Managers are not the problem, owners are. You can call the capitalist class the "state" class, but it's a funny way of looking at it.
If workers control/own the means of their own labour, then it would be in their interests to submit to useful authority. But the entrepeneur must remain merely another worker - albeit one who may receive a higher market price for her more valuable labour - in order that a return to capitalism not occur.
Look I have read it all and can say this. You can call it Agorist or Marxis and it's still allow comunisim. The original constitution which hasn't been in use sence the late 1800s made all classes one by veiwing Sovereignty vested in the people.Your all compairing Marxism to the peace of crap democracy that is jamed down the republic gulit.I bet you don't even know there are two Constitutions do you?I am positive your lost on these topics.I can help but are you willing to learn?
And sorry to take up so much space but one more thing. The word bourgeois (boujwa) is singular what you should have said is bourgeoisie (boujwasy) indecently (though I get the impression that you have everyone telling you to read stuff) have you read The Power Elite by C Wright Mills I think you might dig it
These divide capitalist and worker the key to understanding Marxs idea of why communism should overtake capitalism isnt in thinking about conflicts of slave and master thats from history but from understanding the collective nature of production as opposed to the private ownership of the means of production and the private appropriation of the product of collective production
And before Marxists go threatening to kill me no the concept of instrumental rationality wasnt Marxs it was Webers
So where we have a wide array of possibilities for action that dont necessarily mesh with usual class stereotypes subjective understanding of class is detached from objective conditions compound this with advanced capitalism that requires highly evolved divisions of labour and we have a class structure that M and E appeared to miss BUT due to the fundamental nature of capitalism the objective conditions remain alienation of labour commodity fetishism and Instrumental rationality
What this opens is a space of ambiguity or ambivalence on the part of people as they confront their subjective understanding of their material world which is conceived of subjectively and therefore prepackaged to a degree (culturally) and so people will live with what they have in their head reorganising their life in response to objective conditions based on their cultural idioms so if they are confronted with a class structure they will deal with that in a culturally specific way
Sure Marx was writing for his time a time in which the class structure wasnt nearly as complex as it is today but he did see the beginnings of it and proposed the differentiation between manual and intellectual labour to begin to deal with essentially class can take two forms one has an objective relation to production regardless of their job and they have a subjective understanding of their place in the world and so conceptualise of their class so sorry there is such limited space here
Just a few things Marx and Engels writing has to be understood as theory polemic and propaganda and as such has to be read carefully to avoid lapsing into crude or crass Marxism kinda what you accused them of the class structures presenter in the MCP are propaganda directed for political purposes yet fundamentally they are valid but you need to read other stuff to get a better grip on it like Capital fore one or for three rather but Marx does make a finer grained account of class structure
Well, I may not be familiar with the exact circumstances you are pointing out in your first two examples (and please enlighten me if I get them wrong), but:
Medieval Iceland? You do realize the Allthing is a power structure, right?
Irish fiefdoms? Isn't a fiefdom a local principality ruled by a feudal lord?
It is irrelevent who won the war. Anarcho-syndicalism prevailed there for a brief period of time (about three years I believe) and it collapsed because it had NO power to defend against its attackers. It would have collapsed regardless before long because anarcho-socialism cannot keep up with markets.
The fiefdoms, if I'm not mistaken, were run collectively with a chosen "leader" of the group, ie it wasn't a rulership situation like democratic government. It wasn't completely anarchic but close
"Anarcho-syndicalism...collapsed because it had NO power to defend against its attackers. It would have collapsed regardless before long because anarcho-socialism cannot keep up with markets."
Anarchist Catalonia collapsed not due to internal economic problems, neither had it fallen victims to the oeconomic calculation problem ; but by MILITARY AGRESSIONS.
I attend Anthropology Class and know that many African aborigines live in EGALITARIAN communities before succubed to Western colonizers.
The Allthing was certainly a power structure - though hardly recognizable as such in comparison to the huge leviathans we see in today's world, as the Allthing had a sum total of one single employee - and at that, he was extremely part-time, and he himself did not exert any power. He was the Lawspeaker.
True enough, but they could get away without because their society was so small. The bigger a society becomes the bigger are the institutions needed to control it, and the bigger an institution is the more full-time employees it needs.
In addition, government officials are not free riders. Like entrepreneurs they perform an important function in society: they organize and direct people's efforts. Like everyone else they may not always perform their jobs well. In fact, they perform poorly much more often than people in jobs without power since their power provides them with insulation from punishment for their incompetence. That is why, as I said, we need a system of interlocking powers who can punish one another.
So let me get this straight: The goal of agorism is to grow eventually grow the agora so large that it can "suppress the state like any other criminal activity"? Doesn't that mean that the agora itself then becomes the state?
I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, since I haven't read the theory. But any social plan which calls for abolishing the government and replacing it with some other institution falls victim to one huge problem: yesterday's revolutionary is tomorrow's dictator.
It is power itself which corrupts people, which is why we need a system of balanced powers to keep one another in check, much like the government set up by the constitution.
