Part 3 - Capitalist Myths - Work for a Boss or Starve?

[heatbucspies55]

Very well explained. When peopel call working class peopel slaves, I usually don't even know where ot begin to tell them how ridiculous that is.

[jeffsandychelsea]

@RUIXXComics Completely controlling currency and interest rates isn't too far off from a centrally planned economy. Regulations are paid for be special interest groups to make it harder for competition to come along, either through licensing, new requirements (usually "grandfathering" existing entities), etc. Taxes are not only immoral, they create a topsy turvy society. Perhaps we WOULD have fewer roads and fire departments without forcing people to pay for them. Then, there would be far (cont)

[ProfMike789]

The fact that your beloved so-called "free market" obligates people to "voluntarily" decide to work for bosses else starve IS NO PROOF that they would not prefer working for themselves in a co-op, start a business, etc. You assume, like all capitalists, that labeling the market as free must make it so.

[jeffsandychelsea]

@ProfMike789 The alternative to the free market is a violent and coercive government that heavily regulates and fucks up an otherwise productive economy. It takes your money under threat of kidnapping, and then uses it for things you don't agree with (ex WAR). Socialism and communism ALWAYS end in disaster. Whereas a free market allowed the United States to become the economic superpower it once was. Unfortunately, cancerous government regulations have been strangling the market for decades now.

[RUIXXComics]

@jeffsandychelsea Taxation! In America, your money is taken from you, under threat of imprisonment, and used to

☑Wage imperialist wars

☑Imprison innocent people

☑Torture military prisoners

☑Bailout banks

Which clearly qualify as things that MANY people don't agree with. The economy isn't the problem. It's the failure of democracy. Whether the economy is communist or socialist or capitalist, it is going to end in disaster IF power is taken away from the people.

[jeffsandychelsea]

@RUIXXComics Yes, I know that. I never said the economy is the problem. Our economy in the US is far more socialist than anything else, with public roads/schools/etc. You're basically just agreeing with me, so I don't get what you're trying to do.

[RUIXXComics]

@jeffsandychelsea Well, I suppose I'm trying to agree with you, then. You said, "Socialism and communism ALWAYS end in disaster." This is not true since neither of those two, Socialism in particular, are compatible with democracy, and only fail when the people are neglected. Capitalist America is in disrepair, not because of socialist tendencies, but because of a floundering democracy.

By the way, we're still capitalists in America, and imho, the consumerism has gotten totally disgusting lately.

[jeffsandychelsea]

@RUIXX The US is very socialist. We have publicly funded schools, roads, police/fire depts, military, etc. All governments have to be at least a little bit socialist to be able to convince the people that it's ok for the govt to steal their money. America is not under capitalism right now, because we have a centrally planned economy with govt controlled interest rates/currency, taxes, bailouts, regulations, etc. Democracy just means that you have to deal with/pay for whatever the majority wants.

[RUIXXComics]

@jeffsandychelsea That's called a Social Market economy. The United States economy isn't centrally planned. There are a few disappearing regulations in place, but there aren't many major rules about our precious free enterprise. If anything, big business and corporate lobbyists are controlling the political system!

Taxes for schools, roads, fire/police departments, etc. (military excluded) are not bad! I believe communities should be structured to give most people quality necessities like these!

[jeffsandychelsea]

@RUIXXComics (cont) more fire prevention to compensate, and less roads would mean our cities would be built more densely and we would have a much lower dependence on oil. Schools have already existed without taxation in the past, with no detrimental effects. Quite the opposite. Overall, I believe we shouldn't blame the corporations and lobbyists for taking advantage of the system. Don't blame the players, blame the game.

[cmakaioz]

ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL, people would probably rather not work for a boss. The problem is, all other things (when contrasting a boss vs. no-boss scenario) are rarely ever equal.

Polling a dozen people on BART as a basis for a claim about the popularity of a view isn't statistically valid, but asserting (against all evidence) that people could just go out at will and find self-employment options which are very closely parallel to work-for-a-boss options is also nonsense.

