Lol, was tht supposed ot make capitalism seem bad, cause it failed. miserably.
Dude, I could make bank if I got 25 cents per apple, that would be like 20 bucks an hur easily (probably more) for a completely skilless and simple job, I would take that any day of the week)
If you sell it and make more money, why do I care.
Ignorant morons are ignorant. Your epic failure to comprehend the very words and ideas you imagine you are berating is like a giant turd on your faces. I would recommend a study on logic, but you have to understand language first, so perhaps you should return to elementary school, r-tards.
That's how free market works, if you are stupid WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSABILITY. What do you want? a government who tells the works the price of their work (fruits in this case)??? stop socialism, look at Spain-Greece-Portugal-Ireland...
@notengonickcojones Stop socialism looks at Canada,Norway, Sweeden,Denmark an Finland. They are are shit holes compared to the great bastion of freedom and capitalism that is the USA.
@notengonickcojones They have much higher standards of living in those countries based on just about every single index that exists whether it is health,education,infant mortality,crime,poverty,economic mobility and over all happiness.
@ryan84160 "but tecnology is made in UK, USA, Australia," Absolutely not true. Depending on the Index used, the U.S still ranks relatively high although it is not first. The UK and Australia do not rank very high, while other countries such as Canada, Sweeden, Norway,Germany,Switzerland,Japan,Korea and Singapore do. Hardly evidence that "socialist" countries are not technologically innovative.
@notengonickcojones So do you think that's the type of world we should aspire to create ? The type of society where there are no laws and whoever is the most powerful can do what he wants at will ?
@ryan84160 Well, obviously i do agree that when the singularity is reached (probably in less than 30-40 years) we might create this world. And yes this world should be our goal, but people must be educated for that: we can not be 7000 millions on this planet. How can we change governments to move towards this goal is the question.
@notengonickcojones Ah I didn't really understand your point. I got it it now and I agree. This actually refutes the idea that unregulated capitalism is a good idea.
@ryan84160 They = people like you. You don't like capitalism, but thanks to capitalism we are talking to each other through internet. You want what? communism? LOL. Not even China is communist. Capitalism hasn't failed, stupid people have failed, there is no place for stupidity in capitalism (nor in communism). The worst of society are cannibals towards the best and productive. This is the end of the 'cannibalistic era', not capitalism.
@notengonickcojones I never said I did not like capitalism. Nor do I want communism. Why is everything so black and white to you ? I want to live in a society the produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number. I am not too concerned with the method that is used to achieve this.
@ryan84160 I think you should search about Jacques Fresco and project Venus. Even if i don't agree with everything he says i really thinks he is... allmost right.
@notengonickcojones I have seen it. I think the intentions are good, but I think the ideas are too utopian. When we reach the technological singularity the is supposedly coming, then those ideas might be useful.
If making money and doing business is that easy why don't you guys do it instead of making lame ass videos from your mom's basements? You morons have no idea how hard business is.
lol all of this looked fine and voluntary to me. Maybe it was a parody, but actually.. it all seemed pretty legitimate and fine, besides the fact that you were within a stop and shop
@brewscrew: It wouldn't involve any of that things unless the trades would be made in a stalinist society where all the goods are exported and the people fight for the few distributed ones, which is, compared to socialism, like the industrial era capitalism compared to the capitalism we see today - absolutelly another thing...
yes.. picking up an apple that was grown by someone else in a store and acting like you produced it is the exact same as actually producing the good. good thinking.
Yep, you take what you want then sell it. You didn't grow it, make it, or have anything to do with the product, but, by god its yours, and you can do what ever the hell you want with it.
Minus the wage slave part, all that was, was a gift economy, which is used in communism. The free market as we know it is just another part of the corporate capitalist machine that exploits us. The free market as we know it is not really free.
Even if the government didn't involve itself, the value of money would be unstable. It's quantifiability is only made possible by intersubjective value, not subjective value of goods and services or the physical limitations of something like gold or silver, which do nothing of value in themselves. Deviations from intersubjective value cause a hidden reversed form of taxation, like inflation. Taxation for public services is a weak attempt at correcting this problem.
If you define a government as an entity external to an individual which may limit an individuals freedom, I am not against a government. I think people are not entitled to limitless freedom. For example, limitless freedom to kill or steal or rape and molest would be a disagreeable world for me. I think external sources are entitled to limit the freedom of individuals. Yet anarchists have a point in stressing that these limitations should be minimized (and should be reasonable).
So, "Once you start introducing economic freedom in a nation it becomes much harder to centralize power." Would you hold up the U.S.A. as an example of that, where the controlling capital is held by a small minority? (Something tells me there are a few Napoleon Hill worshippers in the vicinity)
but chomskyan made 25 cents while mr1001nights made 1 dollar, and since mr1001nights got the hookups with Buddhagem, he controls the means of distribution and chomskyan will never move up
That food looks soooo good, especially that steak at the end and the oranges in the beginning. I should go down to the local organic market and pick some of that stuff up, yummy!
that would be like a giganticly elected union that would work like a check and balance system with the gov't. this is probably flawed but im tired and bored and of course i dont know evrything for i am new to all this.
when the poor attempt to fight the fundementals of capitalism en mass they are met with a line of cops. even without the state (which b/c of its reforms to help the lower a little to survive b/c of mass exploitation) b/c of the hierachy of capitalism the situation would deteriorate into mass hell. i.e. america before any regulation- it sucked- no res[ect for worker/ consumer.
That's because objective property is an axiom of human nature. Do support equal access of other individuals to your possessions? If you don't then you believe in objective property.
Subjective property value cannot exist without objective property. The value of property an individual places is very much based on the objective amount of ownership of the property.
"That's because objective property is an axiom of human nature."
Unfalsifiable mediaeval dogma. "Axioms" only exist in the realm of definitions, not in the observable, physical universe.
" Do support equal access of other individuals to your possessions? If you don't then you believe in objective property."
Bullshit. My possessions are mine only because other people recognize them as such, in return for me recognizing their possessions. That is subjective in every sense of the term.
You can't make postulates about the physical universe. You can only make postulates in math, logic, etc. If you make statements about physical reality, including human beings, you have to back them up with evidence.
Maybe this phrase will help. Do you personally believe I have a right to your items (a computer lets say) without your consent if they were acquired through some form of voluntary trade?
Fine if you don't like the word right Ill ask it without that term. Do you personally believe that one should be able to use/take your items without your consent if they were acquired through some form of voluntary trade or personal labor yourself?
Please answer the question. Then you can ask me whatever you want. You have been asked three times now. If you don't want to answer just say I don't want to answer.
You have asked the question in terms of vague generalities without any sort of context. At the same time, you're trying to make it a question about me and my stuff. I know you're plotting a bullshit socratic method, and you'll keep harrassing me until I give the binary, absolutist answer you want. Therefore I answer "mu" - your question is loaded. Loaded with "your" and "should" and "one" (the generic pronoun.) Null pointer exception. Does not compute. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Trolling? Och, just read Robert Anton Wilson's book "Natural Law, or Don't Put A Rubber on your Willy." He exposes absolute morality, including the "libertarian" version, for the mediaeval dogma it is.
I don't believe that there is some objective morality. I am asking if you are against theft. Just give me any examples that you feel are more specific where you would oppose people taking from you without your consent.
Everyone's against theft - theft is an act of taking that folks don't approve of. The trouble is, everyone has their own definition of theft. One man's theft is another man's homesteading. The trouble is not the disagreement, but the state of mind in which a person or group believes he has the right to attack and kill people in order to enforce his definition of theft, rather than settle the dispute without threats of violence.
I don't set out to convert the world to my definition of theft, but to encourage folks to be more reasonable and less violent. A world with a single uniform property system would be boring anyway.
