itself and therefore the market dictates the price at which the worker receives for his labour-power?

Yes.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:16 PM





Option 1 doesn't solve the problem. Options 2 and 3 aren't possible for the majority of people.

Why not?

It's not hard to amass a certain level of money, particularly if you save and invest it.

Most just choose not to.

This says to me that people are content.

I agree that at least in the west, people could choose to raise their economic status, but the poblem because they are encouraged not to. The reason people would desire to do so would only be to achieve a lifestyle attainable only with a raised economic status. The problem is that halfway measures, and less expensive versions (for example holidays) are sold to (and created by) the working class, by the capitalist class.

There is a requirement for the working class as a whole to consume at this level, or people within that class will be without work. This short sightedness is also encouraged because it is profitable for the capitalist class.

Even if the working class tried changing class by investing in the means of production they will be disadvantaged. Established competition (ignoring natural ability) can produce at a price that can force new competition out of the market. This is a measure that will be undertaken, because less competition means higher profits.

In poorer areas, such as China or Myanmar, in many cases wages barerly cover the cost of living, so whilst luxuries are not consumed by these people, they can still not partake in owning the means of production.

[Freedom Works]

This is because of "government" taking the wealth from the workers, not from capitalists.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 10:09 AM
This is because of "government" taking the wealth from the workers, not from capitalists.
I am referring to wages even before deductions. In certain areas business is allowed tax free, to stimulate growth, and workers still pay. The government may also be at fault, but there must be accountability all around.

[Freedom Works]

You don't understand. "Government" is a parasite, that feeds off of the wealth of the common man. This in turn makes it increasingly hard for the common man to be rich, which means he has less wealth to spend and fuel the economy (as well as make himself happy).

It is "government" failure, not a market one.

[KC]

You don't understand. "Government" is a parasite, that feeds off of the wealth of the common man. This in turn makes it increasingly hard for the common man to be rich, which means he has less wealth to spend and fuel the economy (as well as make himself happy).


You don't understand. "Business" is a parasite, that feeds off of the wealth of the common man. This in turn makes it increasingly hard for the common man to be rich, which means he has less wealth to spend and fuel the economy (as well as make himself happy).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I can't be bothered to respond to all the idiocy in this post, but one thing especially struck me:


There is an institutional eqaulity between capitalists and workers.

One cannot exist without the other.

There were no capitalists in the USSR for some time, but there were workers. You lose.

[Publius]

I can't be bothered to respond to all the idiocy in this post, but one thing especially struck me:


There is an institutional eqaulity between capitalists and workers.

One cannot exist without the other.

There were no capitalists in the USSR for some time, but there were workers. You lose.

Holy shit you're fucking stupid.

The quote was reffering to the conditions of a modern capitalist country.

Without CAPITALISTS, the USSR was not CAPITAList, hence, neither the quote nor my response is in any way relevent to the USSR.

Therefore, your 'rebuttal' proves only that you can't comprehend a simple response to a simple statement.

In a CAPITAList society, my statement is true, not that you understand it.

Or are you going to say that capitalists and workers could exist without each other IN A CAPITALIST COUNTRY?

I sure hope not...

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 06:56 PM
You don't understand. "Government" is a parasite, that feeds off of the wealth of the common man. This in turn makes it increasingly hard for the common man to be rich, which means he has less wealth to spend and fuel the economy (as well as make himself happy).

It is "government" failure, not a market one.
I do understand, my response however stated that the working class is being held down in some cases. I was reffering to how they cannot progress in capitalism, because they can not enter into ownership of the means of production, at least when wages are low. I also stated that regardless of government (say it took no money, say it didn't exist) that when wages are low enough there is no money other than that for survival, at a stretch.

I also agree that we need to be rid of government, I also understand the workings of theortical capitalism, as well as the system that falls under the same name that currently exists. This is why I oppose it, there are other problems with capitalist theory but that is for another thread.

[Freedom Works]

as well as the system that falls under the same name that currently exists.

Mercantilism exists, not laissez-faire capitalism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 11:49 PM

as well as the system that falls under the same name that currently exists.

Mercantilism exists, not laissez-faire capitalism.
I didn't say laissez-faire existed, in fact I pointed out it didn't. Have you a response?

[quincunx5]

There were no capitalists in the USSR for some time, but there were workers. You lose.


Ha ha ha. There were plenty of capitalists in the USSR, but they worked extra-legally, or they left the country as soon as they could.

[Freedom Works]

Have you a response?

Government is the problem, it funds itself through stealing the wealth of others.

Markets are not the problem, voluntary trade is beneficial to all parties (at least ex ante).

[Publius]

Ha ha ha. There were plenty of capitalists in the USSR, but they worked extra-legally, or they left the country as soon as they could.

I was accepting his assumption for debate purposes.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 24 2005, 01:25 AM

Have you a response?

Government is the problem, it funds itself through stealing the wealth of others.

Markets are not the problem, voluntary trade is beneficial to all parties (at least ex ante).
I clearly said I thought they were part of a current problem, the question I asked was obviously not relating to a government at all, you can't just repeat something a few times when it is clear that it is not relevant to the situation in question.

Once more: Do you have an opinion on workers whose wages were low enough to prevent workers from entering into ownership of the means of production.

For the sake of argument, they work doing "foreigners" and pay no tax, or if it helps, no government exists. If this is the situation, you cannot blame the government.

[Freedom Works]

If no "government" exists, then there is nothing stopping an individual worker from learning a business, finding out how it works and the ineffciencies, then creating a new business and competing with the first, which of course is what happens in a free society.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 24 2005, 10:06 AM
If no "government" exists, then there is nothing stopping an individual worker from learning a business, finding out how it works and the ineffciencies, then creating a new business and competing with the first, which of course is what happens in a free society.
Yes there is, a lack of capital.

If the best work available (bearing in mind some humane issues such as geographical mobility) can afford the worker little more than basic survival, there is no way that they can enter into competition themselves.

Also because of scale of economy, a new worker (if they could acquire the capital) would have to be amazingly giften in business to not be stamped out withing a week.

Established companies use scale of economy to reduce prices and eliminate competition, why? Because less competition means a higher demand for their product, a higher demand means the point where supply equals this demand is higher and prices are raised. In order to avoid oligarchies and monopoly inheritance rights would have to be destroyed. Companies would have to have a limited period of competition, but of course this infringes on the ownership rights at the crux of the ideology that gives birth to this failure.

Even if that is incorrect, I see it personally as immoral, that the only attribute leading to success is that of adeptness with business. Strength, endurance and much of interectual capability would mean little in terms of wealth acquisition. However on this point at least I think we could agree to differ.

[quincunx5]

Established companies use scale of economy to reduce prices and eliminate competition, why? Because less competition means a higher demand for their product, a higher demand means the point where supply equals this demand is higher and prices are raised. In order to avoid oligarchies and monopoly inheritance rights would have to be destroyed. Companies would have to have a limited period of competition, but of course this infringes on the ownership rights at the crux of the ideology that gives birth to this failure.


You've made the assumption that the individual wants to produce goods. He may decide to provide a service. He can remain in his small geographic area and act as a local distributor of multiple goods of multiple companies. He can be especially useful if he finds a niche.

Do you know what happend when Alcoa (a monopoly) raised its prices in the 60's ?

People/Companies switched to steel, wood, and glass. Alcoa learned from its mistake and has never repeated it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

In retail it is still the same. How is it Wal-Mart can sell goods at prices that kill off competition. The economies of scale are the same. The oligarchies exist in retail and tertiary industries in general also.

Monopolies will learn from the mistake, they will also have a stronghold in substitute goods. Energy companies for example generally deal in more than one type of energy.

[quincunx5]

In retail it is still the same. How is it Wal-Mart can sell goods at prices that kill off competition. The economies of scale are the same. The oligarchies exist in retail and tertiary industries in general also.


You profess to know all retail?

Since when is WalMart a monopoly? Is it the only place where you can buy goods?
I for one feel they sell shitty products. I have been there thrice in my whole life. I'm very sure there are others who do not want to buy cheap crap.

WalMart typically exists in a suburban area. Their business thrives on having people drive to their stores. If you add on the cost of gas and the time it takes to get there, you might be better off shopping at your local stores.

There is no right economy of scale. A huge bureaucracy is an impediment to itself.

There are over 100,000 retail stores in the US. Are you telling me that they are all part of an oligopoly?

History shows what happens when competing industries enter into a collusive price arrangement. They cheat on each other by lowering their prices.



Monopolies will learn from the mistake, they will also have a stronghold in substitute goods. Energy companies for example generally deal in more than one type of energy.


How does the aluminum industry have any hold on the lumber, glass, and steal industry? They are competing with one another.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I profess to no little retail, I understand the basics of how it works, it was not me as far as I recall who initiated this as the example. I admit I have never been to, or seen a Wal-Mart, I only have case studies of where local business has closed as a result, but of course with critical leftist thinking I appreciate they could be merely exceptions.

Th concept of monopoly could be just as easily applied to retail, where I live for example Shopright has nearly achieved it. The principles behind it are the same. I tried to use the Wal-Mart example so people would understand, again sorry if this wasn't a good example.

Regardless, my main issue was with people not being able to afford to enter in to business when wages allow them little more than survival. Retail still requires buying goods to sell and in most cases a premises.

Even if the service they offered was along the lines of gardening or cleaning, in areas where wages are extremely low, it is unlikely there will be a demand for such services, ad if there are people would already be doing it if it offered better wages than what they had. They would end up competing and leaving themselves short, and if they had a family they would not be able to freelance because of lack of security.

I agree there may not be monopolies existing everywhere, but the trend is heading towards more dominant companies not less. Globalisation has not yet been achieved but it is coming.

The only real hope you mentioned was for people to find a niche. Even if somebody did (you can virtually disregard the poorest peopel having a hope of realising such a dream) this is the exception not the norm. That would be one more have ruling over many more have nots. Although this point should maybe be dropped as this is inevitably was seperates us.

[Freedom Works]

I agree there may not be monopolies existing everywhere, but the trend is heading towards more dominant companies not less. Globalisation has not yet been achieved but it is coming.

Whenever you criticize "capitalism's" affects, you really are criticizing mercantilism (which is exactly what you argue for more of), and mercantilism cannot exist in a free society (no "government" = no mercantilism).

You are miss using terms and criticizing your own beliefs. See the hypocrisy?

[KC]

So if everyone had enough land to live off of, or had the means to produce for himself, none would work for a capitalist?

As labor is a commodity, if your labor produces more value for you in farming (Or whatever), why WOULD you sell it to a capitalist?

You probably wouldn't.

Labour is only a commodity when it is treated like one. A commodity is something created for exchanging for something else. When you sell your labour to your employer, that labour that you produce while you work for your employer is a commodity because you are exchanging your labour for money.

Labour, however, isn't always a commodity. I can use my labour to create a dresser for myself in my free time; in this example labour is not a commodity. Labour is not a commodity when it isn't exchanged for something else; if I farm my own farm for my own benefit, I am not exchanging my labour with anyone else for anything else; therefore, in the case of a farm, as the topic of what we are discussing, labour is not a commodity.


So yes, the 'capitalist system' as we know it would fail, but only because people were excercising the freedom to employ their labor in a different manner.

Yes, they are choosing to not treat labour as a commodity; capitalism depends on this, and without it the capitalist system falls to pieces.



People should be free to choose where they employ their labor.

If people want to farm, let them.