[MindofaJedi]

@chatsworthsharp420 You make the mistaken assumption Capitalism and Communism are opposites . Socialism and Capitalism combine to make a systme like we have in the USA, Canada , Sweden , Australia etc . The coutries with the highest standards of living lean a bit more toward the socialist side , like Norway for example . Communism is a type of Socialism where force is used to make people comply . The idea that a purely Capitalist country could succeed is patently ridiculous .

[davage0]

i believe Mr1001 has mistaken the rampant corporatism and ugly consumerism for capitalism. Dont get me wrong im not a huge fan of capitalism myself but even i have to admit the current state of things, i dont really feel it can qualify as capitalism anymore. IMHO it has more of a feudal nature with capitalistic ideology, this is where Mr1001 is confused (NOT retarded). I think hes brilliant but misdirected

The poster here is failing to read between lines, but equally brilliant

Bravo great videos

[SPQRomantic]

Before you use the word anecdote I suggest you learn what it means.

The existence of bosses does not justify the entire system. Just because a slave could win freedom in the arena and thus become a free person or a slave owner themselves does not justify slavery in the Roman Empire.

Bosses do not work for themselves, nor is it possible for every individual to work on their own; the division of labor is necessary for high qualities of life.

You're an intellectual lightweight at best.

[leldoryn]

Sigh...are any capitalists aware of the Proudhonian criticism of private property and the capitalist system it creates?

[DonKhoi]

@leldoryn: Sadly, the answer is No!

[idontgiveashit0930]

I think the majority of populace cant even think for themselves and they dont prefer it, what makes 1001nights think they prefer to administer and maintain a functioning business? Articial barriers to entry are a biproduct of state-corporatism collusion, if the state and the market is seperate, there will be less barriers to entry which stunts competition and choices of customers. His "work for a boss or starve" is a false dilemma, and a half-ass appeal to emotion.

[crud4]

@idontgiveashit0930 The state is the only thing keeping workers working for a boss. How else do you think 1% of the worlds population cant own or plunder 90% of the land wealth and resources? Hard work? LOL You cannot have capitalism without the modern state and the two are not separate entities. Besides, what makes up the state right now is basically PRIVATE businesses. Call it corporations to make yourselves feel better & we all know monopolies were also formed via private collusion so save it

[crud4]

The next change being democratic worker control of the means of production be it an independently employed artisan or collective workshop/ cooperative. The wealth of the capitalist depends on the relative poverty of the masses. If people actually did have a choice NOT to take part in capitalism as wage slaves, lets say, in worker run businesses free of the exploitative effects of the capitalist market , then the capitalist would have no one to employ/exploit and thus profits would not exist.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@crud4

If I work, underconsume and use my savings to acquire capital - say, I save up as much as I can of the wage I get from working in a commune, and use those savings to support a few days' unpaid vacation every month and to acquire some raw materials, possibly working together with a few like-minded individuals, and eventually manage to put together, say, a house or a tractor with this time and these materials.

-

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

-

This is what private property and capitalism means, within the Austrian tradition. This capital is the fruit of my labour and of volunary exchange (exchange without the use of physical violence or of fraud), and it is therefore my property, and a state is any agency that would attempt to supercede my ownership of it with a later claim of their own. Its ownership makes me a capitalist, though this does not mean that I cannot also be a labourer at the same time.

-

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

-

How would the terms state, capital, capitalist and labourer, property and fruits of labour apply to describing the same exchange, within your theory?

In particular, what happens when two entitlements to the fruits of one's labour collide - when mine requires me to retain the tractor I built, and that of anyone who could use it to increase their productive capacity requires that they have access to it which is not subject to my approval?

[crud4]

Another educational read for Astroglide would be Marx's materialist conception of history. It dictates whoever had/has control over the means of sustenance (production) made all others subordinate to him be it a feudal lord, capitalist or a more primitive "big man" who controlled the surplus agriculture and thus society itself. Women did not begin to be free until their relation to the means of production changed. Now it is time for ALL of our relations to the means of production to change.

