Classical Economics Versus the Exploitation Theory

[Freedom Works]

http://mises.org/etexts/exploitation.asp




Once it is recognized that money wages are determined strictly by supply and demand, then it becomes clear that the wage earner's presumable willingness to work for a subsistence wage rather than die of starvation, and the capitalist's preference, other things equal, to pay lower wages rather than higher wages, are both irrelevant to the wage the worker must actually be paid. That wage is determined by the demand for and supply of labor. It can fall no lower than corresponds to the point of full employment. If it drops below that point, a labor shortage is created, which makes it to the self-interest of employers able and willing to pay a higher wage to bid wages up, so that they do not lose employees to other employers not able or willing to pay as much.

[KC]

1. The "exploitation theory" is based around the owner receiving profit for themselves instead of the worker.
2. The owner needs to take profit for the business to survive.
3. The "exploitation theory" (the owner taking profit) is needed for capitalism to survive.
4. Capitalism cannot solve this problem.

[Severian]

"Classical economics" versus Marx is a myth itself.

Marx did not deny the classical economics of Smith and Ricardo, but took it to its logical conclusion. It was Ricardo, after all, who developed the labor theory of value.

Nor is the truism of supply and demand in contradiction with the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value answers why the supply and demand curves tend to intersect at one point rather than another.

And of course in practice, when was the last time you saw full employment? Fed policy is aimed at making sure that doesn't happen. Nor have prolonged periods of low unemployment led to a significant rise in wages recently; Greenspan and others have expressed surprise at how "well-behaved" wages have been.

[quincunx5]

1. The "exploitation theory" is based around the owner receiving profit for themselves instead of the worker.
2. The owner needs to take profit for the business to survive.
3. The "exploitation theory" (the owner taking profit) is needed for capitalism to survive.
4. Capitalism cannot solve this problem.


You missed the point. In untainted free markets these profits would stabilize close to zero.

The reason for the initial imblance is because of time preference. The worker chooses to have resources NOW. The capitalist while still wanting resources NOW, allocates some of the his resources for LATER.



Marx did not deny the classical economics of Smith and Ricardo, but took it to its logical conclusion. It was Ricardo, after all, who developed the labor theory of value.


Smith and Ricardo had no part in inventing capitalism. They had some observations about how it works. Some observations were right and some were wrong.



And of course in practice, when was the last time you saw full employment? Fed policy is aimed at making sure that doesn't happen. Nor have prolonged periods of low unemployment led to a significant rise in wages recently; Greenspan and others have expressed surprise at how "well-behaved" wages have been.


Problems of the state, not capitalism.

[NovelGentry]

You missed the point. In untainted free markets these profits would stabilize close to zero.

So how would the company make money to grow? Also, is the CEO's paycheck determined by supply and demand? :lol:


Smith and Ricardo had no part in inventing capitalism. They had some observations about how it works. Some observations were right and some were wrong.

Indeed, Ricardo corrected most of what Smith got wrong, then Marx clarified some of what Ricardo "failed to mention." In fact, they never even used the term capitalism -- and certainly had nothing to do with inventing it. Capitalism was invented the same way socialism will be invented, through changing property relations due to productive capacities and technology conflicting with existing property relations.

[quincunx5]

So how would the company make money to grow?


When profit reaches almost zero - the industry of a given good or service is mature. One can use a brick as an example. Try competing in the brick market. You will see your profits are razor thin.

Notice I said for a single given good or service. I said nothing about a single company.



Also, is the CEO's paycheck determined by supply and demand?


Yes the CEO is a worker!



In fact, they never even used the term capitalism -- and certainly had nothing to do with inventing it.


So you agree.
Capitalism does not really need a name, it's just that obvious.



Capitalism was invented the same way socialism will be invented, through changing property relations due to productive capacities and technology conflicting with existing property relations.


Can you tell me when capitalism was invented? An approximate period will suffice.

Capitalism will always existed precisely because people have PROPERTY RIGHTS over THEMSELVES.

[KC]

When profit reaches almost zero - the industry of a given good or service is mature. One can use a brick as an example. Try competing in the brick market. You will see your profits are razor thin.

Notice I said for a single given good or service. I said nothing about a single company.

Owners need profit; that's what they live off of. Profit will never be non-existant in a capitalist society, and no matter how much profit is made, it is still profit nonetheless.



So you agree.
Capitalism does not really need a name, it's just that obvious.