You don't have a definition of theft, because you have no definition of ownership, besides "consensus", which can mean that whatever the group decides, is the law. If my neighbors decide that the guy who moves into the house I've built and was living in should stay there, then I'm out of luck. The real trouble is that some people don't feel the need to let anyone defend their property. In that scenario, the one who uses force to resolve the dispute is the one who wins regardless of actual rights
"And we use math and logic to do what? Hmm...What do we use math and logic for? I am pretty sure to analyze and explain the universe. God, lol."
Physical laws are generalizations about observations, not a-priori postulates. If science was a matter of postulates, then I could postulate a teapot orbiting Mars and not need to look for any evidence for it.
Postulates are nothing more than definitions, such as the definition of "plus" or "and."
"EVIDENCE: Every society in pre-industrialized, post-tribal history has adhered to objective property. Objective property is human nature. "
You should support the State, then.
Seriously, that is only a fraction of the time that human beings have existed on this planet, and it's conveniently in historical proximity to the worldwide European imperial rampage.
If property is human nature, then why are there 1 billion squatters on this planet?
This comment is for the three musketeers, mr1001, Buddhagem and chompskian. I am a big fan of Chompsky and although the professor speaks at length about right and wrong, I found this video about a guy who actually lived right and wrong and today is a whistle blower against American imperialism. I thought you would like to listen to his more then 50 minute long interview. watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8 Around the 37 minute mark it speaks about people living without money in their own economic system.
Private ownership of the means of production and competition is what brings such abundance. Socialism, whether state or anarchist, could never achieve such prosperity.
Well it did in anarchosocialist catalonia (+50% in agriculture, +30% traffic...) and many other examples (State-socialist Czech before sowjet invasion). But anyway, if "prosperity" is your only factor, go hail for Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, in which you can find "prosperity". I rather focus on something like on working conditions, in which the human is not a tool but active participitating.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In a capitalist society, you take your choice of whether being an employee or entrepreneur. If you want to be an "active participant" there is nothing to stop you unless you're just lazy. Hitler was an anti-capitalist. Stalin was not a capitalist. Pinochet implemented capitalist reforms in what was socialist Chile, and the result was prosperity and his own removal from office. Chile now has the highest GDP/person that any other latin american country.
In colonial brazil, slaves could be a slave-owner, if they worked hard. Social mobility is not a factor for a "decent" society.
I think that you didnt understand what I said. I talked about system which are totally repressive and still had "economic prosperity" whatever economic modell. Under slavery there had been economic prosperity = a reason for slavery? Turkey stole the five-years-plan-modell from the sowjet union and had great prosperity. Countless other examples.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But we're not talking about a slave system. We're talking about a voluntary system. Capitalism is voluntary. You have a choice whether to start your own business or whether to work for someone else that has. The voluntary nature of it is what brings prosperity. A slave system would have less prosperity. If a slave system brings more prosperity, great, let's implement one. But it just so happens it doesn't. Free markets work better.
ou see, I'm not a moralist. I'm perfectly willing to have a slave system as in colonial Brazil, if it would bring more prosperity. The reason I advocate against doing that is because I think it brings less prosperity. People are more productive and a society is more wealthy and harmoniuos when people are free and have the freedom to keep the fruits of their labor if they desire. That's capitalism.
Everyone has that choice. I'm self employed. You have that choice as well. Most people just aren't willing to exert the effort. It's easier to just get by in life letting someone else create jobs for you and tell you what to do. That's the coward's way of living. You choose it.
Actually, the Chile example is bunk. Apart from overthrowing the democratically-elected Allende government and implementing mass torture/repression, salaries for the working class went way down under Pinochet. It wasn't capitalism, but popular struggle that brought him down. The Soviet Union had, at the beginning of its history, much more impressive growth than Chile. That doesn't justify bolshevism
Milton Friedman's thesis was that bringing free market reforms to Chile would result in more political freedom. He was proven right. Once you start introducing economic freedom in a nation, it becomes much harder to centralize power. Yes, popular struggle brought him down, but it's free markets that empowered them.
Since the US accumulated a lot of wealth by destroying their enemies through war and putting them into submission (imperialism), they installed a brutal dictator in Chile, who took care of american investments. Other nations, who didnt submit (doesnt matter if they were communist) were punished by investment cuts, trade sanction and other terroristic means. Again, countless examples, especially in latin america.
No, you have it backwards. The U.S. has LOST a lot of wealth through war. There has not been a net gain to the U.S. through war. War is a destructor of wealth.
In the long run, the US undeniably gains from market access when it pays off its "Pinochets" to overthrow all sorts of leaders who want to nationalize corporate property.
Hence most US intervention is not full-out war, although it does certainly come to that when the stakes are high enough.
And even when the wars burden the economy in general, a slew of well-connected corporate bureaucracies benefit nonetheless.
That's actually your definition. Let us look at all of our capitalist heroes philosophies on the state. Friedman (Minarchist) D. Friedman (Anarcho-Capitalist) Thomas Jefferson (minarchist) Murray Rothbard (anarcho capitalist.) Ludwig Von Mises (minarchist.)
Hmm. None of them were big believers in the state...
It doesn't matter whether the ideologues of laissez-faire capitalism were in favor of the state.
What matters is that capitalists (ie, men who profit from wage labor) control it. As they would effectively control any society, state or non-state, based upon the status quo of the majority of the wealth being in the hands of a minority of the people.
And American capitalism, frankly, is still capitalism, however different it may be from the utopian visions of Friedman, von Mises, or Rothbard.
these dudes certainly accepted the use of the concentrated means of coercion and violence (the state) to protect private property. it begins with dispossession, theft, inequality and requires great violence.
not at all different from the realities of capitalism- which goes to explain their ideological function.
Do you realize that you guys also require dispossession(kicking out rightful owners of the workplace), theft(stealing the means of production), inequality(you'll always depend onthose whoproduce and profit more to fund and grow the companies) and great violence(to prevent any of that private property and free association shit) Problem for you, we have a rational basis for our rights, and your just whiny because you can't create anything more valuable than a snow cone and collectivist BS rhetoric
I'm sorry, who controls the means of production? Me? You? The five guys down the street? who implements the final say so? and by what criteria? Why do the guys down the street get what is developed by the factory I work in? All of society gets to decide what's given to whom based on what? Their needs? You don't explain what gives people the right to dispose of anyone else's production, so I'd say that's a pretty lame argument.
i don't see what the argument against it is- perhaps that the technological complexity of production is too great that it demands specialized labor and the same old problem of exploitation and exclusion? that's a possible argument against the system.
on the other hand, that line of logic betrays a lack of faith in man and the assumption that people need to be ruled over.
'You don't explain what gives people the right to dispose of anyone else's production'- well that's solidly anti-capitalist.
No, just the only production you can imagine is the swinging of a hammer by the guy on an assembly line, and it makes no difference to you what lengths the man who paid for the factory had to go through, what work he put into making his dream a reality. You just see a man with money, assume it came from nothingness, and he's holding his ill-gotten gains over the weak and powerless to "put them down". You don't see the work that is required before any laborer steps in front of an assembly line.
"the same old problem of exploitation and exclusion" I'm sorry, I didn't mean to exclude you from profits off of my ideas and struggle, just by letting you in on the ground floor. And EXPLOITING you, I must apologize for hiring you and putting food in your mouth just for putting a few pieces of the machine I designed or at the least had the balls to put the money that I've made in voluntary trade behind. Geez, you're right I'm just a selfish individual because something exists cause of my effort
That's a nice story. Keep telling it to yourself. I love how you free market shit for brains refuse to acknolwedge the intersubjectivity of the value of money and how deviations from it create reverse taxation and exploit those who are not on equal footing. I'm onto your sick fucked up games.