[galazopodaros]

@crud4

[crud4]

"What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalists the lion’s share of what he produces" Peter Kropotkin

[crud4]

Another thing Astroglide doesn't take into account is the conditioning each western youth endures for decades...we call it capitalist education. Even more sinister is the life work of men such as Edward Bernays. Astroglide is worse than ThorsMiterSaw.

[crud4]

Jesus Christ it never ends. Why even bother denying more than 75% of humanity is forced into wage slavery? This white middle class suburban idiot cant see further than the mediocre strip mall fly over town he lives in. Capitalism is global. Sure perhaps some American white middle class have the "choice" to not work for a boss. You obviously being one of them.

[TenTonHorse]

Mr1001 doesn't take into account the risk involved if I, as a worker, ran a business. I have more liability in claiming some ownership of a business, and although success could provide significant benefit, failure could leave me with serious obligations. If I work for a boss, as long I have been smart with my finances, only the boss takes the damage involved in failure. I also may have to work more in running this business with other workers (marketing, monitorning production etc.)

[mr1001nights]

@TenTonHorse

I see that you don't bother to look at anything. Those same very videos that Austrolibertarian claims to be refuting talk about capitalist risk.

[TenTonHorse]

@mr1001nights I haven't seen the previous videos in response to your series. However, by capitalist risk do you mean risk of business failure through the use of a hierarchical structure, or risk to the workers? I'm not saying that a business is exempt through failure due to a boss, but that the workers only stopping getting paid when a business fails, rather than losing significant capital. If the worker has personal obligations (e.g. a family), I'm not denying the damage losing a job would do.

[TenTonHorse]

@TenTonHorse Grammar: ...but that the workers only stop getting paid...

[DaveDoggOwns]

0:37, no that's a NEGATIVE claim. No one wants to work for a boss, but they do so anyway for particular reasons such as increases in standard of living. If there are two jobs that promise equal standard of living for the same work I will ALWAYS choose the one that doesn't have a boss then the one with a boss. I don't see why he needs to prove something that makes intutive sense.

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

A claim with a negative in it like "no" or "not" can be a positive claim: it is a statement of truth and ones knowledge of that truth. For instance, if someone asserts a claim "God does not exist," it is a positive claim about truth and that persons knowledge of it. If someone asserts a the claim "God exists," and someone rejects that claim, the rejection is not a positive claim; it is a rejection of a positive claim by stating that said claim is based on insufficient evidence.

[DaveDoggOwns]

@Austrolibertarian A negative claim is any claim that saids something is not true.

"God does not exist" is a negative claim and therefore doesn't need evidence to back it up just as "Bob did not rape Jolie" is a negative claim that doesn't need evidence to back it up. The same logic used in court cases should be used in science.

[DaveDoggOwns]

@Austrolibertarian If "God does not exist" is a positive claim then REJECTING "God Exists" implies accepting the positive claim "God does not exist". If "God does not exist" is a positive claim then atheists cannot claim that theists are commiting the shifted burden fallacy when they ask them for evidence that God doesn't exist.

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

I disagree. "God does not exist" is a claim to knowledge. This gets to the whole distinction in atheism of agnostic atheism versus gnostic atheism. This can get into a semantic game. But statements of knowledge about things NOT being the case, are positive claims that require evidence to support them as true. An agnostic atheist, for example, can say the claim "God exists" is not supported by sufficient evidence. However, that is not the same as claiming "God does not exist."

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

Courts of law impose the burden of proof on one side, i.e. the one asserting guilt of someone, for normative reasons, not on logical grounds. If an atheist claims "God does not exist" he is making a claim to knowledge, which would need sufficient evidence. I may say that "God does not exist" as an agnostic atheist, but I am not making an absolute claim to knowledge. Instead, I'm making the more subtle claim that there's no good reason to believe the claim "God exists" is true.

[DaveDoggOwns]

@Austrolibertarian Having no reason to believe God exists implies that you believe God does not exist

Your definition of a positive claim is any statement of knowledge

My definition of a positive claim is any statement that posits that something exists or is true.

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

"Having no reason to believe God exists implies that you believe God does not exist."

