@HaleFire7 If a homeless person walks into Walmart to buy food, he is denied the things he needs to survive, as he has no money. If there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, then why are we denying people what they need to survive? Why are Africans dying every day from starvation?
(Insert region) is starving because they don't have capitalism. You need capital investment to increase the wealth of society meaning a bigger pie for all. Redistribution of wealth takes away incentive to invest in better and cheaper goods, it does help the unfortunate in that instance, but you'll continue giving them pieces of an increasingly smaller pie. Do people advocating this video not believe in property rights? I guess if I'm hungry it's perfectly okay to take "your" food then, thanks.
@GKDrew89 (Insert region) is starving because they HAVE Capitalism. Currently, there are no areas with Marxist Communism or Anarchist Communism. All of the regions claiming to have it are dictatorships where the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (direct democracy) is just a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Personally, I think that there should be no money in the world, and that things like food should be equally distributed.
@josephschwenker You want to do away with money? Holy crap, I guess I've never talked with an anarchist from the other side (I'm anarcho-capitalist,) this is kinda cool. I think a hard commodity money is the cornerstone of a prosperous, wealthy society. Don't think gold standard, hard money being rigged by a government isn't much better than fiat money counterfeited by the government. Is Anarchist Communism no government? Who would make the food and who would distribute it?
@GKDrew89 My viewpoints are not characterized entirely by Anarchist Communism, but they combine a mix of many different viewpoints. I personally support the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and interpret it as Direct Democracy, where everyone is able to suggest and vote on laws. Anarchy, Communism, and Direct Democracy all point to this kind of government. I personally think that food would be made by whoever wants to make food. Some people love to cook, and some people love plants.
@josephschwenker Hmm.. well I've always thought of anarchy as the absence of government but we are entitled to our own definitions I suppose. You know you have to stop capitalism by force right? I mean capitalism just happens naturally when two people get together and realize they benefit from trade. Money has to occur if an economy will ever take off because in barter you need a coincidence of wants, with money you can indirectly trade and smooth out the process.
@GKDrew89 It's impossible to have no government at all, because then no decisions can be made. In Anarchy, I think that there is a government, but it's so decentralized that it's not even recognized. In Anarchy, everyone works with everyone else to make decisions about what to do. That decentralized decision making is called Direct Democracy. Yes, there will have to be a forceful revolution for Capitalism to disappear. On a small scale, Capitalism is okay, but on a large scale, oh dear.
@josephschwenker I wanna go decentralized all the way down to the individual, only individuals make decisions anyway. I am obviously on a way different spectrum and we'll never convince each other. I would just flip that last part honestly, I don't think communism would ever even get too something prosperous and "large scale." I think capitalism just happens naturally, progress can't happen without it. Isn't direct democracy just plain tyranny of the majority? 51% get to rob the other 49%.
@GKDrew89 I also want things to be decentralized to the individual. However, for large scale things, like the Haiti disaster, things need to be decided in groups. People can use technology to make decisions today, why can't we use that for government? Why couldn't everyone in the world take a poll on how to aid Haiti? Who said anything about 51%? I'm all for 2/3 or higher. Maybe 70%? Either way, it should be somewhere in the A-C grade range.
@josephschwenker I think voluntary contributions to Haiti overshadowed government contributions I don't see any point in having to vote. People just flew and boated there to help on there own dime, that's pretty awesome. The only reason there would be to vote would be to force someone to help which I can't advocate at all. Okay no 51% controlling 49%- now at 2/3 or 70%, that minority is really fucked.
@GKDrew89 In a large scale, Capitalism facilitates the ability to exploit and alienate others because of their lack of money. In trading, everyone benefits, but what if someone couldn't produce enough apples because of a drought? Then do they starve? My viewpoints say that instead of trying to make the most profit from something, try and help the most people. Capitalism wants profit, and my viewpoints want to provide goods to everyone for free, and thus want to help everyone.
@josephschwenker Nothing is free, it has to be payed for by the public in the long run somehow. I don't think if a person is dying it is acceptable to force someone else to take care of them. I certainly don't have a problem with charity, who knew that the richest people in the world are also the ones who give the most to charity, by a long shot. People are naturally empathetic and help each other you don't need to force people to take care of each other.
@GKDrew89 I'm not forcing people to take care of others. Though, that already happens in Capitalism. If no one offered goods for others to by, everyone would die. People offering goods for sale are taking care of others by providing them to the public. Nothing is free ONLY in Capitalism. If there is no money, then everything is free. As for forcing people, people should be required to allow people in dire need of products access to them.
@GKDrew89 If people are naturally empathetic, then why is most of Africa starving? Why is Chile recovering quickly while Haiti starves? Why are there so many homeless in America? Let's just end the conversation now. I'm a bit tired of receiving the notifications of new messages. ;)
@josephschwenker Yeah dude this could go on forever, we've kept it pretty civil though.
google this: Andrew Mwenda a new look at Africa
Please watch the video on ted.com (I can't seem to post website.) It explains exactly why Africa is poor. Foreign aid given by governments goes to government bureaucracy and nothing goes to people who need it. Voluntary charity actually goes to those who need it most, any democratic or otherwise forceful "charity" will never be able to match effectiveness.
@GKDrew89 I already know that foreign aid goes only to the corrupt governments. You're missing my point. I do not want this charity to be forceful. Under Uto Law 3, you cannot force anyone to do anything. However, people could vote on how to deliver the supplies necessary. In Haiti, a big problem was that people couldn't get supplies in. This voting system would allow people to debate and find the best way to import supplies.
@GKDrew89 As they say, "for the common good", and not for profit. This is why projects like Wine and Linux have taken off so much. Some of the best content has came from the community. In computing, you don't need money. Because things can be distributed for free, no money is necessary but for the electricity. Thus, by eliminating the costs in physical items, we can allow everyone the chance to create that great content.
@GKDrew89 Thus, people would naturally seek out doing those jobs. Someone has an apple orchard, and they love walking out in it every day and picking apples. One of their friends is a chef who has a business (businesses cannot be corporations, they can only be small, family owned local businesses) selling apple pies. The apple-picker gives some of his apples to the pie maker, and gives away the rest of his apples.
@josephschwenker Would me simply liking to draw make me an artist? What if I suck? I bet everybody just gets the perfect rosy job they like this is sounding a little utopian. What is the pie business selling their pies for? I could ask a billion questions man I just think it's a lot easier to let people naturally form their own associations and let it go, defense and all privately owned businesses. States give corporate status and give special benefits to corporations, I don't advocate that.