Yes, but in a capitalist society people are forced to sell their labour as a commodity (generally in the form of money). This isn't about letting people farm; it is about giving people the choice of treating their labour as a commodity. If you give people the choice, they obviously wouldn't treat it as a commodity (this is what I was arguing with the example of free land and people choosing to farm it over living in a capitalist society).



Naturally one is required to sell one's labor to live as one is required to trade one's money for food.

In a capitalist society, yes.



I don't see why this a problem.

With the gains of the working class in the last 100 years firmly in hand, I doubt many people are angry at their plight and being forced to work.


Yes; obviously people aren't that angry at being forced to work as capitalism hasn't developed enough for it to affect the average worker. Give it time; maybe 10 or 20 years. Then we'll start to see this happen.



What is so wrong with the selling of one's labor?

Nothing is wrong with the selling of one's labour. The problem is in forcing people to sell their labour.





You can agree with me that for someone to live in a capitalist society they must sell their labour-power to a capitalist or become one themselves, right?


Yes.


You can also agree with me that labour-power is a commodity in itself and therefore the market dictates the price at which the worker receives for his labour-power?


Yes.


So then you can see that workers are forced to sell their labour at the price that the market dictates. Yes?




There were no capitalists in the USSR for some time, but there were workers. You lose.

I hope this was a joke.




Ha ha ha. There were plenty of capitalists in the USSR, but they worked extra-legally, or they left the country as soon as they could.

The rulers turned into the new capitalists. Hence state capitalism.


If no "government" exists, then there is nothing stopping an individual worker from learning a business, finding out how it works and the ineffciencies, then creating a new business and competing with the first, which of course is what happens in a free society.

If no "government" exists, then there is nothing protecting private property.



You've made the assumption that the individual wants to produce goods. He may decide to provide a service. He can remain in his small geographic area and act as a local distributor of multiple goods of multiple companies. He can be especially useful if he finds a niche.

How does this person get the money to buy the property on which he will set up this business? Or (more importantly) how does this person get the money to buy these commodities? A service is just as costly to provide as a good.


I'm very sure there are others who do not want to buy cheap crap.

Obviously not enough, as Wal-Mart is growing by leaps and bounds, and putting the local competition out of business.



WalMart typically exists in a suburban area. Their business thrives on having people drive to their stores.

Most people live in the suburbs.



History shows what happens when competing industries enter into a collusive price arrangement. They cheat on each other by lowering their prices.


So if the problem corrects itself, why is it illegal?




Whenever you criticize "capitalism's" affects, you really are criticizing mercantilism (which is exactly what you argue for more of), and mercantilism cannot exist in a free society (no "government" = no mercantilism).


No government = nothing to protect private property.


And everybody, thank you very much, for derailing this topic.

[Freedom Works]

Commodity:
Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage


Yes, they are choosing to not treat labour as a commodity; capitalism depends on this, and without it the capitalist system falls to pieces.
I hope this is a joke. You can't be this ignorant, damn the "government" schools!


Yes, but in a capitalist society people are forced to sell their labour as a commodity (generally in the form of money).
People are not forced to work for someone. Don't be silly.


This isn't about letting people farm; it is about giving people the choice of treating their labour as a commodity. If you give people the choice, they obviously wouldn't treat it as a commodity (this is what I was arguing with the example of free land and people choosing to farm it over living in a capitalist society).
In a free society, people would choose what they thought would give the most benefit to themselves and their loved ones. If they believe that farming would allow them to live happier lives than working for someone, then they would choose that. The thing is, people realize living off the land is harder than working for someone, so they do what they think is the best choice. Are you saying you don't think people should be able to work if they believe it to be the choice that will make them the happiest?


Yes; obviously people aren't that angry at being forced to work as capitalism hasn't developed enough for it to affect the average worker. Give it time; maybe 10 or 20 years. Then we'll start to see this happen.
What happens in 10 to 20 years when it hasn't happened yet?


Nothing is wrong with the selling of one's labour. The problem is in forcing people to sell their labour.
And that does not happen, unless "government" is involved.


So then you can see that workers are forced to sell their labour at the price that the market dictates. Yes?
No, there are always other ways. If a "worker" sells excess from his farm, is he selling his labor or becoming an evil capitalist pig himself (he's exploiting himself!)?


How does this person get the money to buy the property on which he will set up this business? Or (more importantly) how does this person get the money to buy these commodities? A service is just as costly to provide as a good.
Trade.


Obviously not enough, as Wal-Mart is growing by leaps and bounds, and putting the local competition out of business.
Caused by "government" interference.


Most people live in the suburbs.
Most people live in an urban environment.


So if the problem corrects itself, why is it illegal?
Economic ignorance, spread by people like you.


If no "government" exists, then there is nothing protecting private property.
-
No government = nothing to protect private property.
More economic ignorance. If there is a demand for protection of private property (which there is) there will be a supply.


And everybody, thank you very much, for derailing this topic.
Freedom works.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 06:01 AM

I agree there may not be monopolies existing everywhere, but the trend is heading towards more dominant companies not less. Globalisation has not yet been achieved but it is coming.

Whenever you criticize "capitalism's" affects, you really are criticizing mercantilism (which is exactly what you argue for more of), and mercantilism cannot exist in a free society (no "government" = no mercantilism).

You are miss using terms and criticizing your own beliefs. See the hypocrisy?
I clearly stated, or at least I thought I did, I will again on request, how the principles apply in true capitalism. I realise that government prevents capitalism, the same is true for communism, and as we are talking theoretically as neither has ever existed I think we can both conced that.

I was simply trying to elabourate using real examples, as some of what happens today could hapen in true capitalism. For real capitalism to come anywhere near what you profess it could be there would have to be a capitalist revolution. Reforming the current system in favour of real capitalism will keep in place companies with an unfair disadvantage.

You yourself admitted (even if it was, which I disagree with, government fault) that workers are being prevented to some extent from entering the capitalist class. If things changed, and they could all of a sudden have a chance, there would still established companies that could hammer them out of business. If you advocate a different area as quincunx5 did then you are abandoning true capitalism. There should be competition in all sectors.

I do not argue for more mercantilism, it is not a belief of mine please don't assume, as I didn't assume you liked the current system like many here would have. I do not wish for a government in the kind of society I want to live in, it is more necessary to abolish it under my preferd political and economic sytem than yours. If you read Marx then what is advocated is the dissolution of government.

From Smith, there may be a slight need to protect private property rights. Correct me if I am wrong I haven't touched the wealth of nations in two years, and have read much since. Needless to say it wasn't a work that touched me much hence I may have bits mixed in.

You still haven't explained how a worker on survival wages can change class. This situation is relevant without governement. You have not answered that single question in about 5 responses. I have addressed all you have asked me. Please without refering to a goverment that doesn't exist (O.K. we have been transported to the land of laissez-faire)...tell me how a worker on barely a living wage can afford to alter hs class.

Of course this situation would still be relevant, as without restriction there would be no minimum wage, and in order to keep competition high, wages would be lower.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 08:49 AM



And everybody, thank you very much, for derailing this topic.
Freedom works.



Yes, but in a capitalist society people are forced to sell their labour as a commodity (generally in the form of money).
People are not forced to work for someone. Don't be silly.

Perhaps not work, but if the other option is starve, then they have an economic compulsion, as discussed in a recent topic.


In a free society, people would choose what they thought would give the most benefit to themselves and their loved ones. If they believe that farming would allow them to live happier lives than working for someone, then they would choose that. The thing is, people realize living off the land is harder than working for someone, so they do what they think is the best choice. Are you saying you don't think people should be able to work if they believe it to be the choice that will make them the happiest?

This choice only exists if they own land, which the poorest people (those we argue suffer most from cpitalism) do not posses. They are also unlikely to be able to raise the capital for such land.

It isn't a case of not thinking they should be able to work. It is the fact that they would be forced to work for somebody else. The choices are 1: You and your family starve. 2: Turn to crime. 3: Work for the best employer you can access (in some areas this is a very poor employer indeed.)



Nothing is wrong with the selling of one's labour. The problem is in forcing people to sell their labour.
And that does not happen, unless "government" is involved.

I believe that with governements and welfar people aren't forced as inefficient and generally lazy people are allowed to be given choice number 4: Sign on.

Without a government people will still want to feed their families. Hunger is not a government conspiracy, and whilst they do take a slice of the pie, the capitalists are the ones who it up to them, whilst making the workers work for it. If you have to work to feed you family, that is going to be the option that will be taken. If there was a real alternative then real capitalism couldn't exist. People wouldn't in many cases, choose to work, if another option existed where they could survive without doing so (forget the subsistance bit, I am reffering to those poor enough to be excleuded from land ownership).



So then you can see that workers are forced to sell their labour at the price that the market dictates. Yes?
No, there are always other ways. If a "worker" sells excess from his farm, is he selling his labor or becoming an evil capitalist pig himself (he's exploiting himself!)?

Please give an example of an option that can be taken by those too poor to own land. Also see last point ^



How does this person get the money to buy the property on which he will set up this business? Or (more importantly) how does this person get the money to buy these commodities? A service is just as costly to provide as a good.
Trade.

Trade in what, if they are trading they are essentially already in business.



If no "government" exists, then there is nothing protecting private property.
-
No government = nothing to protect private property.
More economic ignorance. If there is a demand for protection of private property (which there is) there will be a supply.

On this point at least I agree 100%. However protection will only be afforded to those that can afford it. Crime (as we call it in our current society) would be endured by those to poor to afford protection, whilst the rich can hide away.

How easy it would be to turn a protection company into a racket. Actually please don't discuss this point, as I have no way of backing it up, it is just a thought.



And everybody, thank you very much, for derailing this topic.
Freedom works.

I think it is still a good topic, we are arguing capitalism, in most cases theoretically. This I have only ever seen once or twice with communsm, it is nice not talking about simply the USSR.

[KC]

Commodity:
Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage


A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else.



I hope this is a joke. You can't be this ignorant, damn the "government" schools!


That whole post wasn't even for you, genius.



People are not forced to work for someone. Don't be silly.

They're forced to sell their labour.


What happens in 10 to 20 years when it hasn't happened yet?

You don't think globalization will be nearing its end in 10 or 20 years? You're an idiot.



And that does not happen, unless "government" is involved.

Of course it does.



Trade.

Die.



Caused by "government" interference.

What a joke! :lol: Prove that.



More economic ignorance. If there is a demand for protection of private property (which there is) there will be a supply.


And this protection of private property comes in the form of a state and a government.


Please, Publius, take the time to respond to my post. I'm sure you'll respond with something intellegent, unlike this idiot.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:02 PM


More economic ignorance. If there is a demand for protection of private property (which there is) there will be a supply.


And this protection of private property comes in the form of a state and a government.


Please, Publius, take the time to respond to my post. I'm sure you'll respond with something intellegent, unlike this idiot.
Actually that is the only real valid bit, although it is far from fair see my last reply ^

[Freedom Works]

I was simply trying to elabourate using real examples, as some of what happens today could hapen in true capitalism.
Some of what happens today could happen in true communism, too.


For real capitalism to come anywhere near what you profess it could be there would have to be a capitalist revolution.
http://freestateproject.com
20,000 liberty lovers moving to the same state to show that freedom works.


Reforming the current system in favour of real capitalism will keep in place companies with an unfair disadvantage.
Fair is entirely subjective. It doesn't really matter though, as profit seeking businesses move to the place where they can make the most money, which is free places. Why do you think so many businesses move to Hong Kong? Freedom.