Common property = no one is allowed to own the fruits of their labor if they use them to create or buy a means of production. This philosophy is the enemy of the individual. It makes the collective the ruler over him. Socialism is not appealing.
I consider myself a socialist and I don't think individuals shouldn't be allowed to own the fruits of their labor. I just don't believe people are entitled to gain more than the fruits of their labor. You are sort of straw manning socialism.
Wow, you've just contradicted yourself in the same comment, bravo. If I'm not entitled to own the fruits of my labor, and you say I can't gain more than the fruits of my labor, who is this mysterious entity who determines what I get and how much of it I can keep? What criteria is used?
What I said was "I ---don't--- think individuals ---shouldn't--- be allowed to own the fruits of their labor" not "I don't think individuals should be entitled to the fruits of their own labor".
And as for who determines the value of money? That's an intersubjective judgment. Society as a whole determines the value of money. It's a social medium of exchange. There's no getting around that fact.
People determine what they will accept for certain goods in trade, what exactly is so horrible about that? Society determines what people will charge for a good, as in market price, that in no way makes the value of money subjective, just what price people will be willing to sell their goods and meet those wanting to buy halfway. What exactly is your beef? Sorry for the mix up, didn't mean to rag on you for something you didn't say. But how is to determine how much one gains from their labor?
I'm responding to anarchists who complain about taxation. Taxation is justifiable because it's the only method of redistributing wealth which has already been redistributed when people deviate from the intersubjective valuation of currency. Whenever this occurs it inflates and deflates the value of the currency. When people who earn money off exploiting the working class complain about taxes, it's like a thief complaining that they have to give back what they have stolen. I can't sympathize.
1) a voluntary contract between two people (business owner and employee) to agree upon wages to be paid for services to be performed, is not comparable to 2) a force wielding entity(gov't) compelling you to pay for services you may or may not use, under threat of jail time, fines etc. in the first example both bargain with what they gained and/or possess, ie means of production and the worker's ability, there's no physical compulsion on anyone's part there, hence why the argument is BS.
If the complaint about government monetary policy is that the value of currency is being toyed with in an attempt to steal, it actually is quite comparable. If I sell you a slice of pizza for $500 because you are starving to death, I am manipulating the value of money and exploiting you because I have power over you.
Capitalist anarchists shrug and play this whole it's a voluntary agreement crap, but that's such a pathetic joke, it's not even funny. It's actually disgusting. It's clearly exploitation and manipulation of money. I will never take capitalist anarchists seriously so long as they whine and complain about taxation yet are asleep when it comes to other forms of theft and eploitation. It really reveals where ones priorities are.
No, you're manipulating the value of the product, and the value is different for every person anyways: the man who's starving may value a slice of pizza much more than $500, what's money to the man with nothing to eat? If no one can afford your product, how can one sell it? One aspect of the market is coming to an agreement between seller and consumer, what can both afford and still operate. BTW, not that you labeled me as such, but I'm not a capitalist anarchists, whatever that means.
Without the value of products currency has no value; the value of goods and services determines the value of money in addition to other factors such as the money supply. And I'm not saying the subjective value of money determines its worth, it's inter-subjective values which give money meaning. If it were only subjective value it wouldn't be possible to quantify anything of value by way of currency.
Right, but it's only of value TO someone, not just by itself. If that's what you mean by inter-subjective value I'm right with you. But currency is just a medium of exchange, which at the moment isn't tied to any sort of objective standard, hence why there is inflation and such, increasing money supply and whatnot. The value of products to other people is subjective is what I'm trying to get at here.
Money has no calculable value subjectively, and it has no value in itself. Currency only has meaning intersubjectively. Intersubjective value differs from subjective value in that it is a shared pattern of value. It's not objective, but it has virtually the same meaning in this context in that it is a stabilizing element of currency. The value of products might be subjective but the value of money is intersubjective.
That pizza example is ridiculous. If someone is starving to death and really values food- the way the market works- someone else will sell him food for much less than your ridiculous $500 price because they know he wants what they have. If he decides that he really wants your $500 pizza over anything else- where is the exploitation here? He valued the pizza more than he valued the $500 he has. Examples like this are such a pathetic joke its not even funny.
The pizza microcosm was an exaggerated example, used to illustrate a point. It wasn't meant to be realistic, it's a microcosm. My point is that people have the opportunity to exploit one another due to variations in power dynamics. If you disagree with this point please explain what it is you are disagreeing with in specific.
And I already explained that, by deviating from intersubjective value, this person is essentially inflating the value of money (because it is intersubjectively determined) and stealing from the public, and is able to do this because they have an advantageous power dynamic over someone else.
So what you're saying is that money has(or should have) a constant and static value that everyone in society has agreed on? But money is a good that is like any other good- and every individual will always value it differently. Can you give some better examples so I can better understand your position? Because from what I'm getting are you saying that- if I bought a TV for $200- then resold it for $1000 to someone- I have stolen from the public?
"...a constant and static value that everyone in society has agreed on?" - I didn't say I believed in fixing prices. So no dice there. "..since its a voluntary exchange where both parties are better off" - I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the parties would still have obtained wealth by exploiting a power advantage to manipulate the value of currency.
:...every individual will always value it differently" - That's not possible. For if currency had only subjective value, there would be no way to grasp its worth, it would be nonsense to say currency has subjective value as a trade item, and also can be traded for X amount of goods and services. How could it's trade value be subjective yet also be set?
If the TV is approximately worth $200 and you sold it to someone for $1,000 you have essentially done the same thing as inflation. This is because you simply arrived at $800 without doing anything of value which is recognized intersubjectively yet are paid in currency which is intersubjectively recognized. This is how the wealthy steal from the poor. Why would you defend such practices and then complain about taxation?
Why do you have to do anything of value to sell the product for $1000 if someone else is willing to pay that price? I might cherish that TV as it could be the only one I own- and so $200 was not a price I was willing to let it go for. But then someone offered me $1000 and I accepted...this isn't how the wealthy steal from the poor there is no comparison there. Taxation is DIRECT theft- as in give me your money or I'll put you in a cage. There is no mutual benefit or cooperation.
I never said you did have to do anything of value to obtain wealth, that's actually the point I'm trying to illustrate. It seems that what you are saying is that you recognize this as true but that you think it's ok. Are you saying it's ok to manipulate the purchasing power of currency, so long as it doesn't appear to be "direct theft"?
Money is simply a very marketable good that most people accept. Its trade value cannot be set and this doesn't happen in the real world. Every seller determines how much money he requires before he will let go of his product. Everything has subjective value- not just money, I don't see why its so difficult to grasp its worth during trade. You just ask.
What is marketable about pieces of printed paper with notes stamped on them other then the fact that they represent purchasing power? You still have not confronted my argument for how intersubjectivity determines the value of currency, you seem to be tip toeing around it, for if it were entirely subjective how could we exchange goods and services for currency that has entirely indeterminate meaning?
I was disagreeing with the idea that selling a $500 pizza to someone is exploitation at all since its a voluntary exchange where both parties are better off than previously. I know it wasn't meant to be realistic and thats why it makes it a really bad example of the point you're trying to get across. Its not the pizza seller's fault that the starving man is in the position he is in- and he's offering the starving man a solution to his problem. Could you try to use a different example?
"I know it wasn't meant to be realistic and thats why it makes it a really bad example :- It was just an abstract simplification meant to show that differences in power dynamics effect the value of goods and services. I could think of an endless supply of examples, a Mexican working for low wages, a teenager being exploited by their boss, people of low education, mentally challenged people, etc...