@GKDrew89 Careers are taken more casually than you think in my viewpoints. If you like to draw, then draw! You improve by drawing! I make portraits of people in Inkscape, and my first few sucked! After those first few, I began to improve and be great. Why do I do them? Because of the positive feedback and constructive criticism I get both from the people I make them of, their friends, and my family. In businesses, Capitalism takes away this satisfactory feeling of doing good.
@josephschwenker Capitalism rewards you for doing good, the only way to make a profit is to satisfy someone else. If someone is actually willing to trade their hard earned money for something I've drawn or otherwise created I would feel very satisfied with my work. The market would help me improve my skills because when I suck I don't get to make money the analogy in business being that there's not a whole lot of incentive for a business to improve product unless their going to make a profit.
@GKDrew89 However, what if someone wants your work, but they are unable to get it because they cannot afford it? Then your "analogy" alienates people. The solution? Piracy, which I support, and call "Freedom of Redistribution". Under Uto Law 6, all intellectual property is the property of all mankind. Thus, if someone can't afford your piece of artwork, they can get it via redistribution. Thus, DRM springs up, thus, Totalitarianism springs up. Wouldn't it be simpler to trash Capitalism?
@josephschwenker Your "laws" contradict each other man. Your numbers one through three are good but then you fall off there. According to #3, I can keep my work of art if I "don't consent to the action" and not have it "redistributed" - though it wasn't distributed to me in the first place. Now if I consent to trade with you or give it away, and you obtain that work legitimately, then you can copy away. If you obtain a pirated work from someone who obtained it without force, everything's peachy.
@GKDrew89 Law number three is supposed to stop actions such as torture, imprisonment, rape, and other nonconsensual crimes. However, it it is legalized by another law, then it does not apply. For instance, if you argue that you are being forced to put your work into public domain because of law 3. That is not a valid argument, because all work is public domain under law 3. However, if someone tries to burn all of your artwork, then that is illegal.
@GKDrew89 Capitalism, instead, replaces this feeling with profit and the desire to make money off of everything. Instead of making portraits for the fun of it and for making people happy, I would then be working myself to death for money so I could pay my bills. Capitalism makes people overwork themselves and not even feel the satisfaction of their labor. The person who makes pies makes pies so that they can make people happy and do what they love, to cook!
@GKDrew89 Also, the lack of patents and copyrights will allow other people to make pies if the pie maker's business becomes a bit too overwhelming. Since there is no competition and no patents, no one holds a monopoly, no one is overworked, and more people get what they want.
@josephschwenker I think an ideal area of anarcho-capitalism would permit many of the things you're advocating. If you want to join a group that votes on things and abolishes money, you may do so. But if I'm associating with whom I prefer, and using money for transactions while working for someone- according to your own first three laws would suggests you cannot overthrow the free-market with moral legitimacy.
@GKDrew89 About incentive: Capitalism takes away true incentive, and replaces it with the desire to exploit and profit everything. There is no need to invest in anything that is "better" or "cheaper" if there is no Capitalism. You invest your interest in it, and then it becomes popular. No need for money. About property rights: I think that people should keep what they have, but if someone is starving or dying, they should be able to take what they need to survive.
@josephschwenker Don't you want continually better and cheaper goods for an economy? Do you want an economy at all? I just really don't belong here I think.
@GKDrew89 I want things to require less labor and resources to create, and I want the quality of things to improve as technology progresses forward, but I don't want money to influence that. One of the factors that will help to improve technology in my viewpoints is the lack of restrictive patents and copyrights. Everything is immediately public domain, and everyone can redistribute and modify it. Thus, I could translate Photoshop into Esperanto if I wanted to.
@josephschwenker Dang there's actually some common ground here. I don't agree with intellectual property either, I think if you want to own a thought you should keep it in your head. If you steal a physical book that's wrong but if someone sells you a book, you OWN it- which means right to copy or whatever, unless you signed a contract stating otherwise. I think that economical progress, which has to come with technological progress, can only be done with money though, big disagreement there.
Uh no, it's not. It may in some sense be against your subjective value judgement, but "private property is a logical fallacy" is akin to "language is a logical fallacy."
@asdfgasdfasdful I was making fun of you. Private property, at it's core is a vessel of coercion. If we want to talk about real definitions we can say it's the tractor beam that sucks us all into the capitalist market. When I say private property I mean private ownership of the means of production and (absentee) natural resources.
"Private ownership of the means of production and (absentee) natural resources" is a non-concept premised on long-obsolete economic terminology. Everything is a potential means of production, all resources are ultimately natural, and controlling 'all production' means controlling all products. By that definition, all human institutions based on anything other than absolute pacifism are at their core "vessels of coercion." To universally oppose private property as such is silly.
@asdfgasdfasdful Why would anyone work for you if they had equal access to the industrial and or personal means of production? They wouldn't. Get it kid? It's not that hard to understand. Right now people work for a boss because the majority of society has been coerced into the capitalist market via private ownership of the means of production and the vast majority of the earths land and resources. In an anarchist society workers would laugh at your slave wages, rent and interest.
You are begging the question, crud. First, again, absolutely everything is a potential means of production. Second, "equal access" is not logically possible (see interpersonal utility comparison impossibility, etc.) as long as you have natural scarcity i.e. reality. Third, the "means of production" is not some static X out there - it has to be dynamically maintained and reinvented. Attempting "equal access" above the neocortex limit (~150 people) destroys the structure of production.
"Democratic" access? You mean you want majoritarianism? Mob rule? Okay, well that's just as nonsensical an ideal as equalitarianism. Collective rule through majority voting is (1) logically impossible as Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel for proving, (2) subject to rational ignorance and rational irrationality, and (3) practically impossible without a state to stamp out cascading individual secession. I thought you started with a quip about "private property"...
@asdfgasdfasdful Actual democracy is impossible? Tel that to Rousseau, Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Luxemburg, Kropotkin, William Haywood, Albert Camus, Angel Pestana, Antonie Pannekoek, Alexander Berkman etc. Yes expropriation means democratic control of the means of production. Fuck man...read something.
Do you think listing a few names is an argument? Should I be impressed that you can type? I am quite familiar with all of those authors... I'm not sure why you're putting Camus in there. At this point, I can prettymuch guarantee you I'm more well-read in economic and "anarchist" theory than you. You still have neither made nor indicated any arguments for anything whatsoever. You're boring.
@asdfgasdfasdful You're ignorant. Camus was a supporter of socialism....syndicalism to be more precise, as was Sartre. Anyone who thinks actual democracy is impossible is a raging ignoramus. This means you. Anyone who cant see the coercive nature of private property is also a raging ignoramus. This means you.
Camus was a Marxist state communist when he was young. When he got older, he became a staunch and famous absolute individualist, anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-collectivist, anti-Marxist. I suggest you read his essays 'The Self-Deception of the Socialists,' 'Homage to an Exile,' and 'Rebellion and Murder' and the books 'The Rebel' and 'An Ethic Superior to Murder.' Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel for his logical proof that collective choice via majoritarian "democracy" is impossible.