Yes it does, but you are conflating belief and knowledge. In claims to knowledge, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both POSITIVE claims. Bertrand Russel gave an excellent example with the celestial teapot to make this distinction. He said no one can KNOW that a teapot is not orbiting the Sun, but no one BELIEVES one is. Belief, in this sense, is a subset of knowledge.

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

If one has no good argument to support X as true, not believing in X is reasonable. However, no good argument to support X as true does not make X false. Claiming X is false is a POSITIVE claim about knowledge, not belief. See the fallacy fallacy for clarification. There's a distinction in logic.

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

All claims to knowledge are positive claims.

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

Note: Logically speaking, it is simply not the case that rejecting a claim for lack of sufficient evidence means that you assert it's opposite. It means only that you reject a claim.

[Austrolibertarian]

@DaveDoggOwns

All I can say is you are confusing belief of a claim with knowledge of a claim. See the fallacy fallacy for why stating X is unsupported by evidence/argument is not the same as stating X is not true (false). That's as much as I can elucidate on the matter.

[DaveDoggOwns]

@Austrolibertarian I reason from first principles. If a certain claim is unjustifieable then belief in the claim and acting based on the truth value of the claim is unjustifieable. If a person must choose between two guides of actions (atheism or theism) and both are not justifieable then there is probably something wrong with your logic. Cause humans must act. Because humans must act, either positive claims (God exists) or negative claims (God does not exist) must be given the burden of proof.

[wizkid2000]

Your trying to apply logic and reason to Mr1001nights? What folly is this?

Don't you know that because Mr1001nights feels something that is proof enough? How dare you question his emotional arguments!

[standj21]

His "mr1000onenite's" approach constitutes a false dichotomy in the case of his argument. thus he seems to argue with reason which is just plain and simply, Stupid.

[standj21]

the idea of working for a boss is a simple act of Free Trade, it's is no more complicated than saying I wanted the dollar that the "boss" gave me more than the time I gave, and he the "Boss" needed my time more than the dollar he gave me for it. so how can the anti capitalist idiots get this so wrong???

[jollyradical]

Love your video. I would also like to add that however distant, the threat of starvation is always a threat to people and all other animals for that matter. If an animal doesn't scavenge or hunt or if a man doesn't farm or trade he may starve. The constant threat of starvation exists in nature and a boss is not required for the threat to exist.

[thorsmitersaw]

The state of the current market argues against his position yes, but the state of the current market is also one of extreme interventionism. I do not think it takes much effort to point out that their are significant barriers of entry, which you admit. It has been pointed out by other libertarians that the amount of state economic intervention has increased over the course of the nations history while the number of small businesses, the self employed, and the like have drastically decreased.

[Austrolibertarian]

@thorsmitersaw

One could say that the state of the current market argues against the free market to some extent, but as I said in the video, I claim people are going to work for bosses and be faced with barriers to entry in some form in any marketplace. It may be to more or less of an extent in a totally free market. Mr1001nights rejects everything as it presently exists, i.e. there will be no bosses under his ideal.

[Austrolibertarian]

@thorsmitersaw

Therefore, I would argue that his position is a difference in kind, whereas the market anarchist is one of degree, even if that degree is rather large.

[1Liberalis]

You make strange claims for someone who is supposedly an Austrian. 1 even if there were statistically significant data showing that people preferred working for themselves than a Boss so what? 1 this would only be a generality of a particular time and place and would not establish any universal truths and it could be different tomorrow or any other time and place. 2nd what would it demonstrate? If I went polling and asked would you rather work or not work and people said not work,so what?

[1Liberalis]

@1Liberalis All that would demonstrate would be that people prefer not to work than work which doesnt really lead to any great insight. For it ignores the associated costs and benefits associated with working just asking about the preferment of a particular task. Even if people prefer to work for themselves than work for a Boss they may prefer to work for a Boss when the associated costs and benefits are taken into account.