A mexican working for low wages is due to the fact that he hasn't earned enough skills to get higher wages. If he learns english- and learns more skills- he doesn't have to work for low wages. Jobs that offer low wages do so because there is minimil training required, high in demand, and the only way for the business to continue running for the benefit of the Employer, employee, and customers. Immigration laws are the real culprit in that particular power dynamic.
Ok, let's seriously cut through this and get to the heart of this issue. Are you trying to say that power dynamics have absolutely no effect on exchanges in the free market? It seems like that's what you are driving at with your hypothetical refutations. Or are you saying they do have an effect and that you are comfortable with this for some reason? It's a little confusing to me...grasping your position.
Market price does not reflect the actual value of the object but the maximum amount of inflation possible. Meaning that the producer is paid less for the goods worth and the consumer pays more than the goods worth.
I don't understand what you are saying. When I say subjective deviation from intersubjective determinations of value can be -like- inflation, I'm not saying they are inflation. My point is that they have the same effect on the value of the currency, a taxing effect, not that the two are the same. Market prices are thought to be set by supply and demand alone, yet my point is that power dynamics change this.
When I say "power dynamic", I'm refering to variations in power, between two or more individuals. For instance, if I am blind and, as a result, I might rely on others to assist me in certain tasks, there would be a variation in power dynamics between us...I better not piss you off because I need you, yet you are free to treat me like dirt because I need you. Of course, in economics, the handicap would be in not having as many advantages as the wealthy have.
what he is saying is this if you read john locke you will find that the reason for the state is to keep civility by stopping all those hungry hands who might want to steal or touch my hard earned result of exploitation (property.) Capitalist don't like a democratic state b/c it gives a vote to the working class who has the ability to make reforms. i.e. lower work days, minimum wage, regulation etc. although the state is there for the rich it gives some area of reform for the rest of us.
NO, you're confusing corporatism with capitalism - a common mistake among leftists. Capitalism is a PRIVATE system. CORPORATISM is the system of private and government government partnership.
" = a reason for slavery? Turkey stole the five-years-plan-modell from the sowjet union and had great prosperity. Countless other examples."
There is not a single socio-economic model, that has ever been conceived, that is free from oppression . Capitalism is the model that has been proven to minimize oppression and maximize prosperity. Give me your ideal socio-economic model. I will show you how it oppresses and how it diminishes prosperity.
1. Ownership, a postulate of human nature is disregarded by the state.
2. Resources do not allocate naturally via the free market, therefore the government must manage resources. Labor is a resource, and your labor is controlled by the state. This makes you a slave to the state.
3. The freedom to make profit is lost. There is no personal incentive to work hard, the only incentive is to avoid punishment of the state.
4. The general public has no freedom to determine the value of the goods & servi
1. In true communism there is no state- read... and even if there were, the labourers would own the business regardless
2. labor is not a resource it is a process of creating things, labour power (the capability to sell owns labour, i short of course) is a commodity
3. Profit is the exploitation of the worker. the incentive to work- each according to his ability each according to his need. if a worker works past what is democraticly deemed the standard he can earn more. plus ...
Lol, was tht supposed ot make capitalism seem bad, cause it failed. miserably.
Dude, I could make bank if I got 25 cents per apple, that would be like 20 bucks an hur easily (probably more) for a completely skilless and simple job, I would take that any day of the week)
If you sell it and make more money, why do I care.
heatbucspies55 2 months ago
Ignorant morons are ignorant. Your epic failure to comprehend the very words and ideas you imagine you are berating is like a giant turd on your faces. I would recommend a study on logic, but you have to understand language first, so perhaps you should return to elementary school, r-tards.
AKGunslinger 3 months ago
That's how free market works, if you are stupid WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSABILITY. What do you want? a government who tells the works the price of their work (fruits in this case)??? stop socialism, look at Spain-Greece-Portugal-Ireland...
notengonickcojones 3 months ago
@notengonickcojones Stop socialism looks at Canada,Norway, Sweeden,Denmark an Finland. They are are shit holes compared to the great bastion of freedom and capitalism that is the USA.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 They all live well in these countries... but tecnology is made in UK, USA, Australia, etc... socialism is tribalism.
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones They have much higher standards of living in those countries based on just about every single index that exists whether it is health,education,infant mortality,crime,poverty,economic mobility and over all happiness.
ryan84160 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ryan84160 "but tecnology is made in UK, USA, Australia," Absolutely not true. Depending on the Index used, the U.S still ranks relatively high although it is not first. The UK and Australia do not rank very high, while other countries such as Canada, Sweeden, Norway,Germany,Switzerland,Japan,Korea and Singapore do. Hardly evidence that "socialist" countries are not technologically innovative.
"socialism is tribalism." How do you figure ?
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 That's what they want you to think. Free market is the future. No government. just Money.
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones Ya I somehow doubt that. Who will protect your money and property ?
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 Guns.
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones If have bigger and better guns, all of your shit instantly becomes my shit.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 The you bought them... then you love capitalism. :)
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones So do you think that's the type of world we should aspire to create ? The type of society where there are no laws and whoever is the most powerful can do what he wants at will ?
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 Well, obviously i do agree that when the singularity is reached (probably in less than 30-40 years) we might create this world. And yes this world should be our goal, but people must be educated for that: we can not be 7000 millions on this planet. How can we change governments to move towards this goal is the question.
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones "we can not be 7000 millions on this planet" Why not ?
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 not like the way of live of american people for example (this has been calculated, search it).
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones Ah I didn't really understand your point. I got it it now and I agree. This actually refutes the idea that unregulated capitalism is a good idea.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones Who? The NWO? The illuminati ? The Zionist bankers? The space aliens from planet niburu ? Who is this mysterious "they"?
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 They = people like you. You don't like capitalism, but thanks to capitalism we are talking to each other through internet. You want what? communism? LOL. Not even China is communist. Capitalism hasn't failed, stupid people have failed, there is no place for stupidity in capitalism (nor in communism). The worst of society are cannibals towards the best and productive. This is the end of the 'cannibalistic era', not capitalism.
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones I never said I did not like capitalism. Nor do I want communism. Why is everything so black and white to you ? I want to live in a society the produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number. I am not too concerned with the method that is used to achieve this.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 I think you should search about Jacques Fresco and project Venus. Even if i don't agree with everything he says i really thinks he is... allmost right.
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones I have seen it. I think the intentions are good, but I think the ideas are too utopian. When we reach the technological singularity the is supposedly coming, then those ideas might be useful.
ryan84160 1 month ago
If making money and doing business is that easy why don't you guys do it instead of making lame ass videos from your mom's basements? You morons have no idea how hard business is.
TheProgressistViewer 6 months ago
I really like your videos, you're clear and informative and do not sink to ad hominum regarding the pro capitalists' view.
morose7 6 months ago
ok now lets see how socialism works
MirageScience 6 months ago
lol, ppl are getting mad cuz its true
SovietUnion100 7 months ago
they have no idea how epic fail this actually is
networkedfreedom 7 months ago
So, you are selling and trading goods that you are stealing off of the store owner's shelf. You have nailed socialism bang on.
TheAbbott88 8 months ago 2
I was hoping to see some sort of half assed critique of a free market. But instead I saw some dipshits fucking around inside a store...
DerrEinzige 9 months ago
lol all of this looked fine and voluntary to me. Maybe it was a parody, but actually.. it all seemed pretty legitimate and fine, besides the fact that you were within a stop and shop
alistairproductions 10 months ago
@brewscrew: It wouldn't involve any of that things unless the trades would be made in a stalinist society where all the goods are exported and the people fight for the few distributed ones, which is, compared to socialism, like the industrial era capitalism compared to the capitalism we see today - absolutelly another thing...