@asdfgasdfasdful Most anarchists are anti Marxist. Sartre also rejected Marxism later in life and adopted more of an anarchist position. I suggest you actually read what he wrote LOL
Why are you talking about Sartre in a response about the (1) the views of Albert Camus and (2) the logical impossibility of collectivist "democracy?" Respond to the post to which you are purporting to reply or piss off back to the shithole of obsolete dogma you came from.
@asdfgasdfasdful Because if you had any sense you would know Sartre and Camus were both politically involved and shared the same views (obviously not when Sartre was communist). Do you even know the difference between anarchism and Marxism?
Camus supported anti-state voluntary syndicalists just as he supported anti-state voluntary individualist anarchists (eg Bonnot Gang). He also supported the United States in its opposition to the Soviet Union. By your logic, he was in favor of American nationalism. Anyway, he was not opposed to individually voluntary syndics. I am not opposed to individually voluntary syndicalist corporations or communes or anything else. I argue they are drastically less economically efficient.
He also was a financial supporter of Révolution Proletarienne until his death. Google it. Learn something. Also when he criticized "socialism" he was criticizing Marxism/Leninism/authoritarian regimes not democracy you ignorant twit.
@asdfgasdfasdful And you should know why Sartre turned down the noble prize. Because it's a burgeosis stamp of approval. Of course the bourgeoisie have been against democracy since day one. It would undermine their AUTHORITY and privilege. Fuck you're ignorant.
@asdfgasdfasdful I also suggest you read "George Orwell and Albert Camus: A Comparative Study – Their Views and Dilemmas in the Politics of the 1930s and 40s". Saying Camus was against anarcho syndicalism is like saying Orwell was a capitalist because he wrote 1984! LOL
I like how you've reduced yourself to petty insults in your avoidance of any actual argument about (1) the emergence of private property, (2) the economic feasibility of equalitarian firms, (3) the logical impossibility of collectivist democracy, (4) the practical problems of majoritarian voting (interest groups etc.), (5) the economic superiority of free markets on a macro (>150) scale due to the calculation and incentive problems inherent in a priori human organization, etc.
@asdfgasdfasdful petty insults? did you or did you not try to say Camus was against worker democracy? As for 1- I spoke of the coercive nature of private ownership of the means of production not the emergence of private property although it (private property) has always been a matter of exuding the masses from equal sustenance at the benefit of a minority. From feudal lords ruling over serfs to capitalists ruling over workers. Theft from the masses forces them/us into the property owners system.
@asdfgasdfasdful as for 2- 3 workplace direct democracy and general equality go hand in hand. Of course bourgeois economists and thinkers will say general equality is impossible. I bet you're a fan of the Bell Curve. Are you not aware anarchist societies have existed only to be destroyed by fascists? The thought of it probably makes your nipples hard. Collectivist democracy has existed. As Francisco Franco how to end it.
@asdfgasdfasdful As for 5. There has never been a free market. If anything is impossible it is capitalism without a state. How will the elite minority subjugate the masses without a state? They cant. Private property, rent and interest cannot exist without a state. If anything is impossible it is your Rothbardian fantasy land of "free markets".
@asdfgasdfasdful As for 4- again, capitalists despise direct democracy because it would marginalize their authority. Of course we have a representative system under capitalism. One in which each representative represents the interests of concentrated wealth. You should watch "Century of Self" by Adam Curtis. Has any people ever voted to drop nuclear bombs on other people? Nope. That was a result of your precious American plutocracy.
...so people will want to work for my firm because it will be much more productive, efficient, and sustainable and thus I will be able to pay them much more than your hippie-totalitarian non-firm where even if they earned equal wages, those wages would be less. See every example of attempts at imposing equalitarian economic organization in the real world, and basic economics.
@asdfgasdfasdful LOL. Ya right. You'll be able to both pay your wage slaves more and profit while competing with workers who make less than your workers? LOL How old are you? Also please watch the video on my page entitled "the interests of capital and wage labor". And no I'm not a communist. One can read and understand Marx's critique of capitalism without agreeing with the plan to end capitalism by taking over the state. Abolish the state and the capitalists have nothing to stop expropriation.
I'm 23 and I am a published and degreed economist... no, I'm not going to watch your video on Marxism. I am very familiar with Marxian economics (as I was a Marxist revisionist social democrat in my younger years) and with the reasons why Marxian economics is long-debunked, obsolete mysticism akin to creationism and geocentrism. You have made no arguments for your "democratic" firm being efficient, sustainable, or even possible... I take it you have none.
this is very redundant. Nobody would grant someone the power to deny them the thing they need to survive. That was clear at 1:00. I don't think the other 5 min were necessary.
What's your point?
'Would you ever have sex with a chicken and then beat yourself to death with it?' Ask 100 people and see if anyone says yes. That would be about as productive and informative.
The capitalist denies you nothing. If you take (steal) the property of the capitalist you are denying him what he needs to survive. What the capitalist does (in the real world in which private property exists, has always existed and will always exist) is, by providing opportunities, grants the individual the power to EARN enough to obtain the things he neds to survive.
The very definition of capitalism has to do with capital/property the capitalist doesn't "need to survive" -- which results in the exploitative "work for a boss or else" status quo capitalists collectively impose (wage slavery). True, the capitalists "provides you the opportunity" to endure exploitation and workplace dictatorship under threat of starvation. Great opportunity!
Sigh. The whole theory (labor theory of value) behind *exploitation* was thoroughly debunked more than a century ago (sorry you didn't get the memo. The capitalist CANNOT *impose* anything on anyone. Work for a boss, or yourself, or another boss or live off savings - on planet Earth, it's entirely voluntary. That people must eat and that they must obtain the means to do so from somewhere is not an imposition, it is the state of reality. Wage slavery is an oxyMORON.
You wrongly assume that the LTV is behind of all theories of capitalist exploitation. And you confuse the subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance) with the subjection of man by man (having to work for a boss). That's one of the arguments slave owners used: "Why is slavery wrong, slaves have to work anyway to survive right?"
I imagine that it must be embarrasing that someone who claims to "fletch" for freedom is in reality "fletching" for slavery
Capitalism is economic liberty - the power of the individual to choose from the options that exist in the real world from the option to avail oneself of an opportunity from someone else (hierarchical structures are neither inherently oppressive or anything less than the norm - see any family) or choose to go without a "boss". It is the assumption that one may simply take the property of others, perhaps all of it, using force if necessary (as must happen) that is oppressive.