If things changed, and they could all of a sudden have a chance, there would still established companies that could hammer them out of business
This is simply wrong. Big business is kept in business because of lack of competition. Competition is stifled because of laws on business. Isn't it funny some are too think to realize that to get more small business you decrease the government?


If you advocate a different area as quincunx5 did then you are abandoning true capitalism. There should be competition in all sectors.
True capitalism is anarcho-capitalism.


I do not argue for more mercantilism, it is not a belief of mine please don't assume, as I didn't assume you liked the current system like many here would have.
I am sorry if I pinned that on you, it is a widespread belief with "the left". And, thank you.


I do not wish for a government in the kind of society I want to live in, it is more necessary to abolish it under my preferd political and economic sytem than yours.
Um, no. Anarcho-capitalism is freer than communism.


You still haven't explained how a worker on survival wages can change class.
How would a worker have survival wages? That would mean either the "government" stole an incredible amount from the people it is "servicing", or the worker was as productive as the amount needed to stay alive. Let me ask you aquestion(hypothetical) , would you buy a slave that could not produce more than they required to stay alive? Would you hire one that could only produce enough to stay alive?
You are trying to apply "what if's" to something that could only happen with"government".


This situation is relevant without governement.
No, it's not.


Of course this situation would still be relevant, as without restriction there would be no minimum wage, and in order to keep competition high, wages would be lower.
You are trying to deny the fact that people are finite, which means the laws of economics still apply.

------------------------------------------------


Perhaps not work, but if the other option is starve, then they have an economic compulsion, as discussed in a recent topic.
No, they do not. They can work for themselves. I know you are going to say,
"What if they can't work for themselves?"
Then there must be "government" interference occuring.
It's circular.


This choice only exists if they own land, which the poorest people (those we argue suffer most from cpitalism) do not posses. They are also unlikely to be able to raise the capital for such land.
People are made and kept poor because of "government", it's not the otherway around.


It isn't a case of not thinking they should be able to work. It is the fact that they would be forced to work for somebody else. The choices are 1: You and your family starve. 2: Turn to crime. 3: Work for the best employer you can access (in some areas this is a very poor employer indeed.)
Just because people starve if they don't eat does not warrent trying to fuck with freedom.


I believe that with governements and welfar people aren't forced as inefficient and generally lazy people are allowed to be given choice number 4: Sign on.
So your wealth should be stolen to provide with inefficient and generally lazy people?


Without a government people will still want to feed their families.
With a "government" people still want to feed their families.


Hunger is not a government conspiracy, and whilst they do take a slice of the pie, the capitalists are the ones who it up to them, whilst making the workers work for it.
Capitalists and workers have a mutually benefitial relationtionship. Capitalists have to wait for a product to sell, and have the risk of it not selling, while workers do not have to wait, and do not have the risk of the product not selling. If a worker values the chance of higher profits to the chance of risk, he would become a capitalist.
It is mutualism, one cannot exist without the other.


If there was a real alternative then real capitalism couldn't exist. People wouldn't in many cases, choose to work, if another option existed where they could survive without doing so (forget the subsistance bit, I am reffering to those poor enough to be excleuded from land ownership).
I have a bit of techonocracy in me, but techonocracy will come about through anarcho-capitalism, not communism.


Please give an example of an option that can be taken by those too poor to own land. Also see last point ^
There would not be people too poor to own land, because without "government" the people's wealth of a society booms.


Trade in what, if they are trading they are essentially already in business.
Exactly, which is why "government" is bad.


On this point at least I agree 100%. However protection will only be afforded to those that can afford it. Crime (as we call it in our current society) would be endured by those to poor to afford protection, whilst the rich can hide away.
More demand = more supply. More supply = cheaper.


How easy it would be to turn a protection company into a racket.
Extremely hard, because of how businesses operate. (Legitimately)


Actually please don't discuss this point, as I have no way of backing it up, it is just a thought.
Sorry, :P.


I think it is still a good topic, we are arguing capitalism, in most cases theoretically. This I have only ever seen once or twice with communsm, it is nice not talking about simply the USSR.
Heh, freedom really works though, as opposed to communism. :P

----


A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else.
No, a commodity is something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage.


They're forced to sell their labour.
They can work for themselves.


You don't think globalization will be nearing its end in 10 or 20 years?
What does globalization mean to you? I hear it often but most people use it as a fear-mongering scheme.


You're an idiot.
I'm not the communist.





And that does not happen, unless "government" is involved.

Of course it does.
What proof do you have?


Die.
Such a stupid response.


What a joke! :lol: Prove that.
As regulations on business increase, competition decreases, so monopolies come about. Without regulations, there cannot be monopolies.


And this protection of private property comes in the form of a state and a government.
Protection of private property comes in the form of private security. Something funded through extortion doesn't intrinsically care about protecting your property, unlike something that is seeking a profit. Also, I know you'll say something about how a private company would benefit from scaring people so people would buy their security. But you are forgeting that in the long run a business that is honest and regarded as fair will make more profits than one not so, so private security have an interest in being fair.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 26 2005, 09:13 AM




Some of what happens today could happen in true communism, too.

Yes there needs to be more than just an economic change to heal the worlds ills. This is why I am not a gun ho, lets change the world by killing capitalists tommorow communist. I believe in doing things right, If there is to be a revolution I would want it to be a popular one, with a majority backing, and I don't think that is quite the case at the moment. However this economic change I see as vital as a means of increasing the standard of life for my fellow beings.


20,000 liberty lovers moving to the same state to show that freedom works.

I don't know if you are shwing that as a kind of revolution or not, but the same could be said for people moving into communes. I know I probably will in about another 10 years or so, I will experience collectivism in my time.


Fair is entirely subjective. It doesn't really matter though, as profit seeking businesses move to the place where they can make the most money, which is free places. Why do you think so many businesses move to Hong Kong? Freedom.

Of course they can make more money in places with lax laws. The bigger people will still have the advantage though.


This is simply wrong. Big business is kept in business because of lack of competition. Competition is stifled because of laws on business. Isn't it funny some are too think to realize that to get more small business you decrease the government?

I agree with with what I think you are essentially getting at, although I am not sure I agree with that point. Protectionism is screwed in favour of big business, those that pay those that make the laws. I still don't think that this is the right way to go, I understand that because in a totally free society bigger business could well suffer, meaning there will be some re-adress of the balance, but not enough.

[
QUOTE]If you advocate a different area as quincunx5 did then you are abandoning true capitalism. There should be competition in all sectors.
True capitalism is anarcho-capitalism.[/QUOTE]

Which is why I said he was abandoning real capitalism by implying that not all areas have to be free.



I am sorry if I pinned that on you, it is a widespread belief with "the left". And, thank you.

Appreciated, I prefer discussion that isn't stiffled by flame and plain angry assertion, everyone learns more.



I do not wish for a government in the kind of society I want to live in, it is more necessary to abolish it under my preferd political and economic sytem than yours.
Um, no. Anarcho-capitalism is freer than communism.

Perhaps I confused my point by using Marxist ideas, I am actually more of an anarchist, anarcho communism is more my scene, I am not a Leninist. I believe it economics that we disagree on, I assure you I am extremely liberal.


How would a worker have survival wages? That would mean either the "government" stole an incredible amount from the people it is "servicing", or the worker was as productive as the amount needed to stay alive. Let me ask you aquestion(hypothetical) , would you buy a slave that could not produce more than they required to stay alive? Would you hire one that could only produce enough to stay alive?
You are trying to apply "what if's" to something that could only happen with"government".

The government does not have to steal, if the employer wasn't making money out of them then they are useless, I agree. However because they are making money out of them, this shows why they are on that wage. I believe sweatshop workers earn more than they paid.

You still have not explained how government alone is to blame, these problems still exist without government, and I have not heard any argument as to why, you have only blamed government.




This situation is relevant without governement.
No, it's not.
Yes it is :P Please explain how it isn't I explained why I think it is.



Of course this situation would still be relevant, as without restriction there would be no minimum wage, and in order to keep competition high, wages would be lower.
You are trying to deny the fact that people are finite, which means the laws of economics still apply.

They still would apply yes, but because of technology, it takes less than the population of the earth to sustain everyone. That is why many will be poor under capitalism.




Perhaps not work, but if the other option is starve, then they have an economic compulsion, as discussed in a recent topic.
No, they do not. They can work for themselves. I know you are going to say,
"What if they can't work for themselves?"
Then there must be "government" interference occuring.
It's circular.

If they can't afford it it does not necessarily have to do with governement, you have still not explained how ths would be impossible without government that is the main point I have been seeking in the last 5 responses.



I believe that with governements and welfar people aren't forced as inefficient and generally lazy people are allowed to be given choice number 4: Sign on.
So your wealth should be stolen to provide with inefficient and generally lazy people?

Not exactly, although I believe in some sort of security net, it should be filled by society, not an inefficient discriminatory beurocracy (government). However as this doesn't exist I don't believe in pulling the net from under the poor at the moment.



Without a government people will still want to feed their families.
With a "government" people still want to feed their families.

I used the word still as I accepted this. I feel you dodged the issue slightly here.


Capitalists and workers have a mutually benefitial relationtionship. Capitalists have to wait for a product to sell, and have the risk of it not selling, while workers do not have to wait, and do not have the risk of the product not selling. If a worker values the chance of higher profits to the chance of risk, he would become a capitalist.
It is mutualism, one cannot exist without the other.

You have still not explained how people can change class, you have simply said the reason they can't is government, how will they be able to without government, if they can't afford it?


There would not be people too poor to own land, because without "government" the people's wealth of a society booms.

You at least made an attempt to anwer the main question here. This is a point I do disagree with but I am pushed for time and will dispute tommorow.




Trade in what, if they are trading they are essentially already in business.
Exactly, which is why "government" is bad.

I don't understand :huh: ?



On this point at least I agree 100%. However protection will only be afforded to those that can afford it. Crime (as we call it in our current society) would be endured by those to poor to afford protection, whilst the rich can hide away.
More demand = more supply. More supply = cheaper.

If it became unprofitable to provide low cost service (poorer service) then it won't be provided.



How easy it would be to turn a protection company into a racket.
Extremely hard, because of how businesses operate. (Legitimately)

Well I think perhaps we should just agree to disagree here, lets not ruin otherwise polite debate. :lol:



I think it is still a good topic, we are arguing capitalism, in most cases theoretically. This I have only ever seen once or twice with communsm, it is nice not talking about simply the USSR.
Heh, freedom really works though, as opposed to communism. :P

Play nice, I agree we have never had real capitalism, and I would appreciate you to see past a label used by a scaremongering government, and realise communism has never exited either.

[quincunx5]

If you advocate a different area as quincunx5 did then you are abandoning true capitalism. There should be competition in all sectors.

True capitalism is anarcho-capitalism.

Which is why I said he was abandoning real capitalism by implying that not all areas have to be free.


Where have I said that not all areas have to be free? I can't find this.

[Freedom Works]

Yes there needs to be more than just an economic change to heal the worlds ills.
Can you name a situation where complete property rights do not solve it?


However this economic change I see as vital as a means of increasing the standard of life for my fellow beings.
And that economic change is more freedom.


I don't know if you are shwing that as a kind of revolution or not,
Nope, just showing you some freedom oriented change.


Of course they can make more money in places with lax laws. The bigger people will still have the advantage though.
It is more than just 'lax laws' (as though "government" oppression is the default), it is about when people are free to do what they think is the best choice, everyone becomes wealthier and happier.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Lovely.