[1Liberalis]

@1Liberalis An example I would have given if I had been explaining this would be to simply explain the concept of comparative advantage and say that the two people in question may personally dislike one another. But when they realise the material advantages to the Division of Labour they may well set aside their dislike and cooperate. You could add to this one more consideration, namely that one person has Capital goods and knowledge that the other does not and therefore

[1Liberalis]

@1Liberalis the former takes the place of the Boss. The material benefits that this brings is a sufficient incentive to make people overcome their preference for self employment. EVEN if we simply grant the assumption that people generally or universally do prefer to work for themselves than for a Boss they will work for a Boss when all this factor is taken into consideration.

[1Liberalis]

@1Liberalis But of course; I would also point out that the underlying fallacy is that the Boss in a Free Market economy is not an employees employer; or in the self employed case ones own self, but that in a Free Market the Boss is always the consumer. You touched on some of that but not very directly or clearly in my view, and your statistical arguments are not good refutations and are surprising considering you consider yourself an Austrian.

[Austrolibertarian]

@1Liberalis

Mr1001nights is making the claim that people actually prefer not working for a boss. He has not demonstrated that claim. What is so hard to understand about me calling him out on that? It's quite simple.

[imyourgod2]

thanks for your rationality and logic, and for refraining from petty insults and cursewords.

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

Anarcho-Syndicalism: work for a commune or starve, the community is my boss, I'm still a wage slave.

[Garmichael1]

@RadioFreeWisconsin Amen!

[mr1001nights]

@RadioFreeWisconsin

capitalism has bosses, the commune doesn't. Calling an institution without bosses a "boss" makes a mockery of the lives of countless people who have fought against the tyranny of real bosses like slave owners, capitalists and state bureaucrats

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

@mr1001nights The Commune is controlled by 51% of the population. You seem to think that authority only comes from above, but you are wrong. In a society of absolute democracy like you propose 51% of the population can deprive the other 49% of everything it has under the quise that it's, "not intended for personal use." I'd be more willing to discuss this with you further if you hadn't blocked me.

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

@mr1001nights People like you white wash the reality of Catalonia under the Anarchists. In reality it was a barborous (yet uncentralized) regime of terror in which all those who disagreed with the program could be executed without trial. Read, "The Spanish Cockpit" by Franz Borkenau.

[crud4]

@RadioFreeWisconsin, you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Anarchism s the cure for you. Stop worshiping your capitalist masters.

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

@crud4 Ad Hominum

[DonKhoi]

@RadioFreeWisconsin: ad Hominem

[Xtro2005]

@RadioFreeWisconsin The irony is immense and entirely over the faithful's heads.

[crud4]

@RadioFreeWisconsin It's not working for a living we're against- it's having the lions share of our earning be stolen from a capitalist we are against. Hierarchical society is based on this exploitative relationship. Anarchists, in case you haven't noticed, are against hierarchy. You could very well work outside of the commune, for yourself, with no wage slaves. Actual individualists are OK with me but not idiots who want to exploit wage slaves. They are capitalists.

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

@crud4 If I build my own Means of Production and hire people to produce something on it, such action would be illegal under Anarcho-Communism. All Means of Production are controlled by 51% of the population. A "non-hierarchical" society can be every bit as authoritarian, but at least now there's a constitution limiting what the majority can do.

[crud4]

@RadioFreeWisconsin No, if you somehow build 'your own means of production' capable of employing a work force you would be in for a suporise in anarchist society. The thing is, wage slaves submit to wage slavery because they have no choice. The profits of the rich depend on the poverty of the masses. No one would 'choose' to be exploited by you in an anarchist society when they could work and keep the full value of thier labor in a worker run business.

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

@crud4 If a group of workers produce something with a democratically controlled Means of Production, but then the product of that Means of Production is distributed according to need/what a majority of the workers want than how can that be consistent with I keep what I produce? Makes no sense.

[crud4]

@RadioFreeWisconsin You can produce whatever you want you simply wont have a large section of society willing to produce it for you, a boss/owner. If you can produce all you need on your own thats great but when you try to put up wage slaves wanted signs no one will show up! Read Kropotkin's chapter on expropriation in conquest of bread. CH4 Get back to me after you read it :)

[crud4]

@RadioFreeWisconsin also read conquest of bread, the chapter on expropriation will interest you. There would be no need for 'anarchist police' to keep you from exploiting people.