Dinging my comments doesn't change the fact that we come into this world with neither the means to survive or any entitlement to them. My question remains unanswered - how then should one obtain those means? In a free market (which, by definition, does not involve coercion so the comparison to slavery is moronic)? Or wealth redistribution by force?
I imagine it must be embarrassing that someone so quick to insult me cannot answer this obvious basic question.
The "work for a boss or else" capitalists collectively impose means "wealth redistribution by force" -- by those who reap non-labor income exploiting those who work.The alternative means worker self-management of industry/economy--based among other things on the distinction between non-exploitative property (for personal active use, like a bed, toothbrush, home etc) &exploitative property (industries, swaths of land etc which must remain democratic to prevent dictatorial exploitative workplaces)
You have said that the (debunked) labor theory of value is not the only basis for the term "exploitation". Please put forth an objective definition of exploitation that demonstrates how an employment contract entered into voluntarily by a worker that guarantees him a specific income for a specific task (just as a table-maker gets paid for his table), that demonstrably makes him better off than he would otherwise be, is somehow esploitation.
"that demonstrably makes him better off than he would otherwise be, is somehow exploitation"
irrelevant, since the coercive "work for a boss or else" situation already assumes the person has decided to work for a boss over the (capitalist-imposed) unpleasant consequences he has as an alternative
But the "eork for a boss or else" situation is pure fantasy. There is no coercion taking place. If you choose not to work for a boss, capitalism doesn't care - GO DO IT. If you cannot do so and earn sufficient income to support your chosen standard of living, no one has imposed that circumstance upon you. There is no circumstance imposed on you (or anyone else) that requires you to "work for a boss". That is dictated by your own abilities.
Finally, my question remains effectively unanswered. Priovate property exists (always has, always will). We are bnorn with neither the resources to survive nor any entitlement to them. Again, given that state, how do you propose that the individual obtain the means to survive, by free negotiation or by force?
The freemarket does not guarantee one freedom of slavery firstly the notion that one has self sovreignty or an inate right to govern ones activity irespective of property doesn't apply to any free market philosophy as it does not relate to the notion of property, or to profit further more any notion to self property doesn't intrinsic to grant one freedom to any form of slavery. As one may still be coerced into slavery under self ownership.
Your statement is objectively false. By definition the free market (economic liberty) requires the protection of self-opwnerhip else the actors in the marketplace are not free. Certainly nothing short of greater armaments totally prevents the imposition of coercion, but, by definition, the application of such coercion is not capitalism (the free market). Even anarchism cannot prevent such imposition, but, likewise, its imposition is not anarchism.
Freedom (and the free market) end at the infringement upon the liberty of others - slavery is almost universally a government institution and the term "wage slavery" is a complete oxymoron because no coercion occurred to create the labor agreemnet and it can be severed at any time. Perhaps the problem is with the notion of property which syndicalists often assume has not always existed and/or is defensably different when speaking of a toothbrush or a factory (both fallacies).
If by "debunked" you mean "misunderstood" and/or "straw-manned" by its ideological opponents (i.e., the power elite, a.k.a. "capitalists," and their slavishly sycophantic stooges).
It is perfectly tautological that nothing humans produce would be produced unless they produced it. That's the LTV for dummies, and it's a self-evident fact.
At any rate, as Mr1001nights implied, it's rather trivial to poke holes in the mythology of the Church of the Invisible Hand, even using Its own Chapter & Verse. The LTV was official Church doctrine until it was turned against the Hand and had to be dropped by It. Comically, every new doctrine the Church adopts (e.g., "Marginal Productivity") ends up turned against It by those who refuse to abandon the fight for liberty.
If you don't want a boss, capitalism doesn't object. We come into this world with neither the means to survive or any entitlement to them. There are only two ways to obtain them, either freely - 1) a free market in which I can offer something of value (including labor) for something else of value or 2) the property of someone must be taken away (by force) in order to provide it. There's no escaping that reality and there is no third option. As my nom du guerre implies, I prefer freedom.
not "granting permission to deny you the things you need to survive" does not imply arbitrary power-- it's philosophical underpinning is self-management, no bosses (neither government nor capitalists) and that my freedom ends where yours begins. funny how people like you who defend wage slavery and capitalist power and privilege ignore the confiscation of money and the "perceived need" to defend exploitative property and elites -- projecting your own slavish subordination onto others
LOL.If I was a betting man I would put all my money on the fact that she is a Far Left lunatic.Not a Liberal,there is a difference.She would want to grant someone that power because shes to incompetent to take care of herself.Otherwise she would of answered the question.Also,your statement"all things are politics".That is 100% right.I agree with your entire comment.
NO, in a capitalistic system, nobody has power over anyone, and one cannot grant someone a power they themselves do not have, the market comprises only of voluntary interactions, what you are refuting is statism and corpratism, not capitalism.
The unintended consequence of your train of thought is you justify almost any action if it is a matter of survival.
I also think that most people who answered didn't really understand that they were answering.
so norcofreerider604; your basically saying capitalism doesn't exhist in the real world? Capitalism, by your definition, is free of power and therefore must be perfectly competive. I challenge you to find me one single perfectly competitive system, because Im pretty positive you wont find one. The fact is, capitalism needs its checks and balances because it doesn't exhist in the real world, its the same way for any political ideology.
Not free of power, but free of legitimate coercive power. This is not to ingnore that there will always be coercive forces at work in any system, it can only de-legitimize the initiation of force against others. By stating "would you grant anyone the power to deny you the things you need to survive" you legitimize the initiation of force.
As for a perfectly competitive system, there are none today, because government exists everywhere, but this does not mean the idea is invalid.
They all said yes but, they all have and so have we, what is stopping our goverments from taking everthing we own and just leaving us in a ditch to rot??
you confuse anarchism with mini-states fighting for control. Of course, bosses would want u to believe that unless you subject yourself to their authority you'll live in such a hell hole.
The American public has granted "Obama" the power to deny US all...you will see. "before you can enslave completely, you must disarm"..tyrants ( What is up with 1:57..the retard train?)
Only people with money can choose to be substistance farmers. The only choice poor people have is to work for others hoping that they will get a big enough paycheck to save some money and one day be able to go into business of their own. But since there are no protections for poor people they're rights are violated and they are only paid enough to continue being wage slaves for the rest of their life.
u shouldn't confuse the unavoidable subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance), with the subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss). I suggest you read the wikipedia article on wage slavery to understand what I mean.
I understand the theory. The problem is that the theory is nonsense.
No man is forced to work for another man. People only work as laborers if they feel they are better off selling their labor than retaining it for their own use.
When people were subsistence farmers, they were their own boss. People can still live that way if they choose, or they can create jobs, thereby also being their own boss.