The bigger people will still have the advantage though.
Illogical thinking, the bigger something is and the more centralized, the more inefficient and generally crappy.


Protectionism is screwed in favour of big business, those that pay those that make the laws.
Protectionism is screwed, those that make the laws use force to tell other people and their businesses what they can and cannot do.


I still don't think that this is the right way to go, I understand that because in a totally free society bigger business could well suffer, meaning there will be some re-adress of the balance, but not enough.
Small business was overtaking big business in early times, because more competition means equilibrium between cheapest prices, fastest service, and most popular.


I believe it economics that we disagree on, I assure you I am extremely liberal.
You have to define 'liberal' in these days with neo-liberals.
As I believe economic and personal freedom are inseperable, I believe politics and economics are inseperable (in the way that more "government" = less freedom).


You still have not explained how government alone is to blame, these problems still exist without government, and I have not heard any argument as to why, you have only blamed government.
Start anew and ask me direct questions, so I can best teach you to how freedom works. :)


Not exactly, although I believe in some sort of security net, it should be filled by society, not an inefficient discriminatory beurocracy (government). However as this doesn't exist I don't believe in pulling the net from under the poor at the moment.
Two words: Private charity.


Hunger is not a government conspiracy, and whilst they do take a slice of the pie, the capitalists are the ones who it up to them, whilst making the workers work for it.
Uhh, what?


You have still not explained how people can change class, you have simply said the reason they can't is government, how will they be able to without government, if they can't afford it?
They will have more money, as all the money "government" taxes the businesses, adds to the price. It is true discrimination of poor people by "government".


I don't understand :huh: ?
Personal freedom and economic freedom are inseperable.


If it became unprofitable to provide low cost service (poorer service) then it won't be provided.
Is it a market failure? No.


Play nice, I agree we have never had real capitalism, and I would appreciate you to see past a label used by a scaremongering government, and realise communism has never exited either.
Heh, it even irks me when people call China communist. :P

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:21 PM


Established companies use scale of economy to reduce prices and eliminate competition, why? Because less competition means a higher demand for their product, a higher demand means the point where supply equals this demand is higher and prices are raised. In order to avoid oligarchies and monopoly inheritance rights would have to be destroyed. Companies would have to have a limited period of competition, but of course this infringes on the ownership rights at the crux of the ideology that gives birth to this failure.


You've made the assumption that the individual wants to produce goods. He may decide to provide a service. He can remain in his small geographic area and act as a local distributor of multiple goods of multiple companies. He can be especially useful if he finds a niche.

Do you know what happend when Alcoa (a monopoly) raised its prices in the 60's ?

People/Companies switched to steel, wood, and glass. Alcoa learned from its mistake and has never repeated it.
Sorry if I misinterpereted what you meant. I thought you were accepting some markets being less open (hence suggesting that people could try the tertiary industry). If I did misread it I take i back.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 27 2005, 05:16 AM




Can you name a situation where complete property rights do not solve it?

I don't see why I should have to as I could easily make the same assertion about anarchy or communism, or even created a world-wide theocracy. I know there is no real way to prove this, but please could you explain how this will solve everything?


And that economic change is more freedom.

Yes, but that is in terms of drug legalisation, and allowing everyone a chance. You see I want to live in a society where capitalising on someone's labour isn't banned as such, but is not desireable to do. When the option not to have to sell your labour for (money for) food exists, because concept of value has changed, there will be freedom and prosperity.


Nope, just showing you some freedom oriented change.

Likewise with communes.



Of course they can make more money in places with lax laws. The bigger people will still have the advantage though.
It is more than just 'lax laws' (as though "government" oppression is the default), it is about when people are free to do what they think is the best choice, everyone becomes wealthier and happier.

Well the only free trade zones I know house some of the poorest and worst treated workers on the earth. I don't know if you blame this on the government (which has no bearing on these areas) or the fact that this can not exist just locally. I have agreed several times that an inefficient government takes part of what a labourer earns, but so does the employer. If they haven't then they have made no money from them.



The bigger people will still have the advantage though.
Illogical thinking, the bigger something is and the more centralized, the more inefficient and generally crappy.

So you don't think that economies of scale will make up for this?



Protectionism is screwed in favour of big business, those that pay those that make the laws.
Protectionism is screwed, those that make the laws use force to tell other people and their businesses what they can and cannot do.

You just restated my point here, wih the negative emphasis on government not business. I think we agree on quite a lot, that which can be stated as fact, but for totally different reasons. In this case at least I think business should be more accountable, but I have environmentalist tendancies.


Small business was overtaking big business in early times, because more competition means equilibrium between cheapest prices, fastest service, and most popular.

But big business can and will put down smaller business. Perhaps this competition thing could work (although even "working" I disagree with it), but it is not a fair playing field. Starting from square one would be. Do you think it right that those that benifitted from protectionism will have more to invest than those that suffered under it? Because government has been involved then these businesses have ill gotten gains. But whilst you disagree with them you have to protect their right to have them.


I believe politics and economics are inseperable (in the way that more "government" = less freedom).

Well I agree with that but not your economics. In feudalism loyalty was prevelant in society. In capitalism competition would be, with more freedom I just wan to take the next sep to co-operation.


Start anew and ask me direct questions, so I can best teach you to how freedom works. :)

Hypothetically, (imagine we are in a totally free society with no trace of government) if a worker is on a wage that does not allow for investment, how can they enter into the capitalist class?

If you simply said not everyone would be amazingly better off, and the have/have not border still existed I could accept what you say more. However I won't accept the assertion that simply removing government will allow everyone to be capitalists, there is no way of proving this, and it is only an assertion not reasoning you have used to demonstrate this.

I don't pretend that Mikey Millionaire would make out in communism, I don't pretend the wealthiest would benifit, but they are few and those that would benifit are many.



Not exactly, although I believe in some sort of security net, it should be filled by society, not an inefficient discriminatory beurocracy (government). However as this doesn't exist I don't believe in pulling the net from under the poor at the moment.
Two words: Private charity.

Is that not what I was getting at?



They will have more money, as all the money "government" taxes the businesses, adds to the price. It is true discrimination of poor people by "government".

I have responded to and explained my self several times over this and you are yet to adress my criticism so perhaps there is little point responding again.


Personal freedom and economic freedom are inseperable.

For another thread but I will take you up on that.


Is it a market failure? No.

According to market rules no, but I think this is unfair. Just not the type of society I want to live in.


Heh, it even irks me when people call China communist. :P

If you can explain to the right that communism isn't bad because of Russia I can try to explain to the left that capitalism isn't bad because of America.

The failings were not because of the ideology they claim to folllow, rather somethings that suggesed at both, whilst taking their name.

[Freedom Works]

I don't see why I should have to as I could easily make the same assertion about anarchy or communism, or even created a world-wide theocracy. I know there is no real way to prove this, but please could you explain how this will solve everything?
Because freedom works to the benefit of all. :)


Yes, but that is in terms of drug legalisation, and allowing everyone a chance.
Well, you really wouldn't have a choice of allowing them freedom, it would just be.


You see I want to live in a society where capitalising on someone's labour isn't banned as such, but is not desireable to do. When the option not to have to sell your labour for (money for) food exists, because concept of value has changed, there will be freedom and prosperity.
'not desireable to do' sounds like heavy taxes. How do you propose food will get to the individual?


Likewise with communes.
Communes improve freedom within a state?


Well the only free trade zones I know house some of the poorest and worst treated workers on the earth. I don't know if you blame this on the government (which has no bearing on these areas) or the fact that this can not exist just locally.
Free trade is what happens between Florida and Georgia, not the US and Mexico. A 5000 page document is NOT free trade. So this issue is moot. :P


I have agreed several times that an inefficient government takes part of what a labourer earns, but so does the employer.
Nothing is being taken unless the employee did not consent.


If they haven't then they have made no money from them.
This is kind of ignorant, because voluntary trade is always mutually benefitical. (ex ante) or they would not have traded.


So you don't think that economies of scale will make up for this?
Only customer satisfaction can make up for it.
"What makes a firm big is its success in best filling the demands of the buyers. If the bigger enterprise did not better serve the people than a smaller one, it would long since have been reduced to smallness." - Ludwig von Mises


You just restated my point here, wih the negative emphasis on government not business. I think we agree on quite a lot, that which can be stated as fact, but for totally different reasons. In this case at least I think business should be more accountable, but I have environmentalist tendancies.
Don't get me wrong, there should not be corporation law. If there is no corporation law, then individuals would have to own the property, and that means they have less power to back them up, and more responsibility on real people, not fictionous ideas. Have you seen 'The Corporation'?


But big business can and will put down smaller business.
Small business will do the same though.


Perhaps this competition thing could work, but it is not a fair playing field.
Anarcho-capitalism is the only true level playing field. Big business has the same amount of "government" power as small business. They have more money, but without "government" it is less useful in achieving dominance.


Do you think it right that those that benifitted from protectionism will have more to invest than those that suffered under it?
Do I think it is right? No. I don't think killing babies is right either, but what is just is to respect property rights.


Because government has been involved then these businesses have ill gotten gains. But whilst you disagree with them you have to protect their right to have them.
Justice is about making the victim whole again. If you can find where specifically your money went from the "government" to companies, yes property rights should be respected, and that money should be given back to you. But it becomes increasingly difficult to prove as time goes on (the burden of proof is on the person who wants to overturn property rights).


In capitalism competition would be, with more freedom I just wan to take the next sep to co-operation.
Great! Sure! Just don't force people to cooperate because you want them to.


Hypothetically, (imagine we are in a totally free society with no trace of government) if a worker is on a wage that does not allow for investment, how can they enter into the capitalist class?
They find a wage that does allow for investment.


I don't pretend that Mikey Millionaire would make out in communism, I don't pretend the wealthiest would benifit, but they are few and those that would benifit are many.
Utilitarian arguments suck.


Is that not what I was getting at?
Yes.


According to market rules no, but I think this is unfair. Just not the type of society I want to live in.
"The concept of a just or fair price is devoid of any scientific meaning; it is a disguise for wishes, a striving for a state of affairs different from reality." - Ludwig von Mises


If you can explain to the right that communism isn't bad because of Russia I can try to explain to the left that capitalism isn't bad because of America.
The thing is, that communism IS bad. Sure there has never been true communism, but the theory is fux0rd.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 24 2005, 10:06 AM
If no "government" exists, then there is nothing stopping an individual worker from learning a business, finding out how it works and the ineffciencies, then creating a new business and competing with the first, which of course is what happens in a free society.
I am not going to spend much time on this, but there is a thing known as Constant Capital, of which makes it impossible for most people to merely start some kind of business and be independent of having to work.

[Freedom Works]

Karl Marx was a doofus.

It is not impossible for most people to start a business(what a defeatist attitude), they just don't value the profits more than the risk of not getting them.

[Publius]

Labour is only a commodity when it is treated like one.

Well duh.

Nails are only a commodity because it's treated like one.


A commodity is something created for exchanging for something else. When you sell your labour to your employer, that labour that you produce while you work for your employer is a commodity because you are exchanging your labour for money.

Labor is always a commodity.

Labor IS a commodity, by the very definition of a commidity.

Even if you consume what you produce, you are consuming the products of your labor in lieu of buying products; replacing others labor with your own and replacing other's commodities with your own.

The effect is the same.