Having no power at all is simply not an option. A simple look at game theory shows why: any group of independent entities who all agree to cooperate without any enforcement mechanism will be vulnerable to cheaters and selfish free riders. Society is a group of cooperating humans; therefore it cannot exist without an enforcement mechanism.
Agorism has no "ruler", and can't have a ruler. The agora is the aggregate of voluntary human action, which is entirely different from, for example, a single revolutionary leader like Mao or Stalin taking power.
In that case agorism is a fantasy with absolutely zero chance of ever coming to pass. Without power- not necessarily a single ruler, but some form of authority- groups cannot take action for the common good. They cannot punish criminals, defend themselves against other groups, or regulate common resources. In short, a group without a centralized decision-making apparatus cannot survive. We can never have a world without power. The best we can do is make sure power remains limited.
I've read a lot --for over 30 years now and have not come about a good model for agorist thought to be realized. I like libertarian socialism but again the transition might kill the end in sight. I think we are stuck with republican federated democracy or polyarchy we have today. We can try to add some socialism to this with more "new deals" and shit but tell me has lib. soc. or anything like it ever worked in history? why not? Human nature just might be that shitty, brother.
Interesting idea, I'll check it out, but it doesn't sound like a radical departure from Marxist class analysis, which is essentially a dichotomy between a producer class and a parasite class.
Where Marx was wrong was in his prediction that state capitalism would push industrial societies towards increasing polarisation with the bourgeousie becoming smaller in number in relation to the proletariat as capital is accumulated and consilidated into fewer hands via state-enforced monopolies. On a side note; I would have thought it is obvious why economic exploitation is incompatable with liberty.
It's not that "Running a factory doesn't run work," it's that "the work of running a factory, and the goods produced by that factory should be done by the people who create the goods produced by that factory." There is no need for bourgeois folks in society, only proletariat. Therefore, letting these people take advantage of the masses is probably wrong.
Bosses do not produce value. Workers have no common interest with their bosses full stop.
A factory does not need a parasitic owner to function. There have been several examples in history where workers have taken over their factories (or workplaces), and ran production themselves for human need without bosses.
One of the most famous examples is May 68 in France - largest general strike in history. Workers occupied their factories and formed workers' councils.
You mean there would be no police to shut the people down? Maybe. In my mind. All assets should be equal democratically managed. Until this is not the case, you always have someone with more power, is able to suppress others, and therefore a class society. (I will read Agorism)
@Jimisonjons Fully agreed. I've had plenty of jobs where bosses could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change. In my experience, they often make my life harder rather than easier. It's conventional in-the-box thinking at the expense of more intelligent people. Office Space lampooned this marvelously.
The French classical liberals came up with class theory long before Marx. German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer also presents class analysis in his The State. I haven't yet read up on agorist class theory, but wonder, how does it (and does it) differ from pre-Marxist liberal class analysis? Does agorist class theory provide anything new?
Nice video. I found that PDF a week ago and knew that I was an agorist. Except that I believe one should seek to be as "legal" as possible. For example, we are literally not liable to pay income tax. If you learn how this works you don't need to perjure yourself on a tax return.
Being an Agorist, I think you gave a very honest and apt explanation of Agorist class theory - despite that PDF being horribly written. I would recommend reading Neil Schulmans 'Alongside Night' if anyone is interested in finding out how proposed counter-economic actions could work. Consistently good work XOmniverse.
but the tree and car itself is tangible, a general theory about trees or cars is not. the money and resources that someone possesses is tangible, but claiming they belong to some imaginary group known as the "class" is an abstraction. even the status or power one might have because of their "class" is abstract.
aaa dude, yeah my boss who keeps watch over me through that cam hooked over there, the same boss that sits all day long trying to figure out ways to hide his profits from taxation... ohh you say we are class mates? Well screw you both...
Typical col.stud having read a thing or two, self-pumped up to levitational degree... First of all I wouldn't bother to comment on your piece, had I known that you were capable of comming up with a the facist motto 'accept or leave'!
Zamazalotta, methinks you're confusing similar yet distinct concepts. If I come into your house, I have no right to burn your TV and paintings. You have the right to demand I leave if I do not accept your rules, for if you didn't, you could not be said to truly own the products of your labour. The state cannot make a similar demand of you because it does not have any just ownership of the land it controls. It's not fascist of you to demand I leave your property, whereas it is for the state to.
My response was to the this wiseass's comment which went like "Also, if you don't like your job, quit!". I believe this suggestion is fascist. Simply because we all know how a factory or a profiting workplace is build and the pure exploitation in its existence. So comparing a workplace with a house is simply childish. I also would like to remind you that the wiseass still has not suggested neither a way to avoid taxation for us wage workers nor what we are supposed to do after quiting our jobs
Let me also tell you that those are not 'his' profits, as i formerly explained to you the 'work' he does. And would you kindly enlighten us about the methods of tax hiding for wage workers?
XOmniverse, in zamazalotta's defence, I do believe it's somewhat difficult for wage-earner to hide their money from the exploitative state, which has the power to withhold income taxes. Most employees aren't paid under the table. (This doesn't mean I agree with zamazalotta's implication that it's somehow bad for the employer to avoid taxes, of course.)