The argument for wage slavery is logically fallacious by equivocating work with slavery.
the objection has to do NOT with working for a living, but having to work for a BOSS in order to prosper or merely to subsist (a coerced set of choices). Even if the amount of social mobility in capitalism were as great as supporters claim, it wouldnt matter. Some slaves in Colonial Brazil were able to buy their own freedom&become self-employed or even slave owners themselves. Did that justify chattel slavery? Would the ability to go from homeless to millionaire fascist dictator justify fascism?
When Frederick Douglass escaped slavery and took a paying job, he declared "Now I am my own master." According to Douglas, wage labor did not represent oppression but fair exchange and former slaves for the first time receiving the fruits of their labor. According to abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, "wage slavery" (in a time when chattel slavery was still common) was an "abuse of language."
The wiki article from which u quote addresses that: Wage slaves just like chattel slaves remain so even if they identify with their oppressors&think of themselves as free due to propaganda self-deception&false consciousness. Chattel slavery was also perceived as legitimate because of the influences of its power structure&moral arguments were offered in its favor. There's no reason to believe that 1 day we wont look back at wage slavery w/the same moral outrage w/which we react to chattel slavery
I don't believe anyone would want us not to survive. We are needed to man the factories,call centers,do the work. This is not a question of survival it a question of 60% of the wealth belonging to 2% of the population.
It is a question of survival. They don't see you as a human being, they don't see you as an equal. They see you as a number, an interchangeable, expendable entity that is only relevant when it benefits their desires. Why would they care if you live or die, starve or cry? to them you are only apart of the statistics. They will use you and your tragedies to benefit them, it is more than evident.
Haha, this is great, it's human nature to be social. Most of us don't tolerate this injustice. But there's allot of work, I think parecon is a wonderful experiment cause it gives people a realistic view on how society could be. It is the practical theory of the ideals the left in general always had. Keep up the work!
Allowing the abolition of private property is allowing others the power to deny you of the things you need to survive. Private property is the means for the individual to survive on his own.
What I said was that keeping me away from the things I need to survive is coercion, it doesn't matter if it's my 'property' or not. Taking things that I don't need to survive is not coercion, depending on the specifics it may be immoral in some peoples views but it's not coercion by any logic.
Do you ever think about what would happen if everyone could take at will what he consider to be needed for his survival? Why should anyone produce something or pay for something they have the right to take from someone else?
Do you ever think about the reasons why people work? I recommend look into it. People aren't productive members of society just so they can have more stuff, the reasons go way deeper than that. Work doesn't always have to be something you hate doing and would rather be sitting on your ass watching TV. It's way today because of capitalism, it turns workers into cobs in a machine. That can easily be changes if workers are actually in control of their work and can therefore take pride in it.
If you cannot keep the product or your work, if you cannot deny others from taking the product of your work, because everyone has the right to take it and not pay, then you won't work, I would not, and nobody would, except if they can keep or hide the product of their labor for themself or for their familly or for their friends. That thing you keep from the product of your work is called PROPERTY.
By the note I got on my comments I guest most of you would work even if everyone can take at will the fruit of your labor and not pay you back, it's very altruistic of you but not wise.
People don't work for the fruits of their labour. Again, the reason goes way deeper than that. The basic reason why people work or do anything at all, if you get right down to it, is simply to secure a future for their genes and/or genes that are similar to theirs. It's the same for all living things.
Being selfish and being altruistic are different means to that same ends. But it's been shown that, in most cases, being altruistic is much more effective/efficient. I recommend watching "nice guys finish first" on google video. Capitalism puts emphasis on selfishness to achieve that goal. socialism puts emphasis on altruism to achieve that goal.
For ants the reproductive agent is the queen, so every individual in the colonie is born to sacrifice himself for the good of the queen; therefore ants are "altruistic". For humans the reproductive agent is every individual himself; therefore humans are egoist. For humans altruism is only a matter of habits and instinct on a background of egoism.
If that were the case then how could anarchy exist at all? If society really is a war of all against all then how is it that no individual would use coercion on others if he had more ability to use coercion than others?
It don't says and I don't say that society is a war of all againts all, it says that individuals seek their own interrest, that may mean cooperation and/or coercion, but has you pointed out before cooperation is mostly more efficient as shows Axelrod, but as shows Axelrod cooperation is or can be motivated by egoism; because one may need to cooperate for his own interrest and mostly it is more efficient then not cooperate.
I wasn't responding to Axelrod. I was responding to "For humans the reproductive agent is every individual himself; therefore humans are egoist. For humans altruism is only a matter of habits and instinct on a background of egoism."
Capitalism mean nothing if you delibarately want to take it in a pejorative manner. Socialism by necessity means the use of coercion, their cannot be socialism without coercion (obligatory work, imposition of moral obligations, taxation or collectivisation). Else socialism could be voluntary, but it would become part of a market economy unless that voluntary socialism isolate itself from the world ...
You're quick to tell me not to use capitalism in a pejorative manner yet you do the same for socialism in the very same comment, you have a double standard. Capitalism means property rights, socialism means voluntary property relations. Obligatory work, moral obligations and taxes are not socialism. Capitalism requires forcing people into accepting property rights. Socialism doesn't force anyone to accept any rights, as long as people treat their own rights the same way they treat others rights.
That the most weird comments I ever read about socialism and capitalism. No body force you to recognize the fruit of your labor as your property, if you don't want property you may let people take it at will. I don't take socialism in a pejorative manner I take in by the most common definition of it. Socialism implies collectivisation of all property and means of production by a central governement or by a voluntary group.
The most common definiton of capitalism is private property, private property of the means of production and free-trade.
And your property is the fruit of your labor not everything you wish to own. If you grow vegetables those vegetables are yours, you can eat them, trade them, trash them, transform them. Am I coercing you by producing vegetables and keeping them for my own use?
The most common conception of capitalism is one with a state, taxes, moral obligations and coercion. If you can use the most common conception of socialism can I use the most common conception of capitalism? You have a pretty obvious double standard for the two.
And that isn't the most common definition of property by the way, thats just one theory of property amongst countless others. Don't act like your one definition is the only divinely inspired concept of property.
Mostly capitalism means property right and free trade, that's not pejorative, what is pejorative is telling that capitalism put emphasis on selfishness as a values, capitalism promote no values, values are personal choice.
Moral obligation, obligatory work, and taxes have been promoted by most socialist and communist alike from the beginning. Capitalism don't force you to into accepting property rights, if you don't want to claim your rights of property on the fruit of your labor that's your own choice.
Property, by definition, doesn't only affect one person, it affects everyone. Property is to limit someones liberty to use certain objects and act in certain ways. Therefore those who define property need to be those who are affected by the definition, not simply the 'proprietor'. If I define my property as everything under the sun can I use coercion to 'protect' it? Whats the difference between my right to that property and your right to your property as you define it?