Labour, however, isn't always a commodity. I can use my labour to create a dresser for myself in my free time; in this example labour is not a commodity. Labour is not a commodity when it isn't exchanged for something else; if I farm my own farm for my own benefit, I am not exchanging my labour with anyone else for anything else; therefore, in the case of a farm, as the topic of what we are discussing, labour is not a commodity.

Yes it is.

You just aren't selling what you produce.

You very easily could.

A commodity that is not sold is still a commodity.

Unless you want to use a biased definition of 'commodity' (Which is what were arguing in the first place), it's unfair to say that labor, in and of itself, isn't a commodity.

Labor is a commodity used to produce other commodities or to allow you to forego the purchase of other commodities.


Yes, they are choosing to not treat labour as a commodity; capitalism depends on this, and without it the capitalist system falls to pieces.

Without labor and commodities, any system will fail.

The tie between labor and other commodities is natural and logical. Communism does nothing to abolish or destroy it, merely alter it.

It's not a change in the economy, it's a sleight-of-hand trick.

You don't have the freedom to treat your labor like it's not a commodity because it IS a commodity, at its heart.

Even under communism this maxim is true.


Yes, but in a capitalist society people are forced to sell their labour as a commodity (generally in the form of money). This isn't about letting people farm; it is about giving people the choice of treating their labour as a commodity. If you give people the choice, they obviously wouldn't treat it as a commodity (this is what I was arguing with the example of free land and people choosing to farm it over living in a capitalist society).

People might want to 'sell their labor as a commodity' in the abstract, theoritcal sense in which you put it, but people DO want the products of the commodification of the labor, so it naturally follows that people are willing to work for these products and it just so happens that this provides an excellent means for enriching both the world and themselves in the process.

Given the choice, people wouldn't work at all, but people HAVE to work for anything to get done.



In a capitalist society, yes.

In any society.

Show me how to produce something without the use of any labor.



Yes; obviously people aren't that angry at being forced to work as capitalism hasn't developed enough for it to affect the average worker. Give it time; maybe 10 or 20 years. Then we'll start to see this happen.

I thought Marx predicted this world revolution would happen around 1900?

I'll 'give it time'; I'll give it an eternity. It won't happen.



Nothing is wrong with the selling of one's labour. The problem is in forcing people to sell their labour.

Not to sell ones labor, to labor in general.

The problem is you have to labor; this is not an appealing prospect but it's a fact.

Capitalism provides the best way to turn this labor into useful goods, however.



So then you can see that workers are forced to sell their labour at the price that the market dictates. Yes?

The market certainly plays a role in the dictation, it has to, but you are free to do much to increase your value and make more money.



I hope this was a joke.

I quickly gathered that he was a moron.


The rulers turned into the new capitalists. Hence state capitalism.

Only in the sense that EVERYONE would be a 'capitalist' under communism.

Is it then democratic capitalism?



If no "government" exists, then there is nothing protecting private property.

Guns.

Private police forces.


Obviously not enough, as Wal-Mart is growing by leaps and bounds, and putting the local competition out of business.

Actually Wal Mart is quite condusive to other business nearby.

Wal Marts are not solitary stores, but instead are built in mini-malls alongside dozens of other, smaller stores, many of which sell products that Wal Mart also sells.

A local Super Wal Mart was built (In a town that already had a Wal Mart) and far from reducing the amount of stores in the area, many new stores were added, to the tune of 15 by my guesstimation.

Why is this?

[Publius]

A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else.

You can't just make up definitions to suit you.

Not to mention that this definition STILL doesn't bolster your argument.

Anything you produce that you don't sell but instead use takes the place of something you purportedly would have bought meaning that the effect is the same.

Something that you make that allows you not to exchange something plays the role of a commodity just as well as something you sell.


You don't think globalization will be nearing its end in 10 or 20 years? You're an idiot.

It won't be.

There is still Africa, most of Asia, most of south America, most of Eastern Europe and various islands to enrich.

And the end of 'globalization' will mean an EXTRAORDINARILY rich earth.




And this protection of private property comes in the form of a state and a government.


Or a security firm.

Pinktertons anyone?



Please, Publius, take the time to respond to my post. I'm sure you'll respond with something intellegent, unlike this idiot.

Of course.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Because freedom works to the benefit of all. :)

And anarchy isn't free? Communism requires no state to exist, is that not also free? Only the distribution of wealth is a question here.


Well, you really wouldn't have a choice of allowing them freedom, it would just be.

Same.


'not desireable to do' sounds like heavy taxes. How do you propose food will get to the individual?

he problem with Marx (just using him as an example) is that you can't analyse in terms of a non-Marxist society, an entire paradigm shift is required. In the same way people don't generally think about random killing (it does happen) they shouldn't think of capitalising over another person. Just as greens would need a battle of minds to win, the left do also, there may be achievement on the way but completion is when people are truly co-operative.

For mediums of trade I think again that there should be a new topic, I am willing to discuss but that is huge on its own.


Communes improve freedom within a state?

Yes, why not?


Free trade is what happens between Florida and Georgia, not the US and Mexico. A 5000 page document is NOT free trade. So this issue is moot. :P

Fair enough but I was reffering more to the Phillipines for example.


Nothing is being taken unless the employee did not consent.

That is like consent to walking the plank. They concent because it is better than the alternatives, agreed. However I am interested in this not just being better but good. Perhaps if when a good is made, the facory owner got half and the person who made it got half you would be getting somewhere.



If they haven't then they have made no money from them.
This is kind of ignorant, because voluntary trade is always mutually benefitical. (ex ante) or they would not have traded.

Ignorant no, stating the obvious perhaps. Of course both had things to gain from it, my issues are the inherant unfairness, and until you admit that there will inevitably be at least some people unable to transfer class, or prove otherwise (wihout using the word government which again I accept shouldn't exist), my oppinion cannot be swayed.


Only customer satisfaction can make up for it.
"What makes a firm big is its success in best filling the demands of the buyers. If the bigger enterprise did not better serve the people than a smaller one, it would long since have been reduced to smallness." - Ludwig von Mises

True once, and still to some extent. What fills the demand is in many cases, a least partially, dictated by the companies.Far from being a part of culture, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Nike, all at least partially define todays western culture. They are the need, and can afford to prove new comers are crap. Graned there is sill some competition, but kids are raised on this from when they can first focus on a T.V.

By the way first time I have heard anyone mention Von-Mises for a while, an ex righty on here pointed me in that direction, along with Lange.


Don't get me wrong, there should not be corporation law. If there is no corporation law, then individuals would have to own the property, and that means they have less power to back them up, and more responsibility on real people, not fictionous ideas. Have you seen 'The Corporation'?

No but I know how it goes. I know I have tried to avoid digressing, but just a quick one, are you for environmental protection at all?


Small business will do the same though.

Yes to a lesser extent, but at least you accept it is a valid method of increasing profits. This is part of my main problems with capitalism.


Anarcho-capitalism is the only true level playing field. Big business has the same amount of "government" power as small business. They have more money, but without "government" it is less useful in achieving dominance.

It was anarcho capitalism I was talking about. Yes money may mean less, but it still gives them an advantage.


Do I think it is right? No. I don't think killing babies is right either, but what is just is to respect property rights

I think I will avoid the abortion lead, if that is what you were getting at, but from his you can see where the notion of a capitalist revolution came from?


Great! Sure! Just don't force people to cooperate because you want them to.

I never would or have. I disagree with this notion and mistakes should be learnt from. Like I was saying before, mindset means more.

I could say likewise, because if this system works people can't take place in another. (some can but many can't).


They find a wage that does allow for investment.

If one is not available, especially if their parents could afford school for them? I hold geographic mobility as an issue here. Not all areas could have top wages available, and if they were, then the chances of getting them would be low, would go to the better educated candidates, whose parents could pay for it.


Utilitarian arguments suck.

I loved Mill :P (joke)


"The concept of a just or fair price is devoid of any scientific meaning; it is a disguise for wishes, a striving for a state of affairs different from reality." - Ludwig von Mises

Which I assume could happen under capitalism, it is central to Americanism today. Iinteresting quote, however I am in the game of altering the reality to one that does allow for a fair price.


The thing is, that communism IS bad. Sure there has never been true communism, but the theory is fux0rd.

I do not agree 100% with every word of Marx, although I agree with bits. I read alot from across the political spectrum, and it just happens that freedom and co-operation are ideal I want to work for.

Capitalism's theory is very poor, I think perhaps I will start another thread for discussion of capitalism and its ills if you like. Analysis of right wing lierature, and faults within? Starting with the wealth of nations...If you are up for it P.M. me or reply, will ge round to it this week.

[quincunx5]

And anarchy isn't free? Communism requires no state to exist, is that not also free? Only the distribution of wealth is a question here.


Any distrbution of wealth other than the one occuring as a result of voluntary exchange between individuals is not free.



they shouldn't think of capitalising over another person


It's a mutual process. There are only winners.





Communes improve freedom within a state?

Yes, why not?


I'll agree with you there. In a free society there is nothing stopping individuals from wishing to live communaly. Though generally it works only on a small scale.



Fair enough but I was reffering more to the Phillipines for example.


A different 5000 page document.



However I am interested in this not just being better but good.


"Good" is subjective. And if you think only a direct democratic vote of the masses can justify what is good, you are sorely mistaken.



Perhaps if when a good is made, the facory owner got half and the person who made it got half you would be getting somewhere.


So you do belive in capitalism.

Except in reality the person who made it got a fixed income. While the factory owner may earn a typical 3% return at best, after many years of putting money into it. He may also get nothing back at all.



Ignorant no, stating the obvious perhaps. Of course both had things to gain from it, my issues are the inherant unfairness, and until you admit that there will inevitably be at least some people unable to transfer class, or prove otherwise (wihout using the word government which again I accept shouldn't exist), my oppinion cannot be swayed.


Of course some may never be able to transfer class (if you accept that classes exist), but should these people be subsidized by those who do? What entitles them to the hard work that others have done? Should the inability of these people to provide for themselves come at a cost of the freedom of others?

I think the burdon of proof rests on you.



True once, and still to some extent. What fills the demand is in many cases, a least partially, dictated by the companies.Far from being a part of culture, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Nike, all at least partially define todays western culture. They are the need, and can afford to prove new comers are crap. Graned there is sill some competition, but kids are raised on this from when they can first focus on a T.V.


So if these "evil" companies tell you to watch their ads and buy their crap, this means you have to do it?

Are you going to restrict the freedoms of individuals to choose for themselves, and at the same time restrict the freedoms of companies to sell what ever crap they want?



are you for environmental protection at all?


I for one am for environmental protection. But not for it above everything else. I do not see why protecting the environment can not be a profitable competitive business.





Anarcho-capitalism is the only true level playing field. Big business has the same amount of "government" power as small business. They have more money, but without "government" it is less useful in achieving dominance.

It was anarcho capitalism I was talking about. Yes money may mean less, but it still gives them an advantage.


It only gives them an advantage in the short run. Big business bureaucracy is an impediment to itself. They have no advantage when the desires of individuals have changed faster than they can keep up. Without government to keep these big businesses alive, they would either break up or vanish.



I am in the game of altering the reality to one that does allow for a fair price.


I hope you don't spend too much time deluding yourself. Futility - learn it, love it. Fair price would be settled with an unrestricted free market.



Capitalism's theory is very poor


There is no theory, only practice. As long as people trade, save and reinvest, capitalism will always be around.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:22 PM



QUOTE]
Any distrbution of wealth other than the one occuring as a result of voluntary exchange between individuals is not free.

