@Ilikenuman No, because what he's talking about is "privatizing the state" which is essentially removing what little Democratic weaknesses the state now has and putting it entirely in the hands of private tyrannies.
@buddhagem ah right so people who are left with the largest amount of money can just buy shares and play the role of the state, sans the democratic part. Fair enough, good point.
Well one thing the state does is protect property rights (whetever thats supposed to mean). So these factory owners in a stateless society would have nobody protecting their legitimacy other than other workers (private security). So if conditions get so bad in this factory then he can be removed from his place.
In a moneyless/barterless system who are you going to sell your wares to. What are you going to buy. How does the market let you be free? By exploiting others for their labor?
If so, how are they then free?
There will always be war as long as there is classes of haves and have nots.
If the means of production are owned in common then who are you going to sell them to? There is no freedom for the individual to own means of production, under socialism. If somehow a means of production could be sold to an individual, that would be private ownership of the means of production - it would no longer be socialism.
If you converted your house to a means of production (let's say you started publishing your own newspaper) does that mean it should be expropriated from you and turned over to commmunity ownership? It's hard to understand why you oppose private property. If you cared about freedom you would want to protect the fruits of the individual's laborm whether it's a home, a machine, a factory, or whatever.
There are "three degrees" of property. The first is possession of things you need to live. The second is "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." The third is "that which occupies the most vigilant attention in the civilised states of Europe. It is a system, in whatever manner established, by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another man's industry."
"Disposing of the produce of another man's industry?" Is this talking about employment? If so, when a person works for someone else he is voluntarily trading his labor for something. If a person does not want the produce of his labor owned by someone else, then he is free to be self-employed. Someone who respects freedom has to allow the choice to do either.
For example, using my example above, let's say I put an ad in the newspaper asking someone to help print newsletters and offer pay for it. That person would not then own the newsletters, because he sold his labor. No one forced him to answer the ad. A free society has to allow private ownership of the MOP, employment, and self-employment.
For a market to be free, requires that people be allowed to buy and sell things. If you can't buy and sell means of production, then the market is not free. In socialism, trade in means of production is not allowed. It's not a free market system.
Who said you can't buy and sell the means of production? Actually with capitalists in a free market being unable to get food from renting out their capital for tiny profits, they're better off selling it.
If the means of production are owned in common then who are you going to sell them to? There is no freedom for the individual to own means of production, under socialism. If someone a means of production could be sold to an individual, that would be private ownership of the means of production - the negation of socialism.
The easiest way to make the state government is with the car analogy. The car itself is the state, the person driving it and deciding where it is headed are the government.
I don't know if that works. If that were the case, Allende got ran over by his own car? Maybe his carpool buddies kicked him out and ran him over? OK, I'm just being silly. I'll have to think about that one.
The state are the institutions and mechanisms that are used to enforce a government decision. Allende was not in control of all these state institutions, thus he was betrayed by the military. It is the most common example used in political science, accept it is an idealization.
The problem is that the state institutions are run by people and sometimes do not obey the government. The bureaucrats and military leaders do not act as an extension of government policy, but their own interpretation of it or rebel against it.
This has yet to be proven. Although I understand your point. And see my second post. I said that it was a theoretical abstraction. As long as state officials exist they have the capacity to act against the government.
i think that the best way to look at state and goverment is to look at a owner and dog relationship, the owner is in charge as long as the dog lets them.
that head is so shiny. do you oil it?
a18gregjockca 11 months ago
you say the state serves a purpose that no individual capitalist could... well doesnt that make Stefs point for him?
the state is a means to allow different firms and coops to cheat the system. remove the state and youre left with a fairer playing field.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman No, because what he's talking about is "privatizing the state" which is essentially removing what little Democratic weaknesses the state now has and putting it entirely in the hands of private tyrannies.
buddhagem 1 year ago
@buddhagem ah right so people who are left with the largest amount of money can just buy shares and play the role of the state, sans the democratic part. Fair enough, good point.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
Well one thing the state does is protect property rights (whetever thats supposed to mean). So these factory owners in a stateless society would have nobody protecting their legitimacy other than other workers (private security). So if conditions get so bad in this factory then he can be removed from his place.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
In a moneyless/barterless system who are you going to sell your wares to. What are you going to buy. How does the market let you be free? By exploiting others for their labor?