You're saying let the property owner define whats his property is. thats like saying let the criminal judge if hes guilty, or let the student grade himself, or let the winner of the game define the rules. It just doesn't make sense.
Your property is the fruit of your labor not everything you wish to own. If you grow vegetables those vegetables are yours, you can eat it, trade it trash it transform it. Am I coercing you by producing vegetables and keeping them for my own use?
Yes you are. Thats the point. After several generations certain groups of individuals accumulate so much property that they can use it to coerce others. The only way they can do that is by using coercion to keep people away from the vast amounts of property they accumulated.
Why do you think a person could not claim ownership of everything even if he didn't 'mix his labour' with everything?
I thought you were asking if it was coercion to keep me away from the food you produced assuming that you produce more than what you can use. I though you were actually asking a realistic question that had relevance in the real world.
If you simply produce/use food that is not coercion in itself.
I agree, and it only confirm what I said before here and elsewhere. If I don't secure the fruit of MY labor for MY own good or for the good of MY FAMILLY or for the good of MY FRIENDS (fiends/allies), MY genes won't win the game of natural selection, thus humans HAVE to keep or deny others (others = competitor genes from the SAME species) from taking the fruit of their labor.
You're assuming that you, your family and your friends are a tiny community of people that are entirely dependent on each other. The world has grown out of that. The entire world is interdependent now and in a sense your 'allies' and family (people who share similar genes) consists of countless people you've never met before. You just pointed out that you don't need to secure your products from family and friends, just "competitors". Who are you competing against in this world?
1) I did not said you don't need to secure the product of your labor from your familly and allies, I said that humans as individual and group need to secure the product of their labor someway or an other.
2) In the game of natural selection the competitors are everyone single human being because every single human can transmit his gene.
3) The world is interdependant True, but it is true because we trade stuff(property), it is true because of specialisation/division of labor.
People don't need to compete for food, shelter and the necessities of life anymore. There is more than enough of those things to go around. Yes, if there was a shortage of those things then there would be a reason to secure them and build a state around them to protect them. but that's no longer needed. There's no reason for people to compete for those things anymore. The competition between each individual today is much more about attracting people of the opposite sex than strictly to survive.
If mister A produce a lots of vegetables, but mister B, C, D, have the right to take at will without paying from the crop of mister A, mister A will not produce as much vegetable the next years, he will produce what he and his familly need and he will secure his crop from the hunger of mister B,C,D. Mister B,C,D will have to start growing their own food and secure their own crop and so on.
Because this is trade just like in a market economy, which you reject. If mister A have property right over his production, mister B,C,D will have to trade with mister A if they want to get food from mister A. But if mister A cannot have a right of property over his production, mister B,C,D could take at will the production of mister A without trading with mister A. Thus if mister A found no interest in supplying mister B,C,D, mister A will stop to supplying them.
Do you reject property right? If yes you also reject trade and market, there cannot be trade without property, and there cannot be market without trade. I don't know what mister B,C,D will do in their spare time but if it don't reward mister A, mister A will has no interest to supply them in food.
You said that you consider coercive to produce and keep you away from the vegetable I produce, that means you oppose property. I don't know what you means by unchangeable right but I don't think there's such thing as unchangeable right.
No, that means I oppose forms of property that lead to so much oppression that people will not voluntarily agree to it. I'm all for voluntary concepts of property.
There cannot be trade if you cannot deny others from taking the product of your labor. If mister A produce good X, but mister A cannot deny to mister B,C,D the access to good X, mister B,C,D won't trade with mister A, they will just take good X and not pay mister A for his work, and then mister A will stop supplying mister B,C,D. If mister B,C,D cannot have property, they will have nothing to trade with mister A to acquired good X
Mister B,C,D will certainly realize that if they want the help of mister A, they will have to recognize the property of mister A, and do fair trade (whatever the form of trade) with him, that's the basic of market economy which is a form of cooperation. Any type of property need only to be accepted by a system of laws that will protect property rights as many other right
no one wants to give the power but everyone saying no have already given the power lol. this videos proves we r sheeple.
Nameless9635 3 months ago
Our government doesn't deny things to anyone. I don't see them denying food to people.
If they don't have food it is because they can't afford it. Sorry. Life sucks. Its not fair.
The grass is always greener on the other side. Most of the people in this video are too stupid to realize what capitalism does for them.
HaleFire7 2 years ago
@HaleFire7 If a homeless person walks into Walmart to buy food, he is denied the things he needs to survive, as he has no money. If there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, then why are we denying people what they need to survive? Why are Africans dying every day from starvation?
josephschwenker 1 year ago
(Insert region) is starving because they don't have capitalism. You need capital investment to increase the wealth of society meaning a bigger pie for all. Redistribution of wealth takes away incentive to invest in better and cheaper goods, it does help the unfortunate in that instance, but you'll continue giving them pieces of an increasingly smaller pie. Do people advocating this video not believe in property rights? I guess if I'm hungry it's perfectly okay to take "your" food then, thanks.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 (Insert region) is starving because they HAVE Capitalism. Currently, there are no areas with Marxist Communism or Anarchist Communism. All of the regions claiming to have it are dictatorships where the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (direct democracy) is just a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Personally, I think that there should be no money in the world, and that things like food should be equally distributed.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker You want to do away with money? Holy crap, I guess I've never talked with an anarchist from the other side (I'm anarcho-capitalist,) this is kinda cool. I think a hard commodity money is the cornerstone of a prosperous, wealthy society. Don't think gold standard, hard money being rigged by a government isn't much better than fiat money counterfeited by the government. Is Anarchist Communism no government? Who would make the food and who would distribute it?