This is how I would like to live in society, no money, no status. When I lay on a party, supplies come all, and all help themselves, there is always plenty, and even the fattest person cannout get through everything. That is free.
There is already more than enough food produced to feed the world more than adequately. now when it comes to distribution we all accept the current system is poor and needs changed. We just happen to believe in different methods, both have been tried but never impliment correctly, so theory is all we have to argue.



It's a mutual process. There are only winners.
I think we are viewing the term "winner" differently.


I'll agree with you there. In a free society there is nothing stopping individuals from wishing to live communaly. Though generally it works only on a small scale.

Perhaps so far yes, but friction comes not from numbers but divisions. Diversity is fine. I do want to move to a commune, I think it is a valuable experience for anyone.


A different 5000 page document.

Fair enough, I supposed government instigated reform will only hint at what you guys are hoping for, I don't see why you aren't more revolutionary.


"Good" is subjective. And if you think only a direct democratic vote of the masses can justify what is good, you are sorely mistaken.

I am not sure where you got this from, although I would like to include a largely democratic role in decision making.


So you do belive in capitalism.

Except in reality the person who made it got a fixed income. While the factory owner may earn a typical 3% return at best, after many years of putting money into it. He may also get nothing back at all.

I believe in capitalism as I believe in a table, it is something that at least in theory exists, I don't however agree with capitalism.

Ah, but under a truly free market, the employee won't have a fixed income, because if employing them isn't mutually benificial"[/b] the employer won't.


Of course some may never be able to transfer class (if you accept that classes exist), but should these people be subsidized by those who do? What entitles them to the hard work that others have done? Should the inability of these people to provide for themselves come at a cost of the freedom of others?

I think the burdon of proof rests on you.

Thank you, that is all I have been looking for. Now the other question about subsidising those people, under capitalism it wouldn't be right.

I want to live in a system that prevents the need to subsidise individuals.

Private Charity was mentioned earlier as an alternative to welfare, apart from being subject to market forces, the morals of this action are the same as welfare. Of course that is if the moral is, fuck everyone, survival of the fittest. I don't think that is what you were getting at however, or was it?

I can't prove anything, neither can you. You asked me an opinion, and my opinion is mixed. I believe in freedom of hard workers, but many do not work that hard considering, and workers being susidised by fat cats like this should, in my opinion, be looked upon as more of a rebate.


So if these "evil" companies tell you to watch their ads and buy their crap, this means you have to do it?

Are you going to restrict the freedoms of individuals to choose for themselves, and at the same time restrict the freedoms of companies to sell what ever crap they want?

Freedom of information definately, but it is because people are seldom exposed to it with the capacity to deal with it. This is again because the people in charge have no interest in giving people this capacity.

If you think that people should be
free to get into a position where manipulation like that is possible then I beg to differ, because I see that as less free. If you claim the case would be different in a truly free market then O.K. but I don't see your point?


I for one am for environmental protection. But not for it above everything else. I do not see why protecting the environment can not be a profitable competitive business.

I am in mixed minds as to how much of a priority I see environmental protection, however there is little I see as more important.



It only gives them an advantage in the short run. Big business bureaucracy is an impediment to itself. They have no advantage when the desires of individuals have changed faster than they can keep up. Without government to keep these big businesses alive, they would either break up or vanish.

I still disagree here, but with no true empirical evidence I guess it is as substantial as your oppinion collectivism would fail.


I hope you don't spend too much time deluding yourself. Futility - learn it, love it. Fair price would be settled with an unrestricted free market.

It may seem futile, but it doesn't mean give up, what kind of attitude is that for a cpitalist?

I see a fair price as one different to the market price.


There is no theory, only practice. As long as people trade, save and reinvest, capitalism will always be around

On the contary, most of this thread has been acceptance that capitalism isn't around, and the discussion has been whether or not caitalism can fix todays problems.

As for capitalism always being around, I hope not.

[quincunx5]

This is how I would like to live in society, no money, no status. When I lay on a party, supplies come all, and all help themselves, there is always plenty, and even the fattest person cannout get through everything. That is free.


Money is only a convenience. The same principals applies for barter and commodity goods.

"Supplies come all"? Where do they come from? Who sends them? How much do they send? What is the delivering party's incentive to send them?

"there is always plenty"? How do you get around the problem of resources that have alternate uses? You do know that everything is scare, right?

" and even the fattest person cannout get through everything. That is free."? There is more to life than food. We need a vast array of products. What is to ensure me that I get the right amount of transistors, capacitors, resisters, wires, electomagnets, ICs, ASICs, FPGAs, compact flash chips, molex connectors, pin headers,and thermal grease? Or do you think these things have no importance whatsoever?



There is already more than enough food produced to feed the world more than adequately. now when it comes to distribution we all accept the current system is poor and needs changed. We just happen to believe in different methods, both have been tried but never impliment correctly, so theory is all we have to argue.


If everyone is healthy and live long, they will (on average) have more children, that will need the same resources.

People are not getting their food, because of their governments.

Theory must always be better than practice, right?



I think we are viewing the term "winner" differently.


Yes, in your mind a "winner" must stand beside the "loser".



Fair enough, I supposed government instigated reform will only hint at what you guys are hoping for, I don't see why you aren't more revolutionary.


Us guys? I think you are confusing businessman harboring special interests with capitalists. Government should have practically no power at all. "Free Trade" today is nothing more than protective measures for certain industries, quotas, tarriffs, and anti-dumping laws.



I am not sure where you got this from, although I would like to include a largely democratic role in decision making.


Exactly how does this work? Without violating the freedom of individuals?



Ah, but under a truly free market, the employee won't have a fixed income, because if employing them isn't mutually benificial" the employer won't.


What the hell are you saying?





Of course some may never be able to transfer class (if you accept that classes exist)

Thank you, that is all I have been looking for.


Yes please ignore the clause in the parentheses. Only a very small minority of people do not transcend these hypothetical classes in countries with the most economic freedom (US, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, UK, Ireland, Switzerland,
Benelux, Australia, New Zealand, others...)



I want to live in a system that prevents the need to subsidise individuals.


Me too.



Private Charity was mentioned earlier as an alternative to welfare, apart from being subject to market forces,


Private charity is not what it used to be, now that the governments play a larger role. Why would you donate your money to charity, if half of it was stolen by the government to do they same, but lousier job.

<sarcasm>Oh yeah, the market is terrible for charity</sarcasm>
Can you imagine all the competing firms trying to help the most with the least?



Of course that is if the moral is, fuck everyone, survival of the fittest. I don&#39;t think that is what you were getting at however, or was it?


That was not what I was getting at. You got it all wrong, if anything I mean:

Fuck no one - survival of the fittest.

I of course do not mean fucking in the sexual sense.



I still disagree here, but with no true empirical evidence I guess it is as substantial as your oppinion collectivism would fail.


You are telling me that every business has survived forever? You think today&#39;s firms will be around forever? Go dig up information about typical rise and fall of businesses.

Emperical evidence is in the history books - I suggest you read them.

Collectivism would not "fail" in the absolute sense. It would fail only if compared to Individualism.



Freedom of information definately, but it is because people are seldom exposed to it with the capacity to deal with it. This is again because the people in charge have no interest in giving people this capacity.


You expect to fit volumes of information into a 30 second commercial? You can&#39;t blame people&#39;s ignorance for leading them to buy advertised products.

In fact you are ignorant about most of the things that you use on an everyday basis.



It may seem futile, but it doesn&#39;t mean give up, what kind of attitude is that for a capitalist?


It is the right attitude for a capitalist -- the free market decides a fair price.



I see a fair price as one different to the market price.


What? Marx&#39;s LTV? Don&#39;t kid yourself.



On the contary, most of this thread has been acceptance that capitalism isn&#39;t around, and the discussion has been whether or not caitalism can fix todays problems.


Capitalism is always around. But it is not in a form that is benefitial to all. The closer it gets to anarchy, the better. Even in the US, we are heading in the wrong direction.

There are no problems today that were not caused by governments.



As for capitalism always being around, I hope not.


It&#39;s true. It just didn&#39;t have the fancy name.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:12 AM




As for capitalism always being around, I hope not.


It&#39;s true. It just didn&#39;t have the fancy name.

Money is only a convenience. The same principals applies for barter and commodity goods.

Yes, but with out a common medium of exchange the whole concept of capitalism becomes more difficult.


"Supplies come all"? Where do they come from? Who sends them? How much do they send? What is the delivering party&#39;s incentive to send them?

Appologies this was a typo, and I tried to sort out the garble in my edit. That was re-reading it a pretty poor paragraph, and I won&#39;t try and pick much of a point out of it.


"there is always plenty"? How do you get around the problem of resources that have alternate uses? You do know that everything is scare, right?

Scarce being limited. Not being rare, and please save the "infinate wants" talk, that only applies in a society where having more than you would need is benificial.


" and even the fattest person cannout get through everything. That is free."? There is more to life than food. We need a vast array of products. What is to ensure me that I get the right amount of transistors, capacitors, resisters, wires, electomagnets, ICs, ASICs, FPGAs, compact flash chips, molex connectors, pin headers,and thermal grease? Or do you think these things have no importance whatsoever?

Yes there are other important issues, and I am not advocating primitivism here, but I don&#39;t give a fuck if a few kids only have colour instead of plasma T.V.s, if it means a billion more people could have clean water. The priorities are not right.


If everyone is healthy and live long, they will (on average) have more children, that will need the same resources.

People are not getting their food, because of their governments.

Theory must always be better than practice, right?


Governments do play a large role. However as there is little wealth in countries where this is applicable, there is little desire to invest here, unless it is because labour wise they will take more shit. Whether or not the system is right or wrong, it is one that does not care unless there is a profit incentive.

I don&#39;t think theory has to always be better than practice no.


Yes, in your mind a "winner" must stand beside the "loser".

No as with you I don&#39;t believe in creating losers, I thought the idea of capitalism was everyone did win?


Us guys? I think you are confusing businessman harboring special interests with capitalists. Government should have practically no power at all. "Free Trade" today is nothing more than protective measures for certain industries, quotas, tarriffs, and anti-dumping laws.


That is exactly what I meant, sorry if it sounded a little patronising. If you believe this why not become more revolutionary?





I am not sure where you got this from, although I would like to include a largely democratic role in decision making.


Exactly how does this work? Without violating the freedom of individuals?

How can you not have this without violating the freedom of individuals? You want freedom to dictate as well?



Ah, but under a truly free market, the employee won&#39;t have a fixed income, because if employing them isn&#39;t mutually benificial" the employer won&#39;t.


What the hell are you saying?

Exactly what I said. It has already been established that in true capitalism there would be no reason or obligation to keep workers on when not needed, as this is not effective response to market forces. Therefore there would be no job security, as I stated in reply to your previous post.


Yes please ignore the clause in the parentheses. Only a very small minority of people do not transcend these hypothetical classes in countries with the most economic freedom (US, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, UK, Ireland, Switzerland,
Benelux, Australia, New Zealand, others...)

Free trade? Irish farming and the US stance on Chinese clothing oh yer that is more free than most. That is a poor list for free countries, O.K. New Zeland I&#39;ll grant but at least two of them were about a mile off.


Private charity is not what it used to be, now that the governments play a larger role. Why would you donate your money to charity, if half of it was stolen by the government to do they same, but lousier job.

The left are critical by nature, organised charity isn&#39;t much of an exception. This is why I agree a different approach is needed.


<sarcasm>Oh yeah, the market is terrible for charity</sarcasm>
Can you imagine all the competing firms trying to help the most with the least?