I think the difference between your point of view and a Communist is divided two ways: First, they have a problem translating "risk" into the concept of "labor". Second, the more money you make the more is possible to make, and the reverse. So, the power of money builds on itself in specific individuals. The one who controls law and order is the one with power. Communists don't have thier own problems figured out yet though, which are larger than the valid ones they point out.
The word bourgeoisie comes from the term "burg", meant to refer to cities. The term originally refered to the middle class that developed in the European medieval cities, and was a derogitory term used by agrarians. Simply put, the middle class IS the burgeoisie. The average worker in the modern age IS the burgeoisie. The entire proletarien/burgeoisie dychotomy is based on a luddite sentiment.
WTF was "Marx's theory"? Most of what he wrote was about capitalism - most of which is correct. Lenin, Mao etc. just drew there inspiration from his writings and devised their own theories as the best way for the proletarians to emancipate themselves. There is such thing as Libertarian Marxism - quite different from the "Marxism" put into practice in Russia and China.
And yes, wage labour is bad, it denies the right of workers to self-manage and thus have more control over their productive lives. We only need more workers to realize this and no-one will really care what Libertarians/Objectevists think.
You're obfuscating reality by falling back on the long since refuted labor theory of value. Practically EVERYONE, including capitalists, is a worker. Furthermore, what if I WANT to be a wage-worker. Who are you to stop me?
"Practically EVERYONE, including capitalists, is a worker."
Yes capitalists "work", but the distinction is made between owners of capital and labour. Capital is exploitive over labour. I'm not falling back on the labour theory of value at all.
"Property is theft" - the fruits of the worker's labour are taken by the capitalist, capital made and employed to meet THEIR interests. This is how people are used by the system instead of running the system. These are very basic reasons why we oppose capitalism. Btw, who are you to stop us if we DON'T want to be wage-workers?
Again, this is childish dogma, no better than believing in Santa Clause. Profit does not derive from simply taking a chunk of your labor; anyone with the slightest understanding of economics knows better. You avoided the point: if I want to be a wage-worker, will you let me, or will you coerce me into your commune or co-operative or whatever? If I am not free to be a wage-worker, then it is actually you who is not an anarchist, as you're advocating what amounts to a state.
As for you not wanting to be a wage-worker, actually under market anarchism you are perfectly free to simply not take a job, or quit your job; I.E. you can not be a wage-worker all you want. You are even perfectly free to go voluntarily form a democratically run firm or a commune. What you are not free to do is force anyone else to do likewise. Unfortunately, your ideology does not extent the same curteosy towards those who have different desires than you.
Konkin nailed the class dilemma. I maintain that worker/owner distinctions stem from bogus interpretations of reality, since one can become the other at any time, and one individual is often both simultaneously, and a "classless" society in terms of economic equality is impossible without a ruling class, defeating the purpose.
That's a good point, that people are both workers and capitalists at once or interchangably. A capitalist is to an extent also a consumer, and a worker can be considered to some extent a capitalist. Both are producers so long as they do not seek privilege from the state.
The underground economy in the U.S. is over $1 trillion. It doesn't seem to have any effect on reducing the size of the state. The "counter economy" strategy doesn't make sense to me.
Are you certain? It is draining the resources of the state quite effectively in their futile attempts to suppress and control it. And there efforts are exposing them for what they are. Do you know many people who actually BELIEVE that government has our best interests at heart in light of the war on drugs and similar "underground" activities that they so ludicrously support via enforcement? Even the DEA maintains their idea that "victory" is reflected in rising drug prices.
Both workers and capitalists can fall under either class. Those buisinessmen who beg at the troth of the state are part of the ruling class, while those who maintain independance from the state are not. On the other hand, the same goes for workers. Union or labor groups that beg at the troth of the state are trying to get a piece of the pie of the ruling class as well. Everyone else are subjects and represent "social power".
Libertarian and Agorist Class theory corrects the mistakes of Marx while correctly identifying the role of the state in "class struggles". The two basic classes is (1) those within the state and those who ally with the state for special privileges, who constitute the ruling class or political class (2) those who are subjects of the given state.
Actually, some so-called "proletariens" are outside of the producing class since they are dependant on the state for special privileges. A welfare recipient is most certainly not a producer, and is functioning precisely as a parasite on producers.
Wow, you're appealing to a failed ideology like it's your religion. Bourgeoisie/proletariat is a false dichotomy, and that's even if we go with your apparent assumption that ownership doesn't entail labor.
Trystan: your own ideology, wether your admit it or not, advocates ownership. Specifically, you support worker and collective ownership. To accuse other's ownership of being inherently "exploitive", while effectively advocating mass-expropriation and transferance of ownership to a specific group, is disingenuous.
No, it advocates doing away with private property owned by a minority so they can exploit the majority. "Ownership" by the community/workers? Perhaps, however, democratic management and ownership by the community does not entail exploitation by one class over the other (this is classlessnes btw, it wouldn't be "owned" by a "specific group").