Vict0r1984 1 year ago
Everything was voluntary, why not show your socialistic trades? Because it would involve violence and coersion?
brewerscrew 1 year ago 5
this is comedy gold!
jak1428 1 year ago
Funniest shit ever.
SirLoin21 1 year ago
Possibly the worst video I've ever seen.
davyjames 1 year ago 10
LOL!
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
That was a great demonstration of just how productive speculation can be!
rjtoten 2 years ago
No. The capitalist doesn't "deserve" his profit. Straw man by you.
danberkeley 2 years ago
Great video!
giorgioxyzb 2 years ago
Is this what socialists dressed in anarchist clothes do at night?
thebreadcake 2 years ago 10
The store is closed at night, that's when the orgies begin, and the reading out loud of Rosa Luxemburg.
AbtinX 2 years ago
You three are quite a force to be reckoned with.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
For sure man for sure, and there's millions of us out there just like them. Up the ak's! Free market baby!
AbtinX 2 years ago
Ahhh yeah! Free market baby!!
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
ROFL
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Whats the fucking point of this video?
Budguy68 2 years ago
this guy has no understanding og the free market,Capitalism.
nero8289 2 years ago
At 1:25 he should have thrown him a curve-"5 dollar... me give you apple long time!"
nonpotentuzi 2 years ago
wow, could you grossly oversimplify anymore?
yes.. picking up an apple that was grown by someone else in a store and acting like you produced it is the exact same as actually producing the good. good thinking.
rapsody 2 years ago
Yep, you take what you want then sell it. You didn't grow it, make it, or have anything to do with the product, but, by god its yours, and you can do what ever the hell you want with it.
BayerLexan 2 years ago
Minus the wage slave part, all that was, was a gift economy, which is used in communism. The free market as we know it is just another part of the corporate capitalist machine that exploits us. The free market as we know it is not really free.
Androvich91 2 years ago 2
haha i like the comedy trio. Do more of this stuff. =)
colombian18 2 years ago
Free Market = Win
anonfucker 2 years ago
how do you want to have "FREE MARKET"
and capatilsm when the government is poking around with the currency?
unconstructive bullshit
erdal0 2 years ago
Even if the government didn't involve itself, the value of money would be unstable. It's quantifiability is only made possible by intersubjective value, not subjective value of goods and services or the physical limitations of something like gold or silver, which do nothing of value in themselves. Deviations from intersubjective value cause a hidden reversed form of taxation, like inflation. Taxation for public services is a weak attempt at correcting this problem.
aloookz 2 years ago
so your against the government?
erdal0 2 years ago
If you define a government as an entity external to an individual which may limit an individuals freedom, I am not against a government. I think people are not entitled to limitless freedom. For example, limitless freedom to kill or steal or rape and molest would be a disagreeable world for me. I think external sources are entitled to limit the freedom of individuals. Yet anarchists have a point in stressing that these limitations should be minimized (and should be reasonable).
aloookz 2 years ago
the only thing i noticed from this guy is he is hot
uclaxlhuang 2 years ago
So, "Once you start introducing economic freedom in a nation it becomes much harder to centralize power." Would you hold up the U.S.A. as an example of that, where the controlling capital is held by a small minority? (Something tells me there are a few Napoleon Hill worshippers in the vicinity)
kzargentina 2 years ago
but chomskyan made 25 cents while mr1001nights made 1 dollar, and since mr1001nights got the hookups with Buddhagem, he controls the means of distribution and chomskyan will never move up
curlyfry1106 2 years ago
LOL
jumpnjza2 2 years ago
me too - )
kaufmann789 2 years ago
That food looks soooo good, especially that steak at the end and the oranges in the beginning. I should go down to the local organic market and pick some of that stuff up, yummy!
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
ou deem your possessions?
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
It depends on whether other folks will recognize them as yours after you take them.
vezrig 2 years ago
that would be like a giganticly elected union that would work like a check and balance system with the gov't. this is probably flawed but im tired and bored and of course i dont know evrything for i am new to all this.
prjctcivilian 2 years ago
ces. The arch of the state has to do that for us.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
when the poor attempt to fight the fundementals of capitalism en mass they are met with a line of cops. even without the state (which b/c of its reforms to help the lower a little to survive b/c of mass exploitation) b/c of the hierachy of capitalism the situation would deteriorate into mass hell. i.e. america before any regulation- it sucked- no res[ect for worker/ consumer.
prjctcivilian 2 years ago
The market anarchists believe in objective property and subjective value. They can't have it both ways.
vezrig 2 years ago
That's because objective property is an axiom of human nature. Do support equal access of other individuals to your possessions? If you don't then you believe in objective property.
Subjective property value cannot exist without objective property. The value of property an individual places is very much based on the objective amount of ownership of the property.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
"That's because objective property is an axiom of human nature."
Unfalsifiable mediaeval dogma. "Axioms" only exist in the realm of definitions, not in the observable, physical universe.
" Do support equal access of other individuals to your possessions? If you don't then you believe in objective property."
Bullshit. My possessions are mine only because other people recognize them as such, in return for me recognizing their possessions. That is subjective in every sense of the term.
vezrig 2 years ago
"Unfalsifiable mediaeval dogma. "Axioms" only exist in the realm of definitions, not in the observable, physical universe."
I don't think you understand the definition of axiom. To avoid the roundabout of semantics, allow me to sub out "axiom" for its synonym POSTULATE.
"My possessions are mine only because other people recognize them as such, in return for me recognizing their possessions."
Clarification: If I refuse to acknowledge your possessions as yours, do I have equal access to what y
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
You can't make postulates about the physical universe. You can only make postulates in math, logic, etc. If you make statements about physical reality, including human beings, you have to back them up with evidence.
vezrig 2 years ago
Well you didn't answer his last question.
It was this if you want to respond,"If I refuse to acknowledge your possessions as yours, do I have equal access to what y ."
overmind25 2 years ago
He has access to those y's over there.
vezrig 2 years ago
Maybe this phrase will help. Do you personally believe I have a right to your items (a computer lets say) without your consent if they were acquired through some form of voluntary trade?
overmind25 2 years ago
I don't believe in "rights."
vezrig 2 years ago
Fine if you don't like the word right Ill ask it without that term. Do you personally believe that one should be able to use/take your items without your consent if they were acquired through some form of voluntary trade or personal labor yourself?
overmind25 2 years ago
Do you believe that folks have the right to shoot other folks for picking a bluet?
vezrig 2 years ago
Please answer the question. Then you can ask me whatever you want. You have been asked three times now. If you don't want to answer just say I don't want to answer.
overmind25 2 years ago
You have asked the question in terms of vague generalities without any sort of context. At the same time, you're trying to make it a question about me and my stuff. I know you're plotting a bullshit socratic method, and you'll keep harrassing me until I give the binary, absolutist answer you want. Therefore I answer "mu" - your question is loaded. Loaded with "your" and "should" and "one" (the generic pronoun.) Null pointer exception. Does not compute. Have you stopped beating your wife?
vezrig 2 years ago
Ok so you are just trolling. Thanks.
overmind25 2 years ago
Trolling? Och, just read Robert Anton Wilson's book "Natural Law, or Don't Put A Rubber on your Willy." He exposes absolute morality, including the "libertarian" version, for the mediaeval dogma it is.
vezrig 2 years ago
I don't believe that there is some objective morality. I am asking if you are against theft. Just give me any examples that you feel are more specific where you would oppose people taking from you without your consent.
overmind25 2 years ago
Everyone's against theft - theft is an act of taking that folks don't approve of. The trouble is, everyone has their own definition of theft. One man's theft is another man's homesteading. The trouble is not the disagreement, but the state of mind in which a person or group believes he has the right to attack and kill people in order to enforce his definition of theft, rather than settle the dispute without threats of violence.
vezrig 2 years ago
I don't set out to convert the world to my definition of theft, but to encourage folks to be more reasonable and less violent. A world with a single uniform property system would be boring anyway.
vezrig 2 years ago
You don't have a definition of theft, because you have no definition of ownership, besides "consensus", which can mean that whatever the group decides, is the law. If my neighbors decide that the guy who moves into the house I've built and was living in should stay there, then I'm out of luck. The real trouble is that some people don't feel the need to let anyone defend their property. In that scenario, the one who uses force to resolve the dispute is the one who wins regardless of actual rights
strataluminous 2 years ago
"You can only make postulates in math, logic, etc."