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 My viewpoints are not characterized entirely by Anarchist Communism, but they combine a mix of many different viewpoints. I personally support the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and interpret it as Direct Democracy, where everyone is able to suggest and vote on laws. Anarchy, Communism, and Direct Democracy all point to this kind of government. I personally think that food would be made by whoever wants to make food. Some people love to cook, and some people love plants.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Hmm.. well I've always thought of anarchy as the absence of government but we are entitled to our own definitions I suppose. You know you have to stop capitalism by force right? I mean capitalism just happens naturally when two people get together and realize they benefit from trade. Money has to occur if an economy will ever take off because in barter you need a coincidence of wants, with money you can indirectly trade and smooth out the process.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 It's impossible to have no government at all, because then no decisions can be made. In Anarchy, I think that there is a government, but it's so decentralized that it's not even recognized. In Anarchy, everyone works with everyone else to make decisions about what to do. That decentralized decision making is called Direct Democracy. Yes, there will have to be a forceful revolution for Capitalism to disappear. On a small scale, Capitalism is okay, but on a large scale, oh dear.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker I wanna go decentralized all the way down to the individual, only individuals make decisions anyway. I am obviously on a way different spectrum and we'll never convince each other. I would just flip that last part honestly, I don't think communism would ever even get too something prosperous and "large scale." I think capitalism just happens naturally, progress can't happen without it. Isn't direct democracy just plain tyranny of the majority? 51% get to rob the other 49%.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 I also want things to be decentralized to the individual. However, for large scale things, like the Haiti disaster, things need to be decided in groups. People can use technology to make decisions today, why can't we use that for government? Why couldn't everyone in the world take a poll on how to aid Haiti? Who said anything about 51%? I'm all for 2/3 or higher. Maybe 70%? Either way, it should be somewhere in the A-C grade range.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker I think voluntary contributions to Haiti overshadowed government contributions I don't see any point in having to vote. People just flew and boated there to help on there own dime, that's pretty awesome. The only reason there would be to vote would be to force someone to help which I can't advocate at all. Okay no 51% controlling 49%- now at 2/3 or 70%, that minority is really fucked.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 In a large scale, Capitalism facilitates the ability to exploit and alienate others because of their lack of money. In trading, everyone benefits, but what if someone couldn't produce enough apples because of a drought? Then do they starve? My viewpoints say that instead of trying to make the most profit from something, try and help the most people. Capitalism wants profit, and my viewpoints want to provide goods to everyone for free, and thus want to help everyone.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Nothing is free, it has to be payed for by the public in the long run somehow. I don't think if a person is dying it is acceptable to force someone else to take care of them. I certainly don't have a problem with charity, who knew that the richest people in the world are also the ones who give the most to charity, by a long shot. People are naturally empathetic and help each other you don't need to force people to take care of each other.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 I'm not forcing people to take care of others. Though, that already happens in Capitalism. If no one offered goods for others to by, everyone would die. People offering goods for sale are taking care of others by providing them to the public. Nothing is free ONLY in Capitalism. If there is no money, then everything is free. As for forcing people, people should be required to allow people in dire need of products access to them.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 If people are naturally empathetic, then why is most of Africa starving? Why is Chile recovering quickly while Haiti starves? Why are there so many homeless in America? Let's just end the conversation now. I'm a bit tired of receiving the notifications of new messages. ;)
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Yeah dude this could go on forever, we've kept it pretty civil though.
google this: Andrew Mwenda a new look at Africa
Please watch the video on ted.com (I can't seem to post website.) It explains exactly why Africa is poor. Foreign aid given by governments goes to government bureaucracy and nothing goes to people who need it. Voluntary charity actually goes to those who need it most, any democratic or otherwise forceful "charity" will never be able to match effectiveness.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 I already know that foreign aid goes only to the corrupt governments. You're missing my point. I do not want this charity to be forceful. Under Uto Law 3, you cannot force anyone to do anything. However, people could vote on how to deliver the supplies necessary. In Haiti, a big problem was that people couldn't get supplies in. This voting system would allow people to debate and find the best way to import supplies.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 As they say, "for the common good", and not for profit. This is why projects like Wine and Linux have taken off so much. Some of the best content has came from the community. In computing, you don't need money. Because things can be distributed for free, no money is necessary but for the electricity. Thus, by eliminating the costs in physical items, we can allow everyone the chance to create that great content.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 Thus, people would naturally seek out doing those jobs. Someone has an apple orchard, and they love walking out in it every day and picking apples. One of their friends is a chef who has a business (businesses cannot be corporations, they can only be small, family owned local businesses) selling apple pies. The apple-picker gives some of his apples to the pie maker, and gives away the rest of his apples.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Would me simply liking to draw make me an artist? What if I suck? I bet everybody just gets the perfect rosy job they like this is sounding a little utopian. What is the pie business selling their pies for? I could ask a billion questions man I just think it's a lot easier to let people naturally form their own associations and let it go, defense and all privately owned businesses. States give corporate status and give special benefits to corporations, I don't advocate that.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 Careers are taken more casually than you think in my viewpoints. If you like to draw, then draw! You improve by drawing! I make portraits of people in Inkscape, and my first few sucked! After those first few, I began to improve and be great. Why do I do them? Because of the positive feedback and constructive criticism I get both from the people I make them of, their friends, and my family. In businesses, Capitalism takes away this satisfactory feeling of doing good.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Capitalism rewards you for doing good, the only way to make a profit is to satisfy someone else. If someone is actually willing to trade their hard earned money for something I've drawn or otherwise created I would feel very satisfied with my work. The market would help me improve my skills because when I suck I don't get to make money the analogy in business being that there's not a whole lot of incentive for a business to improve product unless their going to make a profit.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 However, what if someone wants your work, but they are unable to get it because they cannot afford it? Then your "analogy" alienates people. The solution? Piracy, which I support, and call "Freedom of Redistribution". Under Uto Law 6, all intellectual property is the property of all mankind. Thus, if someone can't afford your piece of artwork, they can get it via redistribution. Thus, DRM springs up, thus, Totalitarianism springs up. Wouldn't it be simpler to trash Capitalism?
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Your "laws" contradict each other man. Your numbers one through three are good but then you fall off there. According to #3, I can keep my work of art if I "don't consent to the action" and not have it "redistributed" - though it wasn't distributed to me in the first place. Now if I consent to trade with you or give it away, and you obtain that work legitimately, then you can copy away. If you obtain a pirated work from someone who obtained it without force, everything's peachy.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 Law number three is supposed to stop actions such as torture, imprisonment, rape, and other nonconsensual crimes. However, it it is legalized by another law, then it does not apply. For instance, if you argue that you are being forced to put your work into public domain because of law 3. That is not a valid argument, because all work is public domain under law 3. However, if someone tries to burn all of your artwork, then that is illegal.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 Capitalism, instead, replaces this feeling with profit and the desire to make money off of everything. Instead of making portraits for the fun of it and for making people happy, I would then be working myself to death for money so I could pay my bills. Capitalism makes people overwork themselves and not even feel the satisfaction of their labor. The person who makes pies makes pies so that they can make people happy and do what they love, to cook!