You're relying on Marx's fallicious class analysis. In reality, virtually EVERYONE owns private property. And yes, forced democratic management inherently entails "exploitation" of whoever isn't in the "majority". That's the problem with democracy. The difference between you and me is that I support your right to VOLUNTARILY form such an association, while you wish to FORCE it on everyone else and do not likewise respect their right to VOLUNTARILY form their own heirarchal associations.
"Private property" I mean private ownership of the means of production. Who wouldn't be the "majority" in a classless society? Who would democratic control "exploit"? And no, I don't wish to force people into such associations, I am a anarchist because I want people to be able to choose.
In a Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society would I be able to choose? No, I'd be compelled to sell myself on the market like I am in this society where supposedly capitalists also count as an "oppressed class", lol. Btw Marx's analysis if far superiour than your/the libertarian class analysis which is just way oversimplified Libertarian nonsense.
Also, in this Libertarian utopia that free markets are supposed to create (btw is that theory not the biggest crock of shit EVER?), people will be even more exploited than now, 19th century style. Thankfully it will never be implemented as the free market has always required government regulation (that, and nobody will stand for it, no matter how much the Ayn Rand fanboys argue for it and go all butthurts over taxes).
Libertarians should try to look past those evil taxes for a change and take a look at the bigger picture. Read a real political philosopher like Marx or Antonio Gramsci, instead of Ayn Rand.
Socialists should learn basic facts about human nature that should be obvious, drop the utopian and illogical ideas of propagandists, and read a real politial philosopher from the same period such as Herbert Spencer or Lysander Spooner, instead of people who have long since been discredited such as Karl Marx.
Disingenuous arguement. As socialists usually do, you use a mixed-economy system as an example of a free market, conflating two entirely different things. The 19th century system was not a free market, it had protectionist and mercantalistic tendencies. The type of society that market anarchists advocate is an entirely different one. We are opposed to all government regulation, indeed, the entire point of a free market is to NOT have regulation.
Yeah, but the point is . . . there is no evidence to suggest that workers rights won't be as bad as they were in the 19th century under market "anarchism" (unless you blame child labour and 16 hour days on the mixed economy as well?). Moreso, there is no evidence that market anarchism could work. There is evidence that social anarchism could work, but not market anarchism.
actually, their is a lot of evidence in favor of market anarchism. Look at the histories of Iceland, Pennsylvania, Ireland prior to it's final conquest by the brits and a number of others in the interregnum before somebody convinced them to give up their liberty. It worked quite well. But it was never done deliberately, and thus left an intellectual vacuum for thieves to fill.
Yes, indeed, TrystanCJ, you would have to work for a living rather than mooching. Terrible, I know... but any other way is tyranny. AND YOU KNOW IT. Argue something real.
You are entitled to nothing that you did not acquire voluntarily. If that's a "failed ideology," I don't think your thirst for plunder can be quenched.
Managers are not the problem, owners are. You can call the capitalist class the "state" class, but it's a funny way of looking at it.
If workers control/own the means of their own labour, then it would be in their interests to submit to useful authority. But the entrepeneur must remain merely another worker - albeit one who may receive a higher market price for her more valuable labour - in order that a return to capitalism not occur.
scepticthinktank 6 months ago
Change your fire alarm battery. kthxbai!
johnnymo87 1 year ago 2
you should make more videos
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
You don't "try" a theory. A theory is meant to explain things.
DonJack1776 2 years ago
Look I have read it all and can say this. You can call it Agorist or Marxis and it's still allow comunisim. The original constitution which hasn't been in use sence the late 1800s made all classes one by veiwing Sovereignty vested in the people.Your all compairing Marxism to the peace of crap democracy that is jamed down the republic gulit.I bet you don't even know there are two Constitutions do you?I am positive your lost on these topics.I can help but are you willing to learn?
Edgrot 2 years ago
And sorry to take up so much space but one more thing. The word bourgeois (boujwa) is singular what you should have said is bourgeoisie (boujwasy) indecently (though I get the impression that you have everyone telling you to read stuff) have you read The Power Elite by C Wright Mills I think you might dig it
foiran 2 years ago
These divide capitalist and worker the key to understanding Marxs idea of why communism should overtake capitalism isnt in thinking about conflicts of slave and master thats from history but from understanding the collective nature of production as opposed to the private ownership of the means of production and the private appropriation of the product of collective production
And before Marxists go threatening to kill me no the concept of instrumental rationality wasnt Marxs it was Webers
foiran 2 years ago
So where we have a wide array of possibilities for action that dont necessarily mesh with usual class stereotypes subjective understanding of class is detached from objective conditions compound this with advanced capitalism that requires highly evolved divisions of labour and we have a class structure that M and E appeared to miss BUT due to the fundamental nature of capitalism the objective conditions remain alienation of labour commodity fetishism and Instrumental rationality
foiran 2 years ago
What this opens is a space of ambiguity or ambivalence on the part of people as they confront their subjective understanding of their material world which is conceived of subjectively and therefore prepackaged to a degree (culturally) and so people will live with what they have in their head reorganising their life in response to objective conditions based on their cultural idioms so if they are confronted with a class structure they will deal with that in a culturally specific way
foiran 2 years ago
Sure Marx was writing for his time a time in which the class structure wasnt nearly as complex as it is today but he did see the beginnings of it and proposed the differentiation between manual and intellectual labour to begin to deal with essentially class can take two forms one has an objective relation to production regardless of their job and they have a subjective understanding of their place in the world and so conceptualise of their class so sorry there is such limited space here
foiran 2 years ago
Just a few things Marx and Engels writing has to be understood as theory polemic and propaganda and as such has to be read carefully to avoid lapsing into crude or crass Marxism kinda what you accused them of the class structures presenter in the MCP are propaganda directed for political purposes yet fundamentally they are valid but you need to read other stuff to get a better grip on it like Capital fore one or for three rather but Marx does make a finer grained account of class structure
foiran 2 years ago
Good vid. I agree completely there are only two classes, ruling class vs non ruling class. The looter class does not produce anything. *nods*
demonique666 3 years ago
Well, I may not be familiar with the exact circumstances you are pointing out in your first two examples (and please enlighten me if I get them wrong), but:
Medieval Iceland? You do realize the Allthing is a power structure, right?
