Deconstruct capitalism from its very heart

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Capitalism has a fatal flaw at the heart of its defense - property.


The self-evidence of Locke's "natural rights" is bulk, if not for the fact rights are merely doctrines we manage with force, than the simple audacity to claim it's a universal fact. Vulgar libertarians present their own contradiction by stating that the Native Americans hadn't reached a similar conclusion to Locke and thus did not have "proper" claim to their land. The case for "royal" acquisition of property is further complicated by the fact numerous theorists and persons, not limited to Thomas Paine, Henry George, Pierre Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Peter Kropotkin, reached different conclusions. This clearly dismisses the "self-evidence" of any argument.

Furthermore, if property rights are fixed into a metaphysical understanding of Locke's homesteading principle, capitalism is completely unjustifiable. If I hire five employees to plant apple seeds in the virgin soil, my contract has no implications on property. The workers cease to be wage slaves and become contractors. "My" workers now own the land I wanted to claim. They toiled the earth. They mixed their labor. It's theirs. Not to mangle a pun, but you lay the seeds of your own system's destruction. Thus even from Locke's statement the only defensible market system is free market socialism - mutualism.

If property acquisitions are not fixed into Locke's principle, they are now open to criticism from the very same opponents now clouding the colleges in defense of capitalism. But this is just common sense. Nobody would argue that I be shot for trespassing on private property that had entrapped me, nor would someone argue that you could build a fence around an arbitrary amount of land and expect people to defend it. We can use Locke's theory of property as one guiding stone - if there is some consistency involved where mutualist principles apply and not capitalism.

Here is where the Chicago school makes an effort to cover for the gaping holes found in Objectivist and Austrian philosophy: natural rights don't apply. Laws should be determined by the "free market" - which is close to what leftists have been arguing for since Bakunin came to prominence. However, David Friedman wants to add stipulations that we do not "intrude on another's property." This doesn't cut the grain, because in an anarchist society one has the right to call into question property they see as intrusion and coercive. Not even intellectually-honest capitalists, for example, would support a wealthy individual laying claim to a forest without mixing labor with it. It is only right to intrude on this wealthy individual's property. Likewise, it is only right to intrude on a capitalist's property.http://genecosta.blogspot.com/

The only theorist who sidesteps this problem is Ayn Rand, who admits to the authoritarian nature of capitalism via her defense of a state.

[pusher robot]

You're sliding in a hidden assumption here: that natural rights are the only legitimate source of property rights. That's not a tenet of capitalism, and it's not true.

There is a baseline level of property rights that are according to many libertarians rooted to natural rights, and these are pretty much as described by Locke. These are the rights that are necessary for markets and capitalism to work.

But then your logic goes awry. I understand you to be essentially arguing the following.

1. Locke provides a natural rights theory for property.
2. Current property rights are far in excess of what Locke's theory provides for.
3. Therefore Locke was wrong.

The problem is that (3) does not logically follow from (1) and (2) unless you slide in another premise:
2A. Locke's natural rights theory is the only possible basis for property rights.

But that's just not true. There are many other reasons why a society might choose to create property rights, from procedural simplicity to tax revenue generation to economic growth to fundamental fairness to just plain convenience. These might be distinguished as civil property rights, and unlike natural property rights, only exist in the context of a society that chooses to recognize them. These are not necessary for capitalism to work, but they have the possibility of helping it work better.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You're sliding in a hidden assumption here: that natural rights are the only legitimate source of property rights. That's not a tenet of capitalism, and it's not true.

Just curious: have you read Rothbard? You may like him.

I actually address the second prevalent line of thought in libertarian capitalism - that we compete over the law. I'm not exactly sure what statist capitalists believe because statists (no offense to any here) don't usually back up their defenses outside of calling it pragmatic.


1. Locke provides a natural rights theory for property.
2. Current property rights are far in excess of what Locke's theory provides for.
3. Therefore Locke was wrong.

I don't know about that. I'm up in the air about some of what Locke said. His support for slavery is one thing that got my attention.


But that's just not true. There are many other reasons why a society might choose to create property rights, from procedural simplicity to tax revenue generation to economic growth to fundamental fairness to just plain convenience. These might be distinguished as civil property rights, and unlike natural property rights, only exist in the context of a society that chooses to recognize them. These are not necessary for capitalism to work, but they have the possibility of helping it work better.

That sounds like Ayn Rand's argument, although she too relied heavily on the idea of natural rights.

But of course all socialists are calling into question whether it does make things better.

[pusher robot]

But of course all socialists are calling into question whether it does make things better.


That's certainly a fair question, but it's notably an empirical one, not a theoretical one.

EDIT: And I have to say, Rand never struck me as an empiricist. My understanding of her philosophy was that it was supposed to be 100% derived from nature.

[pusher robot]

Just curious: have you read Rothbard? You may like him.


I've read some, but not enough really. Any particular suggestions?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have a question to ask in order to rebuff the resurgent petit-bourgeois Georgism as a result of the current financial meltdown. I've "googled" Henry George and his land value tax stuff, and modern-day Georgists have this obscene notion of the "landlord" on one side and both the cappie and worker on the other, all the while railing against the Marxist concept of surplus value.

What about the surplus values arising from the existence of commercial real estate businesses?

[Personally, I'm disturbed by ultra-rightists who wish to privatize water, and am OK with the "application of all [economic] rents of land to public purposes."]

[trivas7]

Capitalism has a fatal flaw at the heart of its defense - property.
.
The right to property is the only implementation of the right to life as the source of all rights. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. W/o property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

All states are authoritarian, thus your point re Rand escapes me.