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 Also, the lack of patents and copyrights will allow other people to make pies if the pie maker's business becomes a bit too overwhelming. Since there is no competition and no patents, no one holds a monopoly, no one is overworked, and more people get what they want.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker I think an ideal area of anarcho-capitalism would permit many of the things you're advocating. If you want to join a group that votes on things and abolishes money, you may do so. But if I'm associating with whom I prefer, and using money for transactions while working for someone- according to your own first three laws would suggests you cannot overthrow the free-market with moral legitimacy.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 About incentive: Capitalism takes away true incentive, and replaces it with the desire to exploit and profit everything. There is no need to invest in anything that is "better" or "cheaper" if there is no Capitalism. You invest your interest in it, and then it becomes popular. No need for money. About property rights: I think that people should keep what they have, but if someone is starving or dying, they should be able to take what they need to survive.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Don't you want continually better and cheaper goods for an economy? Do you want an economy at all? I just really don't belong here I think.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@GKDrew89 I want things to require less labor and resources to create, and I want the quality of things to improve as technology progresses forward, but I don't want money to influence that. One of the factors that will help to improve technology in my viewpoints is the lack of restrictive patents and copyrights. Everything is immediately public domain, and everyone can redistribute and modify it. Thus, I could translate Photoshop into Esperanto if I wanted to.
josephschwenker 1 year ago
@josephschwenker Dang there's actually some common ground here. I don't agree with intellectual property either, I think if you want to own a thought you should keep it in your head. If you steal a physical book that's wrong but if someone sells you a book, you OWN it- which means right to copy or whatever, unless you signed a contract stating otherwise. I think that economical progress, which has to come with technological progress, can only be done with money though, big disagreement there.
GKDrew89 1 year ago
@HaleFire7 Life is fairer and life does not suck in a socialist democratic society.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
The question is a textbook logical fallacy...
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
haha, nah, it's what people do everyday; mostly without knowing about it, as this video shows
mr1001nights 2 years ago 4
@asdfgasdfasdful Private property is a logical fallacy.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
Uh no, it's not. It may in some sense be against your subjective value judgement, but "private property is a logical fallacy" is akin to "language is a logical fallacy."
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful I was making fun of you. Private property, at it's core is a vessel of coercion. If we want to talk about real definitions we can say it's the tractor beam that sucks us all into the capitalist market. When I say private property I mean private ownership of the means of production and (absentee) natural resources.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
"Private ownership of the means of production and (absentee) natural resources" is a non-concept premised on long-obsolete economic terminology. Everything is a potential means of production, all resources are ultimately natural, and controlling 'all production' means controlling all products. By that definition, all human institutions based on anything other than absolute pacifism are at their core "vessels of coercion." To universally oppose private property as such is silly.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful Why would anyone work for you if they had equal access to the industrial and or personal means of production? They wouldn't. Get it kid? It's not that hard to understand. Right now people work for a boss because the majority of society has been coerced into the capitalist market via private ownership of the means of production and the vast majority of the earths land and resources. In an anarchist society workers would laugh at your slave wages, rent and interest.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
You are begging the question, crud. First, again, absolutely everything is a potential means of production. Second, "equal access" is not logically possible (see interpersonal utility comparison impossibility, etc.) as long as you have natural scarcity i.e. reality. Third, the "means of production" is not some static X out there - it has to be dynamically maintained and reinvented. Attempting "equal access" above the neocortex limit (~150 people) destroys the structure of production.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful Everything is a possible means of production? Equal access means democratic access you dolt.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
"Democratic" access? You mean you want majoritarianism? Mob rule? Okay, well that's just as nonsensical an ideal as equalitarianism. Collective rule through majority voting is (1) logically impossible as Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel for proving, (2) subject to rational ignorance and rational irrationality, and (3) practically impossible without a state to stamp out cascading individual secession. I thought you started with a quip about "private property"...
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful Actual democracy is impossible? Tel that to Rousseau, Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Luxemburg, Kropotkin, William Haywood, Albert Camus, Angel Pestana, Antonie Pannekoek, Alexander Berkman etc. Yes expropriation means democratic control of the means of production. Fuck man...read something.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
Do you think listing a few names is an argument? Should I be impressed that you can type? I am quite familiar with all of those authors... I'm not sure why you're putting Camus in there. At this point, I can prettymuch guarantee you I'm more well-read in economic and "anarchist" theory than you. You still have neither made nor indicated any arguments for anything whatsoever. You're boring.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful You're ignorant. Camus was a supporter of socialism....syndicalism to be more precise, as was Sartre. Anyone who thinks actual democracy is impossible is a raging ignoramus. This means you. Anyone who cant see the coercive nature of private property is also a raging ignoramus. This means you.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
Camus was a Marxist state communist when he was young. When he got older, he became a staunch and famous absolute individualist, anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-collectivist, anti-Marxist. I suggest you read his essays 'The Self-Deception of the Socialists,' 'Homage to an Exile,' and 'Rebellion and Murder' and the books 'The Rebel' and 'An Ethic Superior to Murder.' Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel for his logical proof that collective choice via majoritarian "democracy" is impossible.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful Most anarchists are anti Marxist. Sartre also rejected Marxism later in life and adopted more of an anarchist position. I suggest you actually read what he wrote LOL
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
Why are you talking about Sartre in a response about the (1) the views of Albert Camus and (2) the logical impossibility of collectivist "democracy?" Respond to the post to which you are purporting to reply or piss off back to the shithole of obsolete dogma you came from.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful Because if you had any sense you would know Sartre and Camus were both politically involved and shared the same views (obviously not when Sartre was communist). Do you even know the difference between anarchism and Marxism?
crud4 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful Also why would Camus set up the syndicalist Groupes de liaison internationale if he were against worker democracy? LOL
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
Camus supported anti-state voluntary syndicalists just as he supported anti-state voluntary individualist anarchists (eg Bonnot Gang). He also supported the United States in its opposition to the Soviet Union. By your logic, he was in favor of American nationalism. Anyway, he was not opposed to individually voluntary syndics. I am not opposed to individually voluntary syndicalist corporations or communes or anything else. I argue they are drastically less economically efficient.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful You just made an ass of yourself. I smell pseudo intellectual through my PC monitor.
crud4 1 year ago
He also was a financial supporter of Révolution Proletarienne until his death. Google it. Learn something. Also when he criticized "socialism" he was criticizing Marxism/Leninism/authoritarian regimes not democracy you ignorant twit.
crud4 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful And you should know why Sartre turned down the noble prize. Because it's a burgeosis stamp of approval. Of course the bourgeoisie have been against democracy since day one. It would undermine their AUTHORITY and privilege. Fuck you're ignorant.
crud4 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful I also suggest you read "George Orwell and Albert Camus: A Comparative Study – Their Views and Dilemmas in the Politics of the 1930s and 40s". Saying Camus was against anarcho syndicalism is like saying Orwell was a capitalist because he wrote 1984! LOL
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
I like how you've reduced yourself to petty insults in your avoidance of any actual argument about (1) the emergence of private property, (2) the economic feasibility of equalitarian firms, (3) the logical impossibility of collectivist democracy, (4