If so, how are they then free?
There will always be war as long as there is classes of haves and have nots.
kittiest34 3 years ago
basically what i got out of this video was, capitalism can not exist without a state because adam smith said so. thats it.
ProprietorOfSelf 4 years ago
If the means of production are owned in common then who are you going to sell them to? There is no freedom for the individual to own means of production, under socialism. If somehow a means of production could be sold to an individual, that would be private ownership of the means of production - it would no longer be socialism.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
If you converted your house to a means of production (let's say you started publishing your own newspaper) does that mean it should be expropriated from you and turned over to commmunity ownership? It's hard to understand why you oppose private property. If you cared about freedom you would want to protect the fruits of the individual's laborm whether it's a home, a machine, a factory, or whatever.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago 2
There are "three degrees" of property. The first is possession of things you need to live. The second is "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." The third is "that which occupies the most vigilant attention in the civilised states of Europe. It is a system, in whatever manner established, by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another man's industry."
dafatalgigabyte 4 years ago
I believe socialists fancy the second degree and despise the third. What do you think about it?
dafatalgigabyte 4 years ago
"Disposing of the produce of another man's industry?" Is this talking about employment? If so, when a person works for someone else he is voluntarily trading his labor for something. If a person does not want the produce of his labor owned by someone else, then he is free to be self-employed. Someone who respects freedom has to allow the choice to do either.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
For example, using my example above, let's say I put an ad in the newspaper asking someone to help print newsletters and offer pay for it. That person would not then own the newsletters, because he sold his labor. No one forced him to answer the ad. A free society has to allow private ownership of the MOP, employment, and self-employment.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
I never said socialists would put force upon the market. How typical of capitalists to claim a monopoly on the term "free market" where it isn't due.
dafatalgigabyte 4 years ago
For a market to be free, requires that people be allowed to buy and sell things. If you can't buy and sell means of production, then the market is not free. In socialism, trade in means of production is not allowed. It's not a free market system.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
Who said you can't buy and sell the means of production? Actually with capitalists in a free market being unable to get food from renting out their capital for tiny profits, they're better off selling it.
dafatalgigabyte 4 years ago
And repairing them too. I believe that's called actually working :D.
dafatalgigabyte 4 years ago
If the means of production are owned in common then who are you going to sell them to? There is no freedom for the individual to own means of production, under socialism. If someone a means of production could be sold to an individual, that would be private ownership of the means of production - the negation of socialism.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
The easiest way to make the state government is with the car analogy. The car itself is the state, the person driving it and deciding where it is headed are the government.
Questionablescum 4 years ago
I don't know if that works. If that were the case, Allende got ran over by his own car? Maybe his carpool buddies kicked him out and ran him over? OK, I'm just being silly. I'll have to think about that one.
buddhagem 4 years ago
The state are the institutions and mechanisms that are used to enforce a government decision. Allende was not in control of all these state institutions, thus he was betrayed by the military. It is the most common example used in political science, accept it is an idealization.
Questionablescum 4 years ago
The problem is that the state institutions are run by people and sometimes do not obey the government. The bureaucrats and military leaders do not act as an extension of government policy, but their own interpretation of it or rebel against it.
Questionablescum 4 years ago
Well JFK is another example. He started to change position on Cuba and was going to leave Vietnam. The state had him killed.
buddhagem 4 years ago
stefbot is an elitist...
ProudAmerican8 4 years ago
This has yet to be proven. Although I understand your point. And see my second post. I said that it was a theoretical abstraction. As long as state officials exist they have the capacity to act against the government.
Questionablescum 4 years ago
i think that the best way to look at state and goverment is to look at a owner and dog relationship, the owner is in charge as long as the dog lets them.
LibertarianSocialism 4 years ago
Utopian? Mr. Syndicalism actually uses the term "utopian" to describe free trade? Classic.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
He also decided to make a video mocking anarcho-capitalists for being a rarity. The irony!
Elhan2005 4 years ago
5 stars
ProudAmerican8 4 years ago