Irish fiefdoms? Isn't a fiefdom a local principality ruled by a feudal lord?
But I am familiar with your last example:
1930's Spain?
Remind me again, who won that war?
Oh yeah, that's right.
Franco did.
Arfalarf 3 years ago
It is irrelevent who won the war. Anarcho-syndicalism prevailed there for a brief period of time (about three years I believe) and it collapsed because it had NO power to defend against its attackers. It would have collapsed regardless before long because anarcho-socialism cannot keep up with markets.
The fiefdoms, if I'm not mistaken, were run collectively with a chosen "leader" of the group, ie it wasn't a rulership situation like democratic government. It wasn't completely anarchic but close
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
"Anarcho-syndicalism...collapsed because it had NO power to defend against its attackers. It would have collapsed regardless before long because anarcho-socialism cannot keep up with markets."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Arfalarf 3 years ago
Anarchist Catalonia collapsed not due to internal economic problems, neither had it fallen victims to the oeconomic calculation problem ; but by MILITARY AGRESSIONS.
I attend Anthropology Class and know that many African aborigines live in EGALITARIAN communities before succubed to Western colonizers.
You but attack strawman!
DonKhoi 2 years ago
The Allthing was certainly a power structure - though hardly recognizable as such in comparison to the huge leviathans we see in today's world, as the Allthing had a sum total of one single employee - and at that, he was extremely part-time, and he himself did not exert any power. He was the Lawspeaker.
LibertyServer 2 years ago
True enough, but they could get away without because their society was so small. The bigger a society becomes the bigger are the institutions needed to control it, and the bigger an institution is the more full-time employees it needs.
Arfalarf 2 years ago
In addition, government officials are not free riders. Like entrepreneurs they perform an important function in society: they organize and direct people's efforts. Like everyone else they may not always perform their jobs well. In fact, they perform poorly much more often than people in jobs without power since their power provides them with insulation from punishment for their incompetence. That is why, as I said, we need a system of interlocking powers who can punish one another.
Arfalarf 3 years ago
So let me get this straight: The goal of agorism is to grow eventually grow the agora so large that it can "suppress the state like any other criminal activity"? Doesn't that mean that the agora itself then becomes the state?
I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, since I haven't read the theory. But any social plan which calls for abolishing the government and replacing it with some other institution falls victim to one huge problem: yesterday's revolutionary is tomorrow's dictator.
Arfalarf 3 years ago
It is power itself which corrupts people, which is why we need a system of balanced powers to keep one another in check, much like the government set up by the constitution.
Arfalarf 3 years ago
Having no power at all is simply not an option. A simple look at game theory shows why: any group of independent entities who all agree to cooperate without any enforcement mechanism will be vulnerable to cheaters and selfish free riders. Society is a group of cooperating humans; therefore it cannot exist without an enforcement mechanism.
Arfalarf 3 years ago
Agorism has no "ruler", and can't have a ruler. The agora is the aggregate of voluntary human action, which is entirely different from, for example, a single revolutionary leader like Mao or Stalin taking power.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
In that case agorism is a fantasy with absolutely zero chance of ever coming to pass. Without power- not necessarily a single ruler, but some form of authority- groups cannot take action for the common good. They cannot punish criminals, defend themselves against other groups, or regulate common resources. In short, a group without a centralized decision-making apparatus cannot survive. We can never have a world without power. The best we can do is make sure power remains limited.
Arfalarf 3 years ago
"Without power- not necessarily a single ruler, but some form of authority- groups cannot take action for the common good."