What? It shouldn't be named because it wasn't "invented"?



Can you tell me when capitalism was invented? An approximate period will suffice.

Capitalism will always existed precisely because people have PROPERTY RIGHTS over THEMSELVES.

What is it with you and semantics?

[NovelGentry]

So you agree.
Capitalism does not really need a name, it's just that obvious.

I never said it needs a name to exist. I merely said that the name itself is indicative of something other than strictly free-market capitalism. Capitalism is a term that applies to varying forms of a somewhat similar economic structure.

[quincunx5]

Owners need profit; that's what they live off of. Profit will never be non-existant in a capitalist society, and no matter how much profit is made, it is still profit nonetheless.


Well yes, profit will always exist as long as progress is desired. If progress is not desired - then yes communism is great! Ofcourse it would lead mass starvation and regression should it be implemented. After which it would just be a stagnant society.



Capitalism is a term that applies to varying forms of a somewhat similar economic structure.


Capitalism works best with no 'structure'.
Capitalism is only thing that acknowledges economy.



What is it with you and semantics?


There are no semantics - just very true observation. Should private property be abolished, private property would still exist. There is no way to get rid of capitalism.

[KC]

Well yes, profit will always exist as long as progress is desired. If progress is not desired - then yes communism is great! Ofcourse it would lead mass starvation and regression should it be implemented. After which it would just be a stagnant society.

What a depressing view, to think that the only motivation people have in life is money.



Capitalism works best with no 'structure'.
Capitalism is only thing that acknowledges economy.

Again, semantics. Capitalism needs a structure to exist; it is a socio-economic structure. To say a structure can exist without a structure is retarded.




There are no semantics - just very true observation.

You're the one that argues semantics.


Should private property be abolished, private property would still exist. There is no way to get rid of capitalism.

1. There's a difference between private and personal property.
2. You have yet to prove that private property will always exist. Every single argument you've presented in support of your opinion has been shot down easily.

[quincunx5]

What a depressing view, to think that the only motivation people have in life is money.


There was no mention of money at all. The same thing applies to a barter and commodity economy. Profit = Progress. But more accurately Progress is directly proportional to Profit.

This is not the first time I mention this to you.



Again, semantics. Capitalism needs a structure to exist; it is a socio-economic structure. To say a structure can exist without a structure is retarded.


I meant it as structure that is decentralized. It is true that even a lack of structure is a structure in it of itself.



1. There's a difference between private and personal property.


No. Personal and private are exactly the same.
You try to make this distinction for communism's sake, but it does not exist.



2. You have yet to prove that private property will always exist. Every single argument you've presented in support of your opinion has been shot down easily.


As long as you are in charge of yourself, private property will exist. If you deny this you might as well promote slavery.

Blabbering nonsense is hardly shooting down.

[JKP]

Recently, psychologists have provided a decimating argument against Smithian theory. Ryan and Deci(39) have summarized a whole literature in psychology on the antecedents of human well-being. Psychologists have always wondered what makes people feel good, and for decades they have quizzed people on the intricacies of happiness. The general answer, all the more reliable because it is based on voluminous and cross cultural research, is that money is not a reliable route to happiness. Happiness is based on other, internal factors. The relation of wealth to well-being is tenuous; only below the poverty line does money bring well-being, above it, increases in personal wealth do not bring increased happiness. A corollary finding is that the more people focus on financial and materialistic goals, the lower their feeling of well-being. Finally, certain people tenaciously believe that money does bring happiness; they are the unhappy. Together, these findings largely dismantle Smithian theory of human motivation. For the present essay it also means that the motivation behind greed, pursuit of material wealth to extremes, cannot be for the happiness it brings. There is nothing heroic about greed. It is closer to obsession.

39-Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudiamonic
well-being. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001, 52, 141-166

[JKP]

On property:

Private property is one of the three things all anarchists oppose, along side hierarchical authority and the state. Today, the dominant system of private property is capitalist in nature and, as such, anarchists tend to concentrate on this system and its property rights regime. We will be reflecting this here but do not, because of this, assume that anarchists consider other forms of private property regime (such as, say, feudalism) as acceptable. This is not the case -- anarchists are against every form of property rights regime which results in the many working for the few.

Anarchist opposition to private property rests on two, related, arguments. These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from What is Property? that "property is theft" and "property is despotism." In his words, "Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, What is Property, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority as well as exploitation and, consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It is based on and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.