And we use math and logic to do what? Hmm...What do we use math and logic for? I am pretty sure to analyze and explain the universe. God, lol.
"If you make statements about physical reality, including human beings, you have to back them up with evidence."
EVIDENCE: Every society in pre-industrialized, post-tribal history has adhered to objective property. Objective property is human nature.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
"And we use math and logic to do what? Hmm...What do we use math and logic for? I am pretty sure to analyze and explain the universe. God, lol."
Physical laws are generalizations about observations, not a-priori postulates. If science was a matter of postulates, then I could postulate a teapot orbiting Mars and not need to look for any evidence for it.
Postulates are nothing more than definitions, such as the definition of "plus" or "and."
vezrig 2 years ago
"EVIDENCE: Every society in pre-industrialized, post-tribal history has adhered to objective property. Objective property is human nature. "
You should support the State, then.
Seriously, that is only a fraction of the time that human beings have existed on this planet, and it's conveniently in historical proximity to the worldwide European imperial rampage.
If property is human nature, then why are there 1 billion squatters on this planet?
vezrig 2 years ago
I never thought I'd see the day when Mr1001Nights exploited a member of the working class. 75-cent profit for no work at all!
I, for one, am outraged!
To the barricades....
DannyOKC 2 years ago 2
This comment is for the three musketeers, mr1001, Buddhagem and chompskian. I am a big fan of Chompsky and although the professor speaks at length about right and wrong, I found this video about a guy who actually lived right and wrong and today is a whistle blower against American imperialism. I thought you would like to listen to his more then 50 minute long interview. watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8 Around the 37 minute mark it speaks about people living without money in their own economic system.
josealonsoleon 2 years ago
... ok?
nightpotato 2 years ago
Mr1001nights have you read the "Anarchist FAQ" ?
Faanat 2 years ago
Private ownership of the means of production and competition is what brings such abundance. Socialism, whether state or anarchist, could never achieve such prosperity.
DackBev 2 years ago
Well it did in anarchosocialist catalonia (+50% in agriculture, +30% traffic...) and many other examples (State-socialist Czech before sowjet invasion). But anyway, if "prosperity" is your only factor, go hail for Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, in which you can find "prosperity". I rather focus on something like on working conditions, in which the human is not a tool but active participitating.
Staubdumm 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In a capitalist society, you take your choice of whether being an employee or entrepreneur. If you want to be an "active participant" there is nothing to stop you unless you're just lazy. Hitler was an anti-capitalist. Stalin was not a capitalist. Pinochet implemented capitalist reforms in what was socialist Chile, and the result was prosperity and his own removal from office. Chile now has the highest GDP/person that any other latin american country.
DackBev 2 years ago
In colonial brazil, slaves could be a slave-owner, if they worked hard. Social mobility is not a factor for a "decent" society.
I think that you didnt understand what I said. I talked about system which are totally repressive and still had "economic prosperity" whatever economic modell. Under slavery there had been economic prosperity = a reason for slavery? Turkey stole the five-years-plan-modell from the sowjet union and had great prosperity. Countless other examples.
Staubdumm 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But we're not talking about a slave system. We're talking about a voluntary system. Capitalism is voluntary. You have a choice whether to start your own business or whether to work for someone else that has. The voluntary nature of it is what brings prosperity. A slave system would have less prosperity. If a slave system brings more prosperity, great, let's implement one. But it just so happens it doesn't. Free markets work better.
DackBev 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ou see, I'm not a moralist. I'm perfectly willing to have a slave system as in colonial Brazil, if it would bring more prosperity. The reason I advocate against doing that is because I think it brings less prosperity. People are more productive and a society is more wealthy and harmoniuos when people are free and have the freedom to keep the fruits of their labor if they desire. That's capitalism.
DackBev 2 years ago
"Capitalism is voluntary. You have a choice whether to start your own business or whether to work for someone else that has."
Most people don't even have that choice. It's your paper tiger - it's not even real.
Stop evading the aptness of Staubdumm's analogy.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago 5
Everyone has that choice. I'm self employed. You have that choice as well. Most people just aren't willing to exert the effort. It's easier to just get by in life letting someone else create jobs for you and tell you what to do. That's the coward's way of living. You choose it.
DackBev 2 years ago
Comment removed
DackBev 2 years ago
Actually, the Chile example is bunk. Apart from overthrowing the democratically-elected Allende government and implementing mass torture/repression, salaries for the working class went way down under Pinochet. It wasn't capitalism, but popular struggle that brought him down. The Soviet Union had, at the beginning of its history, much more impressive growth than Chile. That doesn't justify bolshevism
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Milton Friedman's thesis was that bringing free market reforms to Chile would result in more political freedom. He was proven right. Once you start introducing economic freedom in a nation, it becomes much harder to centralize power. Yes, popular struggle brought him down, but it's free markets that empowered them.
DackBev 2 years ago
"In colonial brazil, slaves could be a slave-owner, if they worked hard. Social mobility is not a factor for a "decent" society. "
We are talking about capitalism, not slavery. STRAWMAN=FAIL.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
Since the US accumulated a lot of wealth by destroying their enemies through war and putting them into submission (imperialism), they installed a brutal dictator in Chile, who took care of american investments. Other nations, who didnt submit (doesnt matter if they were communist) were punished by investment cuts, trade sanction and other terroristic means. Again, countless examples, especially in latin america.
Staubdumm 2 years ago 2
No, you have it backwards. The U.S. has LOST a lot of wealth through war. There has not been a net gain to the U.S. through war. War is a destructor of wealth.
DackBev 2 years ago
"U.S. has LOST a lot of wealth through war."
Stop evading the point.
In the long run, the US undeniably gains from market access when it pays off its "Pinochets" to overthrow all sorts of leaders who want to nationalize corporate property.
Hence most US intervention is not full-out war, although it does certainly come to that when the stakes are high enough.
And even when the wars burden the economy in general, a slew of well-connected corporate bureaucracies benefit nonetheless.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago 3
Moreover, using violence to obtain things is not capitalist. A capitalist BUYS things. You have to realize that the state is not capitalist.
DackBev 2 years ago
This is very much the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
The definition of capitalism is quite simple.
The capitalists control the state.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago 5
The capitalists control the state"
That's actually your definition. Let us look at all of our capitalist heroes philosophies on the state. Friedman (Minarchist) D. Friedman (Anarcho-Capitalist) Thomas Jefferson (minarchist) Murray Rothbard (anarcho capitalist.) Ludwig Von Mises (minarchist.)
Hmm. None of them were big believers in the state...
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
It doesn't matter whether the ideologues of laissez-faire capitalism were in favor of the state.
What matters is that capitalists (ie, men who profit from wage labor) control it. As they would effectively control any society, state or non-state, based upon the status quo of the majority of the wealth being in the hands of a minority of the people.
And American capitalism, frankly, is still capitalism, however different it may be from the utopian visions of Friedman, von Mises, or Rothbard.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago 3
You can attempt to deflect and back peddle all you want but you still stated that definition of capitalism is:
"The capitalists control the state."