No


Fuck no one - survival of the fittest.

So I wasn&#39;t far off I just used a more leading and derogatory approach to your attitude.


You are telling me that every business has survived forever? You think today&#39;s firms will be around forever? Go dig up information about typical rise and fall of businesses.

Emperical evidence is in the history books - I suggest you read them.

Collectivism would not "fail" in the absolute sense. It would fail only if compared to Individualism.

This is not under real capitalism though. I have read history books, can you give me a favourite of yours?

We will get no where with the last bit, but that is why we can keep debating.


You expect to fit volumes of information into a 30 second commercial? You can&#39;t blame people&#39;s ignorance for leading them to buy advertised products.

In fact you are ignorant about most of the things that you use on an everyday basis.

No but you can educate them, not on the intricacies and workings of every product, but in the intricacies of the advertising itself. Consumer awareness would be neccesary in real capitalism as well.

I disagree, I am not ignorant about things I use on an everyday basis, because I am very particular. I still realise where everything else has or is likely to of come from, and escaping it is very difficult, I want to live in a commune for several reasons.


It is the right attitude for a capitalist -- the free market decides a fair price.

I think it was obvious I was reffering to the pesimistic attitude.


What? Marx&#39;s LTV? Don&#39;t kid yourself.

No more than seeing the market as fair, although as I said before I pick and choose from Marx, I do not see him as an idol, or answer to everything, just a useful part of the puzzle.


Capitalism is always around. But it is not in a form that is benefitial to all. The closer it gets to anarchy, the better. Even in the US, we are heading in the wrong direction.

There are no problems today that were not caused by governments.

Pollution? I don&#39;t know, why do you use the term capitalism where it isn&#39;t applicable?


It&#39;s true. It just didn&#39;t have the fancy name.

No Marx coined that phrase.

[quincunx5]

Yes, but with out a common medium of exchange the whole concept of capitalism becomes more difficult.


What&#39;s your point? It&#39;s still capitalism. Anything that is traded, saved, and reinvested is capitalism.

Bank notes backed by gold work just as well.

Bartering tools of production works the same.



Appologies this was a typo, and I tried to sort out the garble in my edit. That was re-reading it a pretty poor paragraph, and I won&#39;t try and pick much of a point out of it.


I can understand you made an error. But if anything it was a freudian slip. I really would like to know how the problem of distribution is solved in an anarcho-communist society. This is a question that has never been properly solved despite mine and others&#39; numerous attempts to bring it up.



Scarce being limited. Not being rare, and please save the "infinate wants" talk, that only applies in a society where having more than you would need is benificial.


Yes it only applies to a society that likes progress. Not one where wealth is fixed, and divided equally among individuals. Not one where wealth is constantly redistributed by some imaginary means upon death and birth.



Yes there are other important issues, and I am not advocating primitivism here, but I don&#39;t give a fuck if a few kids only have colour instead of plasma T.V.s, if it means a billion more people could have clean water. The priorities are not right.


Priorities are right. These are basic components that have other purposes than TVs. Your inability to see the fundemental nature of these components is what makes you ignorant. These are the same things that can be used for medical equipment, transport vehicles, computers, etc.



Whether or not the system is right or wrong, it is one that does not care unless there is a profit incentive.


This profit incentive is exactly the reason why industrial nations with high economic freedom are relatively rich compared to those with centrally planned industries.



No as with you I don&#39;t believe in creating losers, I thought the idea of capitalism was everyone did win?


Everyone does win. So please answer your originial post: What is your view of "winner"?



How can you not have this without violating the freedom of individuals? You want freedom to dictate as well?


What? I was mearely saying that a large democratic decision, would violate the freedoms of individuals in the minority. The majority would be the ones dictating.



If you believe this why not become more revolutionary?


I am very revolutionary. I am on these forums&#33;



Exactly what I said. It has already been established that in true capitalism there would be no reason or obligation to keep workers on when not needed, as this is not effective response to market forces. Therefore there would be no job security, as I stated in reply to your previous post.


I did not understand why you concluded that capitalists will not need workers. They are mutually interdependent. In industrial nations, the majority of workers are capitalists.



Free trade? Irish farming and the US stance on Chinese clothing oh yer that is more free than most. That is a poor list for free countries, O.K. New Zeland I&#39;ll grant but at least two of them were about a mile off.


I didn&#39;t pull these countries out of my ass. I remembered them from here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/...nFreedomMAP.jpg (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads/Index05_EconFreedomMAP.jpg)
I made some mistakes though.





Can you imagine all the competing firms trying to help the most with the least?

No


That&#39;s too bad. That&#39;s exactly what yould happen without strong governments, or no governments at all.



So I wasn&#39;t far off I just used a more leading and derogatory approach to your attitude.


What exactly is wrong with survival of the fittest? If there were no governments to fuck everyone over.

There is nothing in &#39;survival of the fittest&#39; that says you can&#39;t help others, if you so choose to do.



This is not under real capitalism though. I have read history books, can you give me a favourite of yours?


Real capitalism - anarcho-capitalism has not been anywhere.

Off the top of my head:

Montgomery Ward is no longer around.
Smith-Corona typewriters are not popular anymore.
US Robotics used to have the largest share of the modem market, now they are small and insignificant.
Sears has been suplanted by WalMart - they are still around, though.
Kellogs used to have 100% share of the cereal market.
White Castle used to be the shit - now it&#39;s nothing compared to McDonalds, Burger King, etc.
IBM was among to the first to make personal computers, but they could not compete with the clones. They have recently sold their entire personal computer department to a chinese firm.
Intel Ethernet chipsets are being supplanted by Realtek Ethernet chipsets - because they are the same quality but 3 times as cheap.

Unless Microsoft uses the government, Linux will reduce it to insignificance in 20 years.

There are many examples. The products are still around - but the leading manufacturers have changed.

Look up the typical business cycle of a given product.



No but you can educate them, not on the intricacies and workings of every product, but in the intricacies of the advertising itself. Consumer awareness would be neccesary in real capitalism as well.


Consumer Reports, BBB, Internet. Why would the firms need to invest money in this, if there are groups who would do it for multiple products? Consumer awareness exists.

Who should do the educating?



I disagree, I am not ignorant about things I use on an everyday basis, because I am very particular. I still realise where everything else has or is likely to of come from, and escaping it is very difficult, I want to live in a commune for several reasons.


If you are very particular, then you would agree that you as a consumer are aware.

But you are still ignorant (rationally) about HOW a given product works. Are you telling me that you are not ignorant just because you know WHERE a certain product came from?

We are rationally ignorant about things we do on a daily basis. Accept it.



Pollution? I don&#39;t know, why do you use the term capitalism where it isn&#39;t applicable?


capitalism always applies.

As to pollution - yes science is a *****. You can&#39;t transform one substance to energy, without creating some other substance as a byproduct.

Without government interference, industries would be regulated by other industries.





It&#39;s true. It just didn&#39;t have the fancy name.

No Marx coined that phrase.


Yes. It existed, but didn&#39;t have the fancy name.

[Hegemonicretribution]

What&#39;s your point? It&#39;s still capitalism. Anything that is traded, saved, and reinvested is capitalism.

Bank notes backed by gold work just as well.

Bartering tools of production works the same.

It is not trade that is the problem with capitalism it is the exploitation inherant with its workings. Exchange would be necessary in any society, it is how it is exchanged that counts.


I can understand you made an error. But if anything it was a freudian slip. I really would like to know how the problem of distribution is solved in an anarcho-communist society. This is a question that has never been properly solved despite mine and others&#39; numerous attempts to bring it up.

It wasn&#39;t a freudian slip, just a poorly worded response late at night. I admit in this aspect however that I am not perhaps the best to answer, I shall come back after more work.

From my experience with communal living however, I have encountered no real problems, capitalism (as you call it) did not start on massive scales, it was smallscale and expanded. I don&#39;t see why communes can&#39;t also.


Yes it only applies to a society that likes progress. Not one where wealth is fixed, and divided equally among individuals. Not one where wealth is constantly redistributed by some imaginary means upon death and birth.

Well lets avoid dialectics talk, but I disagree here. The distribution between life and birth is one of the biggest downfalls of capitalism.


Priorities are right. These are basic components that have other purposes than TVs. Your inability to see the fundemental nature of these components is what makes you ignorant. These are the same things that can be used for medical equipment, transport vehicles, computers, etc.

I have no inability, I barely glanced at what was listed because I saw the point you were making. I would say I am reasonable in my electronic ability. The knowledge isn&#39;t what it was but use of transisters, working out theory and logic gates I have little trouble.

Even though it may be a component used in a ventilator, I see basics such as mosqitoe nets and sanitation as more important, perhaps your priorities are different but I know mine and won&#39;t change them.


This profit incentive is exactly the reason why industrial nations with high economic freedom are relatively rich compared to those with centrally planned industries.

There can&#39;t be a fair case for central planning because of the nations to which it has applied. Likewise in "free nations" there has been mollycoddling to get them strong enough to get them out there to trade all on their own.


Everyone does win. So please answer your originial post: What is your view of "winner"?

Well in your economy a worker does a job for a very small stake in the profit, but is better off than he would be without anywork. He is deemed a winner along with the fatcat. I do not agree the worker wins here. A share equal to the proportion of work done (not an hourly rate) would benifit owner (not as much) and worker (more so). However I suppose using the term winner at all indicates the existence of a loser. Its like Keats ;)


What? I was mearely saying that a large democratic decision, would violate the freedoms of individuals in the minority. The majority would be the ones dictating.

I think we both misunderstood each other here. I am not that utillitarian. I would be happy to talk about approaches to decision making in depth elsewhere. Although if it was "representitive" democracy you were talking about as an alternative, the same discrimination applies.


I am very revolutionary. I am on these forums&#33;

LMAO :lol: :D :lol:


I didn&#39;t pull these countries out of my ass. I remembered them from here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/...nFreedomMAP.jpg (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads/Index05_EconFreedomMAP.jpg)

I still disagree with the suposed economic freedom of these areas. More free than others in some cases yes.


I made some mistakes though.

Maybe the Freudian slip, or maybe you are just human as well, I think people need to admit this more often, I know I messed up a few responses over the last few days, but your mind wanders in and out responding to a lot.


That&#39;s too bad. That&#39;s exactly what yould happen without strong governments, or no governments at all.

I couldn&#39;t see this happening and if you could explain why it would I would be grateful.



What exactly is wrong with survival of the fittest? If there were no governments to fuck everyone over.

There is nothing in &#39;survival of the fittest&#39; that says you can&#39;t help others, if you so choose to do.

I used to have almost darwinist tendancies, but I grew out of them to become utopian :).




This is not under real capitalism though. I have read history books, can you give me a favourite of yours?


Real capitalism - anarcho-capitalism has not been anywhere.

Shall have a look at.


Off the top of my head:

Montgomery Ward is no longer around.
Smith-Corona typewriters are not popular anymore.
US Robotics used to have the largest share of the modem market, now they are small and insignificant.
Sears has been suplanted by WalMart - they are still around, though.
Kellogs used to have 100% share of the cereal market.
White Castle used to be the shit - now it&#39;s nothing compared to McDonalds, Burger King, etc.
IBM was among to the first to make personal computers, but they could not compete with the clones. They have recently sold their entire personal computer department to a chinese firm.
Intel Ethernet chipsets are being supplanted by Realtek Ethernet chipsets - because they are the same quality but 3 times as cheap.