^I guess you never heard of medieval Iceland, the Irish fiefdoms, and 1930s Spain.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
exploitation is not inherently wrong? can you explain please?
fede2 3 years ago
I've read a lot --for over 30 years now and have not come about a good model for agorist thought to be realized. I like libertarian socialism but again the transition might kill the end in sight. I think we are stuck with republican federated democracy or polyarchy we have today. We can try to add some socialism to this with more "new deals" and shit but tell me has lib. soc. or anything like it ever worked in history? why not? Human nature just might be that shitty, brother.
teaparty111 3 years ago
Interesting idea, I'll check it out, but it doesn't sound like a radical departure from Marxist class analysis, which is essentially a dichotomy between a producer class and a parasite class.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
Where Marx was wrong was in his prediction that state capitalism would push industrial societies towards increasing polarisation with the bourgeousie becoming smaller in number in relation to the proletariat as capital is accumulated and consilidated into fewer hands via state-enforced monopolies. On a side note; I would have thought it is obvious why economic exploitation is incompatable with liberty.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
Yo xomniverse! Nice vid, gave me some new ideas!
Keep them coming.
T850CSM101a1676 3 years ago
It's not that "Running a factory doesn't run work," it's that "the work of running a factory, and the goods produced by that factory should be done by the people who create the goods produced by that factory." There is no need for bourgeois folks in society, only proletariat. Therefore, letting these people take advantage of the masses is probably wrong.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
Bosses do not produce value. Workers have no common interest with their bosses full stop.
A factory does not need a parasitic owner to function. There have been several examples in history where workers have taken over their factories (or workplaces), and ran production themselves for human need without bosses.
One of the most famous examples is May 68 in France - largest general strike in history. Workers occupied their factories and formed workers' councils.
Jimisonjons 3 years ago
And in a free society, you'd have the opportunity to run a factory in such a way.
XOmniverse 3 years ago 5
You mean there would be no police to shut the people down? Maybe. In my mind. All assets should be equal democratically managed. Until this is not the case, you always have someone with more power, is able to suppress others, and therefore a class society. (I will read Agorism)
kaufmann789 3 years ago
@Jimisonjons Fully agreed. I've had plenty of jobs where bosses could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change. In my experience, they often make my life harder rather than easier. It's conventional in-the-box thinking at the expense of more intelligent people. Office Space lampooned this marvelously.
Antiks72 1 year ago
Good summaries. Thanks for posting this.I wasn't aware of these theories. Agorism is definitely interesting. I'm studying it now.
luckyday24 3 years ago
The French classical liberals came up with class theory long before Marx. German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer also presents class analysis in his The State. I haven't yet read up on agorist class theory, but wonder, how does it (and does it) differ from pre-Marxist liberal class analysis? Does agorist class theory provide anything new?
allixpeeke 3 years ago
Not familiar enough with pre-Marx class theory to answer that, honestly.
Agorist class theory seems true though, and that's what is more important.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Nice video. I found that PDF a week ago and knew that I was an agorist. Except that I believe one should seek to be as "legal" as possible. For example, we are literally not liable to pay income tax. If you learn how this works you don't need to perjure yourself on a tax return.
PeaceEternal 4 years ago
Being an Agorist, I think you gave a very honest and apt explanation of Agorist class theory - despite that PDF being horribly written. I would recommend reading Neil Schulmans 'Alongside Night' if anyone is interested in finding out how proposed counter-economic actions could work. Consistently good work XOmniverse.
RiotersBlock 4 years ago
its funny watching people debate about "class"...trying to understand the most tangible things in entirely abstract ways.
sheepblitzer 4 years ago
All forms of human understanding are based on abstraction. "Tree" and "car" are abstractions.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
but the tree and car itself is tangible, a general theory about trees or cars is not. the money and resources that someone possesses is tangible, but claiming they belong to some imaginary group known as the "class" is an abstraction. even the status or power one might have because of their "class" is abstract.
sheepblitzer 4 years ago
aaa dude, yeah my boss who keeps watch over me through that cam hooked over there, the same boss that sits all day long trying to figure out ways to hide his profits from taxation... ohh you say we are class mates? Well screw you both...
zamazalotta 4 years ago
Instead of getting mad at him from trying to hide his profits from taxation, you should be trying to do the same.
Also, if you don't like your job, quit! Seriously.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Typical col.stud having read a thing or two, self-pumped up to levitational degree... First of all I wouldn't bother to comment on your piece, had I known that you were capable of comming up with a the facist motto 'accept or leave'!
zamazalotta 4 years ago
Zamazalotta, methinks you're confusing similar yet distinct concepts. If I come into your house, I have no right to burn your TV and paintings. You have the right to demand I leave if I do not accept your rules, for if you didn't, you could not be said to truly own the products of your labour. The state cannot make a similar demand of you because it does not have any just ownership of the land it controls. It's not fascist of you to demand I leave your property, whereas it is for the state to.
allixpeeke 3 years ago
My response was to the this wiseass's comment which went like "Also, if you don't like your job, quit!". I believe this suggestion is fascist. Simply because we all know how a factory or a profiting workplace is build and the pure exploitation in its existence. So comparing a workplace with a house is simply childish. I also would like to remind you that the wiseass still has not suggested neither a way to avoid taxation for us wage workers nor what we are supposed to do after quiting our jobs
zamazalotta 3 years ago
Let me also tell you that those are not 'his' profits, as i formerly explained to you the 'work' he does. And would you kindly enlighten us about the methods of tax hiding for wage workers?
zamazalotta 4 years ago
Not being a wage worker.