Again you said,
"The capitalists control the state."
"And American capitalism, frankly, is still capitalism, however different it may be from the utopian visions of Friedman, von Mises, or Rothbard."
Crony capitalism. That's my definition to US capitalism. Can't change that. It is not pure, free capitalism.
"The capitalists control the state."
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
I didn't say the definition of capitalism is "the capitalists control the state."
For one thing, that's a shitty definition.
I said
"The definition of capitalism is quite simple."
"The capitalists control the state."
I intentionally separated the two sentences. They're two separate comments.
I alluded to the definition of capitalism in order to show your instantiation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
That capitalists control the state is an a posteriori observation.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago 4
these dudes certainly accepted the use of the concentrated means of coercion and violence (the state) to protect private property. it begins with dispossession, theft, inequality and requires great violence.
not at all different from the realities of capitalism- which goes to explain their ideological function.
mikezephyr 2 years ago
Do you realize that you guys also require dispossession(kicking out rightful owners of the workplace), theft(stealing the means of production), inequality(you'll always depend onthose whoproduce and profit more to fund and grow the companies) and great violence(to prevent any of that private property and free association shit) Problem for you, we have a rational basis for our rights, and your just whiny because you can't create anything more valuable than a snow cone and collectivist BS rhetoric
strataluminous 2 years ago
lame argument holmes.
private property= 1/10ths of society controls the means of production- exclusion is the operative function.
common property= all of society controls and benefits from social production- inclusion is the operative function.
mikezephyr 2 years ago 2
I'm sorry, who controls the means of production? Me? You? The five guys down the street? who implements the final say so? and by what criteria? Why do the guys down the street get what is developed by the factory I work in? All of society gets to decide what's given to whom based on what? Their needs? You don't explain what gives people the right to dispose of anyone else's production, so I'd say that's a pretty lame argument.
strataluminous 2 years ago
i don't see what the argument against it is- perhaps that the technological complexity of production is too great that it demands specialized labor and the same old problem of exploitation and exclusion? that's a possible argument against the system.
on the other hand, that line of logic betrays a lack of faith in man and the assumption that people need to be ruled over.
'You don't explain what gives people the right to dispose of anyone else's production'- well that's solidly anti-capitalist.
mikezephyr 2 years ago
No, just the only production you can imagine is the swinging of a hammer by the guy on an assembly line, and it makes no difference to you what lengths the man who paid for the factory had to go through, what work he put into making his dream a reality. You just see a man with money, assume it came from nothingness, and he's holding his ill-gotten gains over the weak and powerless to "put them down". You don't see the work that is required before any laborer steps in front of an assembly line.
strataluminous 2 years ago
"the same old problem of exploitation and exclusion" I'm sorry, I didn't mean to exclude you from profits off of my ideas and struggle, just by letting you in on the ground floor. And EXPLOITING you, I must apologize for hiring you and putting food in your mouth just for putting a few pieces of the machine I designed or at the least had the balls to put the money that I've made in voluntary trade behind. Geez, you're right I'm just a selfish individual because something exists cause of my effort
strataluminous 2 years ago
That's a nice story. Keep telling it to yourself. I love how you free market shit for brains refuse to acknolwedge the intersubjectivity of the value of money and how deviations from it create reverse taxation and exploit those who are not on equal footing. I'm onto your sick fucked up games.
aloookz 2 years ago
Common property = no one is allowed to own the fruits of their labor if they use them to create or buy a means of production. This philosophy is the enemy of the individual. It makes the collective the ruler over him. Socialism is not appealing.
DackBev 2 years ago
I consider myself a socialist and I don't think individuals shouldn't be allowed to own the fruits of their labor. I just don't believe people are entitled to gain more than the fruits of their labor. You are sort of straw manning socialism.
aloookz 2 years ago
Wow, you've just contradicted yourself in the same comment, bravo. If I'm not entitled to own the fruits of my labor, and you say I can't gain more than the fruits of my labor, who is this mysterious entity who determines what I get and how much of it I can keep? What criteria is used?
strataluminous 2 years ago
What I said was "I ---don't--- think individuals ---shouldn't--- be allowed to own the fruits of their labor" not "I don't think individuals should be entitled to the fruits of their own labor".
aloookz 2 years ago
And as for who determines the value of money? That's an intersubjective judgment. Society as a whole determines the value of money. It's a social medium of exchange. There's no getting around that fact.
aloookz 2 years ago
People determine what they will accept for certain goods in trade, what exactly is so horrible about that? Society determines what people will charge for a good, as in market price, that in no way makes the value of money subjective, just what price people will be willing to sell their goods and meet those wanting to buy halfway. What exactly is your beef? Sorry for the mix up, didn't mean to rag on you for something you didn't say. But how is to determine how much one gains from their labor?
strataluminous 2 years ago
I'm responding to anarchists who complain about taxation. Taxation is justifiable because it's the only method of redistributing wealth which has already been redistributed when people deviate from the intersubjective valuation of currency. Whenever this occurs it inflates and deflates the value of the currency. When people who earn money off exploiting the working class complain about taxes, it's like a thief complaining that they have to give back what they have stolen. I can't sympathize.
aloookz 2 years ago
1) a voluntary contract between two people (business owner and employee) to agree upon wages to be paid for services to be performed, is not comparable to 2) a force wielding entity(gov't) compelling you to pay for services you may or may not use, under threat of jail time, fines etc. in the first example both bargain with what they gained and/or possess, ie means of production and the worker's ability, there's no physical compulsion on anyone's part there, hence why the argument is BS.
strataluminous 2 years ago
If the complaint about government monetary policy is that the value of currency is being toyed with in an attempt to steal, it actually is quite comparable. If I sell you a slice of pizza for $500 because you are starving to death, I am manipulating the value of money and exploiting you because I have power over you.
aloookz 2 years ago
Capitalist anarchists shrug and play this whole it's a voluntary agreement crap, but that's such a pathetic joke, it's not even funny. It's actually disgusting. It's clearly exploitation and manipulation of money. I will never take capitalist anarchists seriously so long as they whine and complain about taxation yet are asleep when it comes to other forms of theft and eploitation. It really reveals where ones priorities are.
aloookz 2 years ago
No, you're manipulating the value of the product, and the value is different for every person anyways: the man who's starving may value a slice of pizza much more than $500, what's money to the man with nothing to eat? If no one can afford your product, how can one sell it? One aspect of the market is coming to an agreement between seller and consumer, what can both afford and still operate. BTW, not that you labeled me as such, but I'm not a capitalist anarchists, whatever that means.
strataluminous 2 years ago
Without the value of products currency has no value; the value of goods and services determines the value of money in addition to other factors such as the money supply. And I'm not saying the subjective value of money determines its worth, it's inter-subjective values which give money meaning. If it were only subjective value it wouldn't be possible to quantify anything of value by way of currency.
aloookz 2 years ago
How could you except $60 for a pair of shoes if the value of $60 is subjective? The value of money IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.
aloookz 2 years ago
Right, but it's only of value TO someone, not just by itself. If that's what you mean by inter-subjective value I'm right with you. But currency is just a medium of exchange, which at the moment isn't tied to any sort of objective standard, hence why there is inflation and such, increasing money supply and whatnot. The value of products to other people is subjective is what I'm trying to get at here.
strataluminous 2 years ago
Money has no calculable value subjectively, and it has no value in itself. Currency only has meaning intersubjectively. Intersubjective value differs from subjective value in that it is a shared pattern of value. It's not objective, but it has virtually the same meaning in this context in that it is a stabilizing element of currency. The value of products might be subjective but the value of money is intersubjective.
aloookz 2 years ago
That pizza example is ridiculous. If someone is starving to death and really values food- the way the market works- someone else will sell him food for much less than your ridiculous $500 price because they know he wants what they have. If he decides that he really wants your $500 pizza over anything else- where is the exploitation here? He valued the pizza more than he valued the $500 he has. Examples like this are such a pathetic joke its not even funny.