Unless Microsoft uses the government, Linux will reduce it to insignificance in 20 years.

There are many examples. The products are still around - but the leading manufacturers have changed.

Look up the typical business cycle of a given product.

None of this is really applicable under true free market capitalism.


Consumer Reports, BBB, Internet. Why would the firms need to invest money in this, if there are groups who would do it for multiple products? Consumer awareness exists.

Who should do the educating?

The educating should become a part of our society, just as potty training and crossing the road is. If advertising can become such an integral part of our society, then so should understanding of it.


If you are very particular, then you would agree that you as a consumer are aware.

But you are still ignorant (rationally) about HOW a given product works. Are you telling me that you are not ignorant just because you know WHERE a certain product came from?

We are rationally ignorant about things we do on a daily basis. Accept it.

Actually I adressed this in the uneditted version of my last post, it was cut for conciseness and lack of relevance.

I take great interest in how many products work, and how they are made. I do no profess to know how everything works but neither does anyone. When it comes to products not working, but jargon used to hint otherwise (many anti-aging lotions) then knowledge is needed.


As to pollution - yes science is a *****. You can&#39;t transform one substance to energy, without creating some other substance as a byproduct.

Without government interference, industries would be regulated by other industries.

So your actual approach to pollution? Under capitalism it won&#39;t be adressed until markets are affected enough by it, to make it profitable enough to look into.

Change would be best now, and capitalism will delay change.

[quincunx5]

It is not trade that is the problem with capitalism it is the exploitation inherant with its workings. Exchange would be necessary in any society, it is how it is exchanged that counts.


You have not proposed the method of exhange.
You have not addressed saving and reinvesting.

Trade in communism: "from each according to ability to each according to need"
Trade in capitalism: "from each according to ability to each according to another ability"



It wasn&#39;t a freudian slip, just a poorly worded response late at night. I admit in this aspect however that I am not perhaps the best to answer, I shall come back after more work.

From my experience with communal living however, I have encountered no real problems, capitalism (as you call it) did not start on massive scales, it was smallscale and expanded. I don&#39;t see why communes can&#39;t also.


That was your experience. How would this work in modern cities?
capitalism has been around since agriculture. It has existed during monarchies, feudalism and democracy, and even &#39;communism&#39;.



Even though it may be a component used in a ventilator, I see basics such as mosqitoe nets and sanitation as more important, perhaps your priorities are different but I know mine and won&#39;t change them.


Good, you should not have the same priorities as me. We are different. People are different. It is precisely why having any decisions made opon us by others, be it in any society, is harmful to us. I happend to think that the closer we are to anarcho-capitalism, the less harm will be inflicted opon us.



Although if it was "representitive" democracy you were talking about as an alternative, the same discrimination applies.


I have not mentioned anything regarding "representive" democracy. It is also undesirable.



Well in your economy a worker does a job for a very small stake in the profit, but is better off than he would be without anywork. He is deemed a winner along with the fatcat. I do not agree the worker wins here. A share equal to the proportion of work done (not an hourly rate) would benefit owner (not as much) and worker (more so).


A single worker does not get any stake in the profit (except for a promotion), unless he directly invests his savings into the same company itself. The worker may invest his savings into an entirely different company. Or he could just indirectly employ his bank to do the investing for him.

Businesses take years to realize any profit (if at all), meanwhile the worker still gets paid.

Why would you start a business, only to give all its profit to the current employees?

What if it&#39;s a successful business that now needs to fulfill a higher demand. Well now, the owner has to take another risk from his pocket to hire new employees (to raise production), only to have to again redistribute among the employees. What is the owner&#39;s incentive here?

Profit and Loss is always a part of the market. Loss just happens to be ignored by the devout communists on this board.



However I suppose using the term winner at all indicates the existence of a loser. Its like Keats


Yes. It&#39;s really hard to use the term &#39;winner&#39;. It is better to just say that an exhange takes place between two parties if, and only if, both parties feel it mutually benefitial.



LMAO


I&#39;m glad, that was meant to be humorous.



I used to have almost darwinist tendancies, but I grew out of them to become utopian


You might as well say you abandoned Darwin for a type of religion.



None of this is really applicable under true free market capitalism.


Please pass me the crack you are smoking.
There are precisely applicable under the free market.

Did I mention anything involving AT&T, Utilities, or the ICC? No - these are examples of government enforced monopolies.



The educating should become a part of our society, just as potty training and crossing the road is. If advertising can become such an integral part of our society, then so should understanding of it.


This is not an answer. Are the things I mention not part of our society? Who&#39;s society does Consumer Reports, BBB, and the Internet belong to?



So your actual approach to pollution? Under capitalism it won&#39;t be adressed until markets are affected enough by it, to make it profitable enough to look into.


The market is addressing the problem right now&#33; Who the fuck do you think is putting the most resources into finding alternate sources of energy? I&#39;ll tell you: the market.



Change would be best now, and capitalism will delay change.


Capitalism is all about change. Otherwise we would still be living in a hunter-gather society.

Should you wish to institute change instantaneously, just watch what will happen to the precious workers you care so much about.

[Hegemonicretribution]

You have not proposed the method of exhange.
You have not addressed saving and reinvesting.

Trade in communism: "from each according to ability to each according to need"
Trade in capitalism: "from each according to ability to each according to another ability"

I believe that a fund of sorts would be set up in any sensible society for situations. Think about clubs who have a fund for needy members that sort of thing.

Reinvestment is paramount to progression, under capitalism it is risky, under communism the element of risk is largely taken away from the market.

As for the method of exchange see the post you address next.


That was your experience. How would this work in modern cities?
capitalism has been around since agriculture. It has existed during monarchies, feudalism and democracy, and even &#39;communism&#39;.

As has communism.


Good, you should not have the same priorities as me. We are different. People are different. It is precisely why having any decisions made opon us by others, be it in any society, is harmful to us. I happend to think that the closer we are to anarcho-capitalism, the less harm will be inflicted opon us.

I would prefer anarcho-communism, but I know what you mean.


I have not mentioned anything regarding "representive" democracy. It is also undesirable.

I wasn&#39;t sure and I apreciate that.


A single worker does not get any stake in the profit (except for a promotion), unless he directly invests his savings into the same company itself. The worker may invest his savings into an entirely different company. Or he could just indirectly employ his bank to do the investing for him.

Businesses take years to realize any profit (if at all), meanwhile the worker still gets paid.

Under true capitalism they wouldn&#39;t get paid when profits aren&#39;t happening, work exists only when it is profitable for the employer and could be turned on and off like a light.


Why would you start a business, only to give all its profit to the current employees?

Give them their share, you would of course have a share left yourself.


What if it&#39;s a successful business that now needs to fulfill a higher demand. Well now, the owner has to take another risk from his pocket to hire new employees (to raise production), only to have to again redistribute among the employees. What is the owner&#39;s incentive here?

You see I get that things won&#39;t be as good for the business owner, and accept that, however that is the point of not going with capitalism, workers over owners.


Profit and Loss is always a part of the market. Loss just happens to be ignored by the devout communists on this board.

Loss is accepted, but it is because of loss that capitalism has problems. This loss will mean some one&#39;s gain, and their gain means also a loss. I wouldn&#39;t term myself devout communist.


Yes. It&#39;s really hard to use the term &#39;winner&#39;. It is better to just say that an exhange takes place between two parties if, and only if, both parties feel it mutually benefitial.

I just believe in more of an equal benifit.


I&#39;m glad, that was meant to be humorous.

It was, it has been a while since I last laughed here.


You might as well say you abandoned Darwin for a type of religion.

You can talk about misinterpretation of nietzche, but darwinism has far darker conotations. This is a dangerous ideology, and not what I envisage for a "succesful" anarchy.


Please pass me the crack you are smoking.

It is Morrocan hash actually.


There are precisely applicable under the free market.

Did I mention anything involving AT&T, Utilities, or the ICC? No - these are examples of government enforced monopolies.

Not in a truly free market, as you said yourself without intervention the results would be different. They may not be government orientated monopolies (microsoft pushing it) but they still are affected by intervention.


This is not an answer. Are the things I mention not part of our society? Who&#39;s society does Consumer Reports, BBB, and the Internet belong to?

Not everyone&#39;s. The internet is as bad for the misinformation as it is good for finding things out for real (if you are even aware that this may be necessary).


The market is addressing the problem right now&#33; Who the fuck do you think is putting the most resources into finding alternate sources of energy? I&#39;ll tell you: the market.

It has become more profitable, because of government. Incentives for changing fuel source, to meet pledges have given rise to an industry still not part of the "real" market.


Capitalism is all about change. Otherwise we would still be living in a hunter-gather society.

Should you wish to institute change instantaneously, just watch what will happen to the precious workers you care so much about.

That is why I am not a revolution yesterday sort of guy. Awareness is always on the up, it is a power struggle but people question more. I don&#39;t know when a big change will come but small changes are already happening.

[KC]

You can&#39;t just make up definitions to suit you.


This is the marxist definition; the definition I am working with. And of course I can make up a definition to suit me. I should just state it clearer next time. I assumed you knew that I was using the marxist definition.



Anything you produce that you don&#39;t sell but instead use takes the place of something you purportedly would have bought meaning that the effect is the same.


Commodities don&#39;t exist in a communist society. I guess you could argue that labour would still be a commodity, as it is traded for other commodities; but it isn&#39;t traded for other commodities. It is merely traded for what it makes (which are not exchangeable as they are free).



It won&#39;t be.

There is still Africa, most of Asia, most of south America, most of Eastern Europe and various islands to enrich.

And the end of &#39;globalization&#39; will mean an EXTRAORDINARILY rich earth.


Yes, I just threw out an arbitrary time; I actually completely forgot about Africa. So yes, it will be longer than I originally stated.




Nails are only a commodity because it&#39;s treated like one.

Exactly.




A commodity that is not sold is still a commodity.


Not by the marxist definition.



Unless you want to use a biased definition of &#39;commodity&#39; (Which is what were arguing in the first place), it&#39;s unfair to say that labor, in and of itself, isn&#39;t a commodity.

I&#39;m using the marxist definition.



Without labor and commodities, any system will fail.

Without labour and its products.



Given the choice, people wouldn&#39;t work at all, but people HAVE to work for anything to get done.


What about hobbies? What about people that like their job?




I thought Marx predicted this world revolution would happen around 1900?

I&#39;ll &#39;give it time&#39;; I&#39;ll give it an eternity. It won&#39;t happen.


He underestimated the evolutionary process of capitalism.



The market certainly plays a role in the dictation, it has to, but you are free to do much to increase your value and make more money.

You can only increase your value by educating yourself (which I assume is what you mean); this requires money.




Only in the sense that EVERYONE would be a &#39;capitalist&#39; under communism.

Is it then democratic capitalism?

No. Capitalists (bourgeoisie) are the ruling class of capitalism. Communism has no classes. However, in socialism, everybody is the ruling class.

[quincunx5]

You can only increase your value by educating yourself (which I assume is what you mean); this requires money.


Capitalism is all about money being available to those that want it. In a competitive market the cost of borrowing is greatly reduced. So if you feel you can increase your value above the cost of borrowing this money - then go ahead and do just that.

You can also gain knowledge without a formal education.



No. Capitalists (bourgeoisie) are the ruling class of capitalism. Communism has no classes. However, in socialism, everybody is the ruling class.


In the US, more than 80% are capitalists, the others are too young, while only 2% are actually consistantly in poverty.

Communism will develop classes the second day after revolution.