We will summarise each argument in turn.

The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like).

As we discuss in section B.3.3, this exploitation (theft) flows from the fact that workers do not own or control the means of production they use and, as a consequence, are controlled by those who do during work hours. This alienation of control over labour to the boss places the employer in a position to exploit that labour -- to get the worker to produce more than they get paid in wages. That is precisely why the boss employs the worker. Combine this with rent, interest and intellectual property rights and we find the secret to maintaining the capitalist system as all allow enormous inequalities of wealth to continue and keep the resources of the world in the hands of a few.

Yet labour cannot be alienated. Therefore when you sell your labour you sell yourself, your liberty, for the time in question. This brings us to the second reason why anarchists oppose private property, the fact it produces authoritarian social relationships. For all true anarchists, property is opposed as a source of authority, indeed despotism. To quote Proudhon on this subject:

"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?" [Op. Cit., pp. 266-7]

In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading to have to follow orders). And so private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life.

It is, of course, true that private property provides a sphere of decision-making free from outside interference -- but only for the property's owners. But for those who are not property owners the situation if radically different. In a system of exclusively private property does not guarantee them any such sphere of freedom. They have only the freedom to sell their liberty to those who do own private property. If I am evicted from one piece of private property, where can I go? Nowhere, unless another owner agrees to allow me access to their piece of private property. This means that everywhere I can stand is a place where I have no right to stand without permission and, as a consequence, I exist only by the sufferance of the property owning elite. Hence Proudhon:

"Just as the commoner once held his land by the munificence and condescension of the lord, so to-day the working-man holds his labour by the condescension and necessities of the master and proprietor." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 128]

This means that far from providing a sphere of independence, a society in which all property is private thus renders the property-less completely dependent on those who own property. This ensures that the exploitation of another's labour occurs and that some are subjected to the will of others, in direct contradiction to what the defenders of property promise. This is unsurprising given the nature of the property they are defending:

"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.

"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?

"But then why do we oppose them?

"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order." [Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113]

It will, of course, be objected that no one forces a worker to work for a given boss. However, as we discuss in section B.4.3, this assertion (while true) misses the point. While workers are not forced to work for a specific boss, they inevitably have to work for a boss. This is because there is literally no other way to survive -- all other economic options have been taken from them by state coercion. The net effect is that the working class has little choice but to hire themselves out to those with property and, as a consequence, the labourer "has sold and surrendered his liberty" to the boss. [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 130]

Private property, therefore, produces a very specific form of authority structure within society, a structure in which a few govern the many during working hours. These relations of production are inherently authoritarian and embody and perpetuate the capitalist class system. The moment you enter the factory gate or the office door, you lose all your basic rights as a human being. You have no freedom of speech nor association and no right of assembly. If you were asked to ignore your values, your priorities, your judgement, and your dignity, and leave them at the door when you enter your home, you would rightly consider that tyranny yet that is exactly what you do during working hours if you are a worker. You have no say in what goes on. You may as well be a horse (to use John Locke's analogy -- see section B.4.2) or a piece of machinery.

Little wonder, then, that anarchists oppose private property as Anarchy is "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 264] and call capitalism for what it is, namely wage slavery!

For these reasons, anarchists agree with Rousseau when he stated:

"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'" ["Discourse on Inequality," The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 84]

This explains anarchist opposition to capitalism. It is marked by two main features, "private property" (or in some cases, state-owned property -- see section B.3.5) and, consequently, wage labour and exploitation and authority. Moreover, such a system requires a state to maintain itself for as "long as within society a possessing and non-possessing group of human beings face one another in enmity, the state will be indispensable to the possessing minority for the protection for its privileges." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 11] Thus private ownership of the means of production is only possible if there is a state, meaning mechanisms of organised coercion at the disposal of the propertied class (see section B.2).

Also, it ought to be easy to see that capitalism, by giving rise to an ideologically inalienable "right" to private property, will also quickly give rise to inequalities in the distribution of external resources, and that this inequality in resource distribution will give rise to a further inequality in the relative bargaining positions of the propertied and the property less. While apologists for capitalism usually attempt to justify private property by claiming that "self-ownership" is a "universal right" (see section B.4.2 -- "Is capiitalism based on self-ownership?"), it is clear that capitalism actually makes universal autonomy implied by the flawed concept of self-ownership (for the appeal of the notion of self-ownership rests on the ideal that people are not used as a means but only as an end in themselves). The capitalist system, however, has undermined autonomy and individual freedom, and ironically, has used the term "self-ownership" as the basis for doing so. Under capitalism, as will be seen in section B.4, most people are usually left in a situation where their best option is to allow themselves to be used in just those ways that are logically incompatible with genuine self-ownership, i.e. the autonomy which makes it initially an appealing concept.

Only libertarian socialism can continue to affirm the meaningful autonomy and individual freedom which self-ownership promises whilst building the conditions that guarantee it. Only by abolishing private property can there be access to the means of life for all, so making the autonomy which self-ownership promises but cannot deliver a reality by universalising self-management in all aspects of life.

Before discussing the anti-libertarian aspects of capitalism, it will be necessary to define "private property" as distinct from "personal possessions" and show in more detail why the former requires state protection and is exploitative.

From the Anarcho-FAQ

[KC]

There was no mention of money at all. The same thing applies to a barter and commodity economy. Profit = Progress. But more accurately Progress is directly proportional to Profit.

Okay, replace money with profit. Happy now? You like semantics?




No. Personal and private are exactly the same.
You try to make this distinction for communism's sake, but it does not exist.

You don't understand. I don't try to make this distinction. I do. Personal and private property are two forms that property is classified into. Classification is a product of thought. So yes, regardless of what they are classified as, they are all just objects.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that vertebrates and invertebrates are exactly the same; after all, they're all animals. :rolleyes:



As long as you are in charge of yourself, private property will exist. If you deny this you might as well promote slavery.

As long as you are in charge of yourself, property will exist. It isn't private. In fact, if you classifty it according to marxism, it's personal property.




Blabbering nonsense is hardly shooting down.

Then bring some intelligent discussion to the board.

[Livetrueordie]

Personal and private are exactly the same.
You try to make this distinction for communism's sake, but it does not exist. I agree with Lazar, but why not make the distinction? Private and Personal Property are both property, but not the same. Private property often refers to, in a marxist disscusion, the means of production in a laissez faire economy. While personal property is property often designed for one person use, a good example of this would be a tooth brush or clothing. It is not reasonable for us all to have a factory for our individual self, but there is "reason" that we have our own personal clothing. Look at it this way, does where you live have a toilet for each individual resident? Probably not and that is "reason."

But what you are arguing is semantics...private a personal property are up for opinion, the word doesn't matter its what the word describes that does.

[NovelGentry]

Private property often refers to, in a marxist disscusion, the means of production in a laissez faire economy.

Private property in a real Marxist discussion doesn't refer to any such thing. Marx makes it very clear that private property is not to be thought of as an object or the thing itself, it is a social condition. If you consider that private property = means of production then abolition of private property becomes the abolition of the means of production.

Is this distinction important? Yes. Because under varying circumstances any object, regardless of it's function, can take on this social function and thus create the social condition of private property.

[JKP]

Did any of you guys read the article I posted in my last reply? It answers what you're discussing.

[NovelGentry]

Did any of you guys read the article I posted in my last reply? It answers what you're discussing.

Nah, I saw anarchist then Proudhon... and... well..


M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being singularly misunderstood in Europe. In France he has the right to be a bad economist, because he passes for a good German philosopher. In Germany he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he passes for one of the greatest of the French economists. We, as both German and economist at the same time, wish to protest against this double error.

[quincunx5]

Okay, replace money with profit. Happy now? You like semantics?


What? Do you read? or do you just splice words from different sentences?



I agree with Lazar, but why not make the distinction? Private and Personal Property are both property, but not the same. Private property often refers to, in a marxist disscusion, the means of production in a laissez faire economy. While personal property is property often designed for one person use, a good example of this would be a tooth brush or clothing. It is not reasonable for us all to have a factory for our individual self, but there is "reason" that we have our own personal clothing. Look at it this way, does where you live have a toilet for each individual resident? Probably not and that is "reason."




I agree with Lazar, but why not make the distinction? Private and Personal Property are both property, but not the same. Private property often refers to, in a marxist disscusion, the means of production in a laissez faire economy. While personal property is property often designed for one person use, a good example of this would be a tooth brush or clothing. It is not reasonable for us all to have a factory for our individual self, but there is "reason" that we have our own personal clothing. Look at it this way, does where you live have a toilet for each individual resident? Probably not and that is "reason."




I agree with Lazar, but why not make the distinction? Private and Personal Property are both property, but not the same. Private property often refers to, in a marxist disscusion, the means of production in a laissez faire economy. While personal property is property often designed for one person use, a good example of this would be a tooth brush or clothing. It is not reasonable for us all to have a factory for our individual self, but there is "reason" that we have our own personal clothing. Look at it this way, does where you live have a toilet for each individual resident? Probably not and that is "reason."


Why does the distinction need to exist? Where does it stop?
Why not go further: moving private property (cars, bikes, ...), animal private property (dogs, cats, fish), electrical private property (computers, tv, radios), land property, house property, water property, air property?

Why just leave it at personal and private?
Why is owning a factory fall into only private, not personal?

How is a house not a "means of production"? I find my house to make me productive. It is no different than a factory. I can have people come over and work for me in my productive endeavours and the same thing would apply.

Toothbrush and clothing is pathetic example. Where do you keep these personal items? A dresser and cabinet? In side where? A house? Where? On land?

How far can your personal property extend? Who gets to judge what is personal and private (if the distinction exists)

If you clasify your own body as personal property (not the basis of private property, like I do) are other things only your personal property if you physically hold on to them? I think you realize this is silly.

If you want to get into semantics then I will concede that the only distinction you can make between personal and private is this: Personal property is your naked body staving to death in the cold, any addition to this (food, clothing, shelter) is Private property.



What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that vertebrates and invertebrates are exactly the same; after all, they're all animals.


This is a stupid argument. If you are talking about animals then you will implicitly discuss all the variations. If you start to classify within private property you get into all the different types of private property I mentioned above.



But what you are arguing is semantics...private a personal property are up for opinion, the word doesn't matter its what the word describes that does.


Your right, the word itself does not matter. The fact that this 'word' extends from the natural possession of one's self ('word') is one and the same 'word', not two different 'word1' 'word2'.

[KC]

Why does the distinction need to exist? Where does it stop?
Why not go further: moving private property (cars, bikes, ...), animal private property (dogs, cats, fish), electrical private property (computers, tv, radios), land property, house property, water property, air property?


You could, but that isn't relevant to the topic at hand.



Why just leave it at personal and private?
Why is owning a factory fall into only private, not personal?

Because of how private and personal are defined.



How is a house not a "means of production"? I find my house to make me productive. It is no different than a factory. I can have people come over and work for me in my productive endeavours and the same thing would apply.

A house doesn't apply to the definition of "means of production". It is completely different than a factory.




Toothbrush and clothing is pathetic example. Where do you keep these personal items? A dresser and cabinet? In side where? A house? Where? On land?

Again, personal and private property are defined by the way they are socially looked at. They aren't material objects.

[quincunx5]

A house doesn't apply to the definition of "means of production". It is completely different than a factory.


What? I just told you that I can employ people to do work in my house.

People live in skyscrapers, yet others (and maybe themselves) work in them at the same time. Do you get it? Is the blood circulating up there?



Again, personal and private property are defined by the way they are socially looked at. They aren't material objects.


What the fuck? Do you not remember how we got into this?
We were talking about property of one's self. Then you made the distinction of property of one's self being called 'personal property'.

Now by this sentence your conclusion is the following: People are not material objects, and/or toothbrushs, clothin, etc. are not material objects.

I can't argue with you at all, it's just ridiculous.

You do advocate slavery. I knew it. How can one view their own body from a social stand point?

I'll explain it for the very last time:

Private property of one's self (internally) is extended to Private property on earth (externally). This has been the basis of human civilization. Always.

Now, Communism may eliminate the latter, but it can't do away with the former. No matter how much bullshit class conscienceness would hypothetically exist - humans will still trade, save, and reinvest (capitalize). So why fight an uphill battle of ideology that simply can not be?

Should this revolution actually take place, I will expect either of these outcomes:

1) The leninists will stab you in the back - and we will be reduced to a command economy that will not last long at all. People will be learning lessons they should have done long ago.

2) I will sit back and laugh when anarcho-capitalism will be achieved. I will thank you profusely.

[Livetrueordie]

How is a house not a "means of production"? I find my house to make me productive. It is no different than a factory. I can have people come over and work for me in my productive endeavours and the same thing would apply. I meant for my response to be taken generally and you looked at it as literal. Means of Production is often looked at as a factory and the machines a private owner has in a laisseze faire economy. this could also include the tools.


How far can your personal property extend? Who gets to judge what is personal and private (if the distinction exists) in socialism there is no "private" property, your argument here isn't making sense

[quincunx5]

I meant for my response to be taken generally and you looked at it as literal. Means of Production is often looked at as a factory and the machines a private owner has in a laisseze faire economy. this could also include the tools.


Yes, but "often" and "could" are not absolute, you have not ruled out my case at all.



in socialism there is no "private" property, your argument here isn't making sense


Did you even read? If you did, then you are telling me that people do not own themselves. That's Disgusting!

[NovelGentry]

If you did, then you are telling me that people do not own themselves. That's Disgusting!

No it's not, what's disgusting is a society where we have to make such a distinction in order to maintain any concept of freedom.

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:12 AM
Did you even read? If you did, then you are telling me that people do not own themselves. That's Disgusting!
Luckily, the people who do understand communist theory, unlike some here, do acknowlegde this principle. If you discard the concept of self ownership this can only lead to such absurd conclusions that if Novelgentry kidneys fail, you have to give one to him. The real issue is the supposed link between self ownership and private property.

But never mind, Novelgentry's father is probably also a filthy capitalist slavedriver because he didn't raise his allowance. It no use replying to slogans.

[NovelGentry]

Luckily, the people who do understand communist theory, unlike some here, do acknowlegde this principle. If you discard the concept of self ownership this can only lead to such absurd conclusions that if Novelgentry kidneys fail, you have to give one to him. The real issue is the supposed link between self ownership and private property.

Why is it you assume if you don't own yourself that someone else does? The point is of course, why is it that everything has to be owned? I acknowledge no such principle because to do so implies that society is incapable of seeing freedom beyond such a principle, and that is inherently detrimental to a communist society. We will never be truly free until we are free of the concept of ownership in it's totality, not merely as it relates to productive or commodity relations, but as it relates to human relations as well, including our own relation to ourselves.

[quincunx5]

No it's not, what's disgusting is a society where we have to make such a distinction in order to maintain any concept of freedom.


My point is that no such distinction needs to exist. Private Property (land, house, cars, etc.) is an extension of Private self-ownership of body.

I don't see any reason to distinguish minor things like food, clothing, and shelter and other things like houses, cars, land, etc.



The real issue is the supposed link between self ownership and private property.


Indeed that is the issue at hand. Now do you have anything to say about it?

[workersunity]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 6 2005, 12:40 PM
http://mises.org/etexts/exploitation.asp




Once it is recognized that money wages are determined strictly by supply and demand, then it becomes clear that the wage earner's presumable willingness to work for a subsistence wage rather than die of starvation, and the capitalist's preference, other things equal, to pay lower wages rather than higher wages, are both irrelevant to the wage the worker must actually be paid. That wage is determined by the demand for and supply of labor. It can fall no lower than corresponds to the point of full employment. If it drops below that point, a labor shortage is created, which makes it to the self-interest of employers able and willing to pay a higher wage to bid wages up, so that they do not lose employees to other employers not able or willing to pay as much.
Wow what a great post, you just post someone elses work, work that you could never fathom coming up with, how great, Neo-classical economics fail for many reasons most of which have been covered, But also what do you cappie folks have to say about the principle of equilibrium? Its been dissproven time and time again, you guys should really check your theory and make a new hypothesis

[quincunx5]

Neo-classical economics fail for many reasons most of which have been covered, But also what do you cappie folks have to say about the principle of equilibrium? Its been dissproven time and time again, you guys should really check your theory and make a new hypothesis


Oh yeah it fails, that why 100% of the population is dirt poor, right?

The theory is supported by actual practice (deviating only because of governments).

Disproven many times, only in theory (using wrong axioms), never in practice.

---

You really should look into the site itself. It's heavy on anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, and libertarianism.

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:28 PM
Wow what a great post, you just post someone elses work, work that you could never fathom coming up with, how great, Neo-classical economics fail for many reasons most of which have been covered, But also what do you cappie folks have to say about the principle of equilibrium? Its been dissproven time and time again, you guys should really check your theory and make a new hypothesis
Don't lecture him on economics you illiterate. He quotes something from mises.org and you come up with equilibriums, a concept which is clearly rejected by the austrian economists.


Indeed that is the issue at hand. Now do you have anything to say about it?

No, since I am on your side.

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:10 PM
Why is it you assume if you don't own yourself that someone else does? The point is of course, why is it that everything has to be owned? I acknowledge no such principle because to do so implies that society is incapable of seeing freedom beyond such a principle, and that is inherently detrimental to a communist society. We will never be truly free until we are free of the concept of ownership in it's totality, not merely as it relates to productive or commodity relations, but as it relates to human relations as well, including our own relation to ourselves.
I haven't coined "collective ownership", your ideological predecessors however did.

The rest of the text is vague and when I read it I see rainbows, flowers and people smoking pot. Please tell me how you are going to detox people from the concept of ownership alltogether?

[NovelGentry]

I haven't coined "collective ownership", your ideological predecessors however did.

I'm quite certain you are incapable of even figuring out what my ideology is, and even if you do figure that out, you're certainly incapable of understanding where the line of predecessors would end. You will note that when founded in my ideology, that phrase preceeds "of the means of production." And thus you will note that collective ownership of much else is meaningless, or at the least impractical. My point remains, and for all the statements of collective ownership, I think you would find that my ideological predecessor agrees with it.

The concept of ownership is not forever, whether it be private ownership or collective ownership, and the more the ownership itself dissipates, the more pointless the term becomes. For example, if everyone owns something, the concept of ownership is no longer necessary, as there is no logical opposition to that ownership. Ownership implies property, and thus as a concept applied to humans is rediculous for a very different reason. You are not property, and thus you are owned by no one. To say you own yourself is to admit wholely that someone else could own you, or else you would not need to apply such a concept or at the very least, ever have to bring it up.

The concept of humans as property is certainly not over with, but we intend to make it so.


Please tell me how you are going to detox people from the concept of ownership alltogether?

By destroying the necessity for ownership.

[quincunx5]

The concept of ownership is not forever, whether it be private ownership or collective ownership, and the more the ownership itself dissipates, the more pointless the term becomes. For example, if everyone owns something, the concept of ownership is no longer necessary, as there is no logical opposition to that ownership.


If everyone owns something, that doesn't neccessarily mean that no conflict will arise. The fact that people are different means that some will have more than others. They will put more labor into something than someone else. That someone else will still want it, and he will not neccessarily hesitate to take it.



To say you own yourself is to admit wholely that someone else could own you, or else you would not need to apply such a concept or at the very least, ever have to bring it up.


That is exactly the argument at hand. You can be owned by someone else either as a slave or a taxpaying citizen, or as a prison inmate. In most cases a child is owned by parents. When you get eaten by a tiger you are owned by the tiger!

What exactly would stop slavery in an anarcho-communist society (or any society for that matter)?

You will tell me that the responsible party would be punished or imprisoned. Well then, does he now not become the slave?

You are property! And you are material object! I cannot occupy the same space as you. Get over it, there's nothing you can do about it.



The concept of humans as property is certainly not over with, but we intend to make it so.


Hmm... That's not going to get you very far - unless you come up with a way to transform humans into pure energy (on a permanent basis - not teleportation).

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:17 PM
For example, if everyone owns something, the concept of ownership is no longer necessary, as there is no logical opposition to that ownership

Of course, that would fit your view undoubtly very conveniently. I would guess that if everyone "owns" some basic necessities, set by you and your revolutionairy comrades, this will happen.


The concept of humans as property is certainly not over with, but we intend to make it so.

Hmm, fill me in, the revolutionairy fire in me is not yet burning. I am too rational, I need practical examples.


By destroying the necessity for ownership

Unfortunately you have read too many of Harry Potter. You cannot create goods out of nothing. So long as scarcity exist, in the economic sense, you'd still face the same problems.


To say you own yourself is to admit wholely that someone else could own you, or else you would not need to apply such a concept or at the very least, ever have to bring it up.

You mean, like the Dutch government forcing me to hand over my money to them so they can distribute it too whatever they like? Looks like slavery to me.

[NovelGentry]

If everyone owns something, that doesn't neccessarily mean that no conflict will arise. The fact that people are different means that some will have more than others. They will put more labor into something than someone else. That someone else will still want it, and he will not neccessarily hesitate to take it.

No one said no conflict will arise. And I find it interesting that you say the fact people are different means that some will have more than others... I fail to see why such is the case. Mind you, we're talking about communism here, not any transitional phase of society.


That is exactly the argument at hand. You can be owned by someone else either as a slave or a taxpaying citizen, or as a prison inmate. In most cases a child is owned by parents. When you get eaten by a tiger you are owned by the tiger!

If a tiger eats you, you are not his property... you are dead, you don't exist anymore. Certainly the matter and energy which made you may, but then again, the matter and energy that makes me might be the matter and energy that at one time made up a portion of Karl Marx -- that doesn't mean I own him, nor does it mean there's collective ownership of him, it means he's dead, and somehow through the cycle of that energy and matter, a portion of what once made him is now a portion of me.

While a child may be owned in modern society, we seek to change that as well.

On the issue of imprisonment, which is indeed a demi-valid point/issue, one must set down clear criterea for what defines property, and whether or not the condition of imprisonment is equivalent to the condition of property. Feel free to lay down such criterea, and we can debate that.


You are property! And you are material object! I cannot occupy the same space as you. Get over it, there's nothing you can do about it.

Well our definitions of property obviously differ -- to me, the fact that I'm a material object has nothing to do with property, certainly being property can be a characteristic of a material object, but it expresses really that relationship of that object socially. That is to say, if the object merely existed, with no one around to "own it" -- is it property? No.

You're really ignoring what property really is. By attributing it merely to material objects, you certainly can justify your arguments, and not only that, you can justify a system which imposes it, but you're not actually addressing what it is.

Certainly with this statement, the air I breath must be property... who's property is it? The thrown away soda can in the landfill must be someone's property, who's property is it? Or is it merely, ownerless property? Can such a thing exist?

There's not very much to "get over," unless we're counting the stupidity of people who proclaim that property is any material object.


Hmm... That's not going to get you very far - unless you come up with a way to transform humans into pure energy (on a permanent basis - not teleportation).

So energy is not property then... then certainly the sound waves that create top label artist's songs cannot be their property. Well sure the CD could be, but I bought the CD fair and square... I even paid for the computer to download and burn it. What's that? You've applied property to more than material objects? Oh, how absurd... that would imply that property has absolutely nothing to do with the physical nature of something, and as a concept alone could be applied to things both material and non-material!!! GASP!

[NovelGentry]

Of course, that would fit your view undoubtly very conveniently. I would guess that if everyone "owns" some basic necessities, set by you and your revolutionairy comrades, this will happen.

If everyone owns something, ownership is no longer necessary to apply to it, regardless of how they come to own it. Why does the concept of ownership come into play if everyone owns it? There is no one to protect it from... no one to limit access to, etc. The fact that everyone "owns" it becomes completely superfluous, as does the idea of it being everyone's property.


Hmm, fill me in, the revolutionairy fire in me is not yet burning. I am too rational, I need practical examples.

As your friend quincunx5 pointed out, children are still perceived as belonging to their parents. We seek to abolish the idea that a human can be property, and through that most existing constructs of the legal family; we also intend to do the same with much else.


Unfortunately you have read too many of Harry Potter. You cannot create goods out of nothing. So long as scarcity exist, in the economic sense, you'd still face the same problems.

Hey, now you're on to something.


You mean, like the Dutch government forcing me to hand over my money to them so they can distribute it too whatever they like? Looks like slavery to me.

No, nothing at all like that. If they're forcing you to hand over your money then they may indeed be forcing you to give up some of your property, but they are not relegating you to property.

[ComradeRed]

How much more metaphysical do you have to be to believe in the dogma of "supply and demand"?

Look, prices are set by those who own the means to produce said commodities...and s/he can change it as s/he wishes. There is no external "supply/demand curve change" bullshit involved!

And that's the simpleton's version of economics!

Of course, we all realize that "marginal utility of product A divided by the marginal utility of product B is equal to the price of commodity A divided by the price of commodity B", right? It's "elementary" microeconomics.

How the hell do you quantify utility? How do you objectify a subjective factor? How do you defy logic?

Worse, when demand curves are formulated, it is simply a multiplication of the number of people in the given market to the marginal utility of a single individual...as if we all are identical in tastes.

Marginalism is the most flawed theory of economics...Sraffa pointed this out ages ago.

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:04 AM
How the hell do you quantify utility? How do you objectify a subjective factor? How do you defy logic?

Why should you want to objectify? Different people, different preferences. I know this is hard to grasp for you, as you are probably also omniscient about people's necessities.


Marginalism is the most flawed theory of economics...Sraffa pointed this out ages ago.

Except that it solved all the flaws in the theory of your guru Marx. Or does the LTV actually work these days?