Bowser2398 2 years ago
The pizza microcosm was an exaggerated example, used to illustrate a point. It wasn't meant to be realistic, it's a microcosm. My point is that people have the opportunity to exploit one another due to variations in power dynamics. If you disagree with this point please explain what it is you are disagreeing with in specific.
aloookz 2 years ago
And I already explained that, by deviating from intersubjective value, this person is essentially inflating the value of money (because it is intersubjectively determined) and stealing from the public, and is able to do this because they have an advantageous power dynamic over someone else.
aloookz 2 years ago
So what you're saying is that money has(or should have) a constant and static value that everyone in society has agreed on? But money is a good that is like any other good- and every individual will always value it differently. Can you give some better examples so I can better understand your position? Because from what I'm getting are you saying that- if I bought a TV for $200- then resold it for $1000 to someone- I have stolen from the public?
Bowser2398 2 years ago
"...a constant and static value that everyone in society has agreed on?" - I didn't say I believed in fixing prices. So no dice there. "..since its a voluntary exchange where both parties are better off" - I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the parties would still have obtained wealth by exploiting a power advantage to manipulate the value of currency.
aloookz 2 years ago
:...every individual will always value it differently" - That's not possible. For if currency had only subjective value, there would be no way to grasp its worth, it would be nonsense to say currency has subjective value as a trade item, and also can be traded for X amount of goods and services. How could it's trade value be subjective yet also be set?
aloookz 2 years ago
If the TV is approximately worth $200 and you sold it to someone for $1,000 you have essentially done the same thing as inflation. This is because you simply arrived at $800 without doing anything of value which is recognized intersubjectively yet are paid in currency which is intersubjectively recognized. This is how the wealthy steal from the poor. Why would you defend such practices and then complain about taxation?
aloookz 2 years ago
Why do you have to do anything of value to sell the product for $1000 if someone else is willing to pay that price? I might cherish that TV as it could be the only one I own- and so $200 was not a price I was willing to let it go for. But then someone offered me $1000 and I accepted...this isn't how the wealthy steal from the poor there is no comparison there. Taxation is DIRECT theft- as in give me your money or I'll put you in a cage. There is no mutual benefit or cooperation.
Bowser2398 2 years ago 3
I never said you did have to do anything of value to obtain wealth, that's actually the point I'm trying to illustrate. It seems that what you are saying is that you recognize this as true but that you think it's ok. Are you saying it's ok to manipulate the purchasing power of currency, so long as it doesn't appear to be "direct theft"?
aloookz 2 years ago
Money is simply a very marketable good that most people accept. Its trade value cannot be set and this doesn't happen in the real world. Every seller determines how much money he requires before he will let go of his product. Everything has subjective value- not just money, I don't see why its so difficult to grasp its worth during trade. You just ask.
Bowser2398 2 years ago
What is marketable about pieces of printed paper with notes stamped on them other then the fact that they represent purchasing power? You still have not confronted my argument for how intersubjectivity determines the value of currency, you seem to be tip toeing around it, for if it were entirely subjective how could we exchange goods and services for currency that has entirely indeterminate meaning?
aloookz 2 years ago
I was disagreeing with the idea that selling a $500 pizza to someone is exploitation at all since its a voluntary exchange where both parties are better off than previously. I know it wasn't meant to be realistic and thats why it makes it a really bad example of the point you're trying to get across. Its not the pizza seller's fault that the starving man is in the position he is in- and he's offering the starving man a solution to his problem. Could you try to use a different example?
Bowser2398 2 years ago
"I know it wasn't meant to be realistic and thats why it makes it a really bad example :- It was just an abstract simplification meant to show that differences in power dynamics effect the value of goods and services. I could think of an endless supply of examples, a Mexican working for low wages, a teenager being exploited by their boss, people of low education, mentally challenged people, etc...
aloookz 2 years ago
A mexican working for low wages is due to the fact that he hasn't earned enough skills to get higher wages. If he learns english- and learns more skills- he doesn't have to work for low wages. Jobs that offer low wages do so because there is minimil training required, high in demand, and the only way for the business to continue running for the benefit of the Employer, employee, and customers. Immigration laws are the real culprit in that particular power dynamic.
Bowser2398 2 years ago
Ok, let's seriously cut through this and get to the heart of this issue. Are you trying to say that power dynamics have absolutely no effect on exchanges in the free market? It seems like that's what you are driving at with your hypothetical refutations. Or are you saying they do have an effect and that you are comfortable with this for some reason? It's a little confusing to me...grasping your position.
aloookz 2 years ago
Market price does not reflect the actual value of the object but the maximum amount of inflation possible. Meaning that the producer is paid less for the goods worth and the consumer pays more than the goods worth.
Where's the beef?
IrminC 2 years ago
I don't understand what you are saying. When I say subjective deviation from intersubjective determinations of value can be -like- inflation, I'm not saying they are inflation. My point is that they have the same effect on the value of the currency, a taxing effect, not that the two are the same. Market prices are thought to be set by supply and demand alone, yet my point is that power dynamics change this.
aloookz 2 years ago
I agree with you on the effect of currency.
However, elaborate on power dynamics. Are you referring to market manipulation?
IrminC 2 years ago
When I say "power dynamic", I'm refering to variations in power, between two or more individuals. For instance, if I am blind and, as a result, I might rely on others to assist me in certain tasks, there would be a variation in power dynamics between us...I better not piss you off because I need you, yet you are free to treat me like dirt because I need you. Of course, in economics, the handicap would be in not having as many advantages as the wealthy have.
aloookz 2 years ago
I concur.
IrminC 2 years ago
Comment removed
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
what he is saying is this if you read john locke you will find that the reason for the state is to keep civility by stopping all those hungry hands who might want to steal or touch my hard earned result of exploitation (property.) Capitalist don't like a democratic state b/c it gives a vote to the working class who has the ability to make reforms. i.e. lower work days, minimum wage, regulation etc. although the state is there for the rich it gives some area of reform for the rest of us.
prjctcivilian 2 years ago
That's certainly the case.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
NO, you're confusing corporatism with capitalism - a common mistake among leftists. Capitalism is a PRIVATE system. CORPORATISM is the system of private and government government partnership.
DackBev 2 years ago
" = a reason for slavery? Turkey stole the five-years-plan-modell from the sowjet union and had great prosperity. Countless other examples."
There is not a single socio-economic model, that has ever been conceived, that is free from oppression . Capitalism is the model that has been proven to minimize oppression and maximize prosperity. Give me your ideal socio-economic model. I will show you how it oppresses and how it diminishes prosperity.
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
how is communism one of oppression.
prjctcivilian 2 years ago 3
1. Ownership, a postulate of human nature is disregarded by the state.
2. Resources do not allocate naturally via the free market, therefore the government must manage resources. Labor is a resource, and your labor is controlled by the state. This makes you a slave to the state.
3. The freedom to make profit is lost. There is no personal incentive to work hard, the only incentive is to avoid punishment of the state.
4. The general public has no freedom to determine the value of the goods & servi
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
1. In true communism there is no state- read... and even if there were, the labourers would own the business regardless
2. labor is not a resource it is a process of creating things, labour power (the capability to sell owns labour, i short of course) is a commodity
3. Profit is the exploitation of the worker. the incentive to work- each according to his ability each according to his need. if a worker works past what is democraticly deemed the standard he can earn more. plus ...
prjctcivilian