(Yes, this is something you can actually do. I'm not just being a smartass.)
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Get the fuck out of my face you pig
zamazalotta 4 years ago
Well that was awfully uncivil.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Take all that civilization of yours and stick it up your butt (yeah 'butt' is way civil than 'ass', you posing hypocrite).
zamazalotta 4 years ago
Ooh someone is disturbed.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
XOmniverse, in zamazalotta's defence, I do believe it's somewhat difficult for wage-earner to hide their money from the exploitative state, which has the power to withhold income taxes. Most employees aren't paid under the table. (This doesn't mean I agree with zamazalotta's implication that it's somehow bad for the employer to avoid taxes, of course.)
allixpeeke 3 years ago
I agree it is more difficult. But the fundamental premise (that if some people suffer an injustice, then everyone should have to) makes no sense.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Where did you do so?
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I think the difference between your point of view and a Communist is divided two ways: First, they have a problem translating "risk" into the concept of "labor". Second, the more money you make the more is possible to make, and the reverse. So, the power of money builds on itself in specific individuals. The one who controls law and order is the one with power. Communists don't have thier own problems figured out yet though, which are larger than the valid ones they point out.
wolfwolfwolf1979 4 years ago
Agorist Class Theory is a great document. It has absolutely nothing to do with communism. This buddhagem guy is a whackpot.
Franc28 4 years ago
Whackpot indeed. Noone in their right mind in the modern world actually believes in Marx's class analysis. Not even most self-proclaimed socialists.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
Your smoke-alarm is still beeping!please change the battery as I would not like you to burn in a fire!
In8observer 4 years ago
m-w(dot)com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bourgeoisie
EntertainedWatcher 4 years ago
The word bourgeoisie comes from the term "burg", meant to refer to cities. The term originally refered to the middle class that developed in the European medieval cities, and was a derogitory term used by agrarians. Simply put, the middle class IS the burgeoisie. The average worker in the modern age IS the burgeoisie. The entire proletarien/burgeoisie dychotomy is based on a luddite sentiment.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
change your fire detector battery
Durgeofcerberus 4 years ago
"Marx's theory has failed . . ."
WTF was "Marx's theory"? Most of what he wrote was about capitalism - most of which is correct. Lenin, Mao etc. just drew there inspiration from his writings and devised their own theories as the best way for the proletarians to emancipate themselves. There is such thing as Libertarian Marxism - quite different from the "Marxism" put into practice in Russia and China.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
And yes, wage labour is bad, it denies the right of workers to self-manage and thus have more control over their productive lives. We only need more workers to realize this and no-one will really care what Libertarians/Objectevists think.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
You're obfuscating reality by falling back on the long since refuted labor theory of value. Practically EVERYONE, including capitalists, is a worker. Furthermore, what if I WANT to be a wage-worker. Who are you to stop me?
brainpolice2 4 years ago
"Practically EVERYONE, including capitalists, is a worker."
Yes capitalists "work", but the distinction is made between owners of capital and labour. Capital is exploitive over labour. I'm not falling back on the labour theory of value at all.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
"Property is theft" - the fruits of the worker's labour are taken by the capitalist, capital made and employed to meet THEIR interests. This is how people are used by the system instead of running the system. These are very basic reasons why we oppose capitalism. Btw, who are you to stop us if we DON'T want to be wage-workers?
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Again, this is childish dogma, no better than believing in Santa Clause. Profit does not derive from simply taking a chunk of your labor; anyone with the slightest understanding of economics knows better. You avoided the point: if I want to be a wage-worker, will you let me, or will you coerce me into your commune or co-operative or whatever? If I am not free to be a wage-worker, then it is actually you who is not an anarchist, as you're advocating what amounts to a state.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
As for you not wanting to be a wage-worker, actually under market anarchism you are perfectly free to simply not take a job, or quit your job; I.E. you can not be a wage-worker all you want. You are even perfectly free to go voluntarily form a democratically run firm or a commune. What you are not free to do is force anyone else to do likewise. Unfortunately, your ideology does not extent the same curteosy towards those who have different desires than you.
brainpolice2 4 years ago 2
"You are even perfectly free to go voluntarily form a democratically run firm or a commune. "
OK.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Please state the theory that backs this argument up.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Then what are you falling back on?
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Too bad they don't seem to give a damn what commies think either.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
5 stars
ProudAmerican8 4 years ago
Konkin nailed the class dilemma. I maintain that worker/owner distinctions stem from bogus interpretations of reality, since one can become the other at any time, and one individual is often both simultaneously, and a "classless" society in terms of economic equality is impossible without a ruling class, defeating the purpose.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
That's a good point, that people are both workers and capitalists at once or interchangably. A capitalist is to an extent also a consumer, and a worker can be considered to some extent a capitalist. Both are producers so long as they do not seek privilege from the state.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
The underground economy in the U.S. is over $1 trillion. It doesn't seem to have any effect on reducing the size of the state. The "counter economy" strategy doesn't make sense to me.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
Are you certain? It is draining the resources of the state quite effectively in their futile attempts to suppress and control it. And there efforts are exposing them for what they are. Do you know many people who actually BELIEVE that government has our best interests at heart in light of the war on drugs and similar "underground" activities that they so ludicrously support via enforcement? Even the DEA maintains their idea that "victory" is reflected in rising drug prices.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
Both workers and capitalists can fall under either class. Those buisinessmen who beg at the troth of the state are part of the ruling class, while those who maintain independance from the state are not. On the other hand, the same goes for workers. Union or labor groups that beg at the troth of the state are trying to get a piece of the pie of the ruling class as well. Everyone else are subjects and represent "social power".
brainpolice2 4 years ago 2
Libertarian and Agorist Class theory corrects the mistakes of Marx while correctly identifying the role of the state in "class struggles". The two basic classes is (1) those within the state and those who ally with the state for special privileges, who constitute the ruling class or political class (2) those who are subjects of the given state.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
Most capitalists (including the ones that supposedly support libertarianism) fall under class number (1), proletarians come under class number (2).
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Actually, some so-called "proletariens" are outside of the producing class since they are dependant on the state for special privileges. A welfare recipient is most certainly not a producer, and is functioning precisely as a parasite on producers.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
Wow, you're appealing to a failed ideology like it's your religion. Bourgeoisie/proletariat is a false dichotomy, and that's even if we go with your apparent assumption that ownership doesn't entail labor.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Ownership entails exploitation. Btw, Capitalism also counts as a "failed ideology".
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Trystan: your own ideology, wether your admit it or not, advocates ownership. Specifically, you support worker and collective ownership. To accuse other's ownership of being inherently "exploitive", while effectively advocating mass-expropriation and transferance of ownership to a specific group, is disingenuous.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
No, it advocates doing away with private property owned by a minority so they can exploit the majority. "Ownership" by the community/workers? Perhaps, however, democratic management and ownership by the community does not entail exploitation by one class over the other (this is classlessnes btw, it wouldn't be "owned" by a "specific group").
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
You're relying on Marx's fallicious class analysis. In reality, virtually EVERYONE owns private property. And yes, forced democratic management inherently entails "exploitation" of whoever isn't in the "majority". That's the problem with democracy. The difference between you and me is that I support your right to VOLUNTARILY form such an association, while you wish to FORCE it on everyone else and do not likewise respect their right to VOLUNTARILY form their own heirarchal associations.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
"Private property" I mean private ownership of the means of production. Who wouldn't be the "majority" in a classless society? Who would democratic control "exploit"? And no, I don't wish to force people into such associations, I am a anarchist because I want people to be able to choose.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
In a Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society would I be able to choose? No, I'd be compelled to sell myself on the market like I am in this society where supposedly capitalists also count as an "oppressed class", lol. Btw Marx's analysis if far superiour than your/the libertarian class analysis which is just way oversimplified Libertarian nonsense.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Also, in this Libertarian utopia that free markets are supposed to create (btw is that theory not the biggest crock of shit EVER?), people will be even more exploited than now, 19th century style. Thankfully it will never be implemented as the free market has always required government regulation (that, and nobody will stand for it, no matter how much the Ayn Rand fanboys argue for it and go all butthurts over taxes).
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Libertarians should try to look past those evil taxes for a change and take a look at the bigger picture. Read a real political philosopher like Marx or Antonio Gramsci, instead of Ayn Rand.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Socialists should learn basic facts about human nature that should be obvious, drop the utopian and illogical ideas of propagandists, and read a real politial philosopher from the same period such as Herbert Spencer or Lysander Spooner, instead of people who have long since been discredited such as Karl Marx.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
"should learn basic facts about human nature"
Yes, desire for freedom, creativity, and autonomy? Do they count? Besides "human nature" is immersed ambiguity.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Disingenuous arguement. As socialists usually do, you use a mixed-economy system as an example of a free market, conflating two entirely different things. The 19th century system was not a free market, it had protectionist and mercantalistic tendencies. The type of society that market anarchists advocate is an entirely different one. We are opposed to all government regulation, indeed, the entire point of a free market is to NOT have regulation.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
Yeah, but the point is . . . there is no evidence to suggest that workers rights won't be as bad as they were in the 19th century under market "anarchism" (unless you blame child labour and 16 hour days on the mixed economy as well?). Moreso, there is no evidence that market anarchism could work. There is evidence that social anarchism could work, but not market anarchism.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
actually, their is a lot of evidence in favor of market anarchism. Look at the histories of Iceland, Pennsylvania, Ireland prior to it's final conquest by the brits and a number of others in the interregnum before somebody convinced them to give up their liberty. It worked quite well. But it was never done deliberately, and thus left an intellectual vacuum for thieves to fill.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
Yes, indeed, TrystanCJ, you would have to work for a living rather than mooching. Terrible, I know... but any other way is tyranny. AND YOU KNOW IT. Argue something real.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
Geez, Kropotkin was right when he said you people were just hopelessly conservative.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
You are entitled to nothing that you did not acquire voluntarily. If that's a "failed ideology," I don't think your thirst for plunder can be quenched.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 2
It's sounds interesting.
Maxicolly 4 years ago