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

@crud4 "keep the full value of what you produce" and "from each according to his abilities..." and "democratically controlled Means of Production" are all major contradictions. You can not believe in all three without contradicting yourself. If you try to take the Means of Production I produce through my own labor, you better have more firepower!

[crud4]

@RadioFreeWisconsin You cannot build a factory on your own. I have no problem with artisans working for themselves. You need to see outside of the free market lines you've encircled yourself in. Not even Tucker, Spooner or Stirner advocated wage slavery. Only through Rothbard's ill conceived cherry picking have these men been warped into some free market fantasy.

[DonKhoi]

@crud4: No, Tucker DID advocate wage-slavery and working for a boss, as long as that boss pay his wage-slaves the full products of their labour , i.e. not pocketing surplus value (read the Anarchist FAQ to see how folks on Infoshop refute this erroneous position by Tucker's). Spooner and Stirner, as you rightly state, didn't.

To err is human. Spooner, though an Individualist Anarchist, was for Intellectual "Property."

[crud4]

@DonKhoi It's impossible for a capitalist to pay his slaves the full value of their labor and also profit. Tucker advocated the trade of labor between equals. Somewhat like Stirners "union of egoists.

[DonKhoi]

@crud4: "It's impossible for a capitalist to pay his slaves the full value of their labor and also profit." Of course, Tucker is vehemently against profit, rent and interest, calling them the products of usury. Nevertheless, he (and Stephen Pearl Andrews) still advocate a kind of non-usurious wage-slavery under which the boss must pay the age-slaves the full products of their labor.

"While many of its supporters have expressed opposition to wage labour ... some (like Tucker) did not." (FAQ)

[DonKhoi]

@crud4: Of course, as you have stated, no boss would ever play along Tucker and many other comrades' pious wish, since there'll be no profit should they not pocket surplus value.

Tucker argued that (non-usurious) wage-labour can coexist with self-employment and workers' coops.

[crud4]

@DonKhoi Catch 22. It wouldn't necessarily be wage "slavery" if the worker kept the full value of his/her labor. But as me and you both know, that will never happen. I don't see Tucker as that important to anarchism anyhow, nor Spooner. Stirner wasnt even an anarchist- Bakunin simply used his ideas to drive a wedge between anarchism and Marxism. These "anarcho" capitalists are all confused.

[DonKhoi]

@crud4: "It wouldn't necessarily be wage "slavery" if the worker kept the full value of his/her labor." Not quite, since the authoritarian relationship and the alienation of wage-labour remains. You can read Marx or Fredy Perlman more on alienation.

Stirner wasn't: he shows his contempt for the extremely abstract "non-aggression" principle and even beg other property owners to arm themselves against him if he come armed to take their property.

[DonKhoi]

@crud4: Nevertheless, as I have said, Tucker advocated wage-slavery while Spooner didn't. Spooner was for Patent Rights while Tucker against. Right-libertarians divide against themselves over Intellectual Property but are all (usurious) wage-slavery apologists. We Left libertarians are against both.

[DonKhoi]

@RadioFreeWisconsin: This is actually a Strawman. Anarcho-Syndicalism is actually about Workers in Factory free themselves from their bosses' authority and VOLUNTARILY own the means of production in common.

Anarcho-Syndicalists find no fault with self-employed working men, either.

[BearWindAppleyard]

@RadioFreeWisconsin nice point. But I think I rather would have a small community as my "boss", (each individual equal in power, but sometimes individual sacrifices being made for the good of the community), than an actual boss, superior in power. (The smaller the community the better, I think for the most part)

[pandulche]

@RadioFreeWisconsin

Except 1) You wouldn't receive wages under communism (Free labor.) 2) As a member of the community, you have a right to participate in democratic processes. You are your own master. So no you would not still be a wage slave.

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

@pandulche You are quit right sir. I wrote that comment a long time ago, but have now become an Anarcho-Syndicalist. The power of their arguments was too profound to ignore.

[return135]

great debunking!