[mikelepore]

There are some legal rights where one person doing it has no effect on whether someone else also does it. Freedom of religion, for example. If I pray to Zeus, it doesn't at all diminish your ability also to pray to Zeus if you want to. But there are other legal rights where one person becoming more able to do it means that someone else must become less able to do it. Private ownership of the means of production, for example. If some people are the bosses of the railroad, that can only be true to the extent that other people are NOT the bosses of the railroad. So let's suppose there's something called "natural rights." Such a thing could only apply to those conceptions of rights where everyone could do something simultaneously. It would be contradictory apply it to something where it's presence for one person is the same as its denial to someone else.

[redguard2009]

The right to property is the only implementation of the right to life as the source of all rights. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. W/o property rights, no other rights are possible.

First of all, I believe you are confusing the notion of Marxist private property with modern definitions of "personal property".

The private property of which Marx spoke does not refer to your toothbrush, your car, your fridge, kitchen utensils, underwear, etc. Those things are personal property which it is expected you have justly aquired through the trade of your labour or the fruits of your labour.

Rather, private property refers to the ownership of tools, resources, land, technology and "ideas" in which the owner manipulates himself into an exploitive position using that ownership, supported by law, over others. The most simplistic example: Companies who develop and produce life-saving medication who, by virtue of them being the sole owners of that medication, are able to charge the world for its use; in short, the benefits to the company outweigh, by law, the benefits to the whole of mankind.


Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

Ironically, you have stumbled your way into supporting one of the most important tenets of revolutionary socialism: that every man has the right to receive the full value of his labour.

As it stands, in capitalist society, you do not have any rights to the products of your labour. At best, the vast majority of us can only sign into exploitive relationships with capitalists to sell our labour for far less than its value (re: employment). We work for minimum wage, sometimes more, sometimes less, while our employers extract the lion's share of the profit from our labour and hoarde it for themselves. We have no right to have any say in the way in which our labour is used, in the way in which the profits of our labour are used, or in the management of our workplaces -- we are given the choice simply to comply with the demands of our employer or find employment elsewhere (under equally exploitive conditions).

The tenet of revolutionary communism is that every man has the right to the fruits of his own labour; that if you work for 40+ hours a week in a factory you not only have the right to receive the full profits your labour produces, but also have every right to decide, with your fellow workers, the way in which profits are used, the way in which your labour is used, the way in which you are employed and managed, etc.

So again, in short, the fight against "private property" is the fight against those few who through one way or another have manipulated the most important productive facets of society, who hoarde their property for their own benefit, who enter into manipulative, exploitive bargains with workers and demand unjust, unequal compensation for the use of those products under terms decided by themselves.

[Pogue]

First of all, I believe you are confusing the notion of Marxist private property with modern definitions of "personal property".

The private property of which Marx spoke does not refer to your toothbrush, your car, your fridge, kitchen utensils, underwear, etc. Those things are personal property which it is expected you have justly aquired through the trade of your labour or the fruits of your labour.

Rather, private property refers to the ownership of tools, resources, land, technology and "ideas" in which the owner manipulates himself into an exploitive position using that ownership, supported by law, over others. The most simplistic example: Companies who develop and produce life-saving medication who, by virtue of them being the sole owners of that medication, are able to charge the world for its use; in short, the benefits to the company outweigh, by law, the benefits to the whole of mankind.



Ironically, you have stumbled your way into supporting one of the most important tenets of revolutionary socialism: that every man has the right to receive the full value of his labour.

As it stands, in capitalist society, you do not have any rights to the products of your labour. At best, the vast majority of us can only sign into exploitive relationships with capitalists to sell our labour for far less than its value (re: employment). We work for minimum wage, sometimes more, sometimes less, while our employers extract the lion's share of the profit from our labour and hoarde it for themselves. We have no right to have any say in the way in which our labour is used, in the way in which the profits of our labour are used, or in the management of our workplaces -- we are given the choice simply to comply with the demands of our employer or find employment elsewhere (under equally exploitive conditions).

The tenet of revolutionary communism is that every man has the right to the fruits of his own labour; that if you work for 40+ hours a week in a factory you not only have the right to receive the full profits your labour produces, but also have every right to decide, with your fellow workers, the way in which profits are used, the way in which your labour is used, the way in which you are employed and managed, etc.

So again, in short, the fight against "private property" is the fight against those few who through one way or another have manipulated the most important productive facets of society, who hoarde their property for their own benefit, who enter into manipulative, exploitive bargains with workers and demand unjust, unequal compensation for the use of those products under terms decided by themselves.

This. Capitalism reinforces the right of those who already hold wealth to gain more wealth at the expense of others.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

All states are authoritarian

The capitalist is a state. He (or she) claims ultimate sovereignty over a geographical area.

The state originates from the powerful and uncompromising landlord, the very same type of person you defend in your rhetorical speeches.


Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.
Which is why the virtue of making wealth (and thus power and influence) from others' labor is discredited.

[RGacky3]

The right to property is the only implementation of the right to life as the source of all rights. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. W/o property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

All states are authoritarian, thus your point re Rand escapes me.

Property rights are a contradiction, start at land, first of all, the defence I always here, is if a guy works on the land, its his, but then what happens if someone else works on it? What about when he stops working on it? What if he hires people to work on it, wheres their entitlement? Also that right, takes the right away from other people.

[trivas7]

Property rights are a contradiction, start at land, first of all, the defence I always here, is if a guy works on the land, its his, but then what happens if someone else works on it? What about when he stops working on it? What if he hires people to work on it, wheres their entitlement? Also that right, takes the right away from other people.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Property, like the idea of rights itself, is an historically mediated abstraction. Is this what you're saying?

[RGacky3]

Property, like the idea of rights itself, is an historically mediated abstraction. Is this what you're saying?

No what I'm saying is the concept of property rights, unlike other rights like the right to life and free speach, ends up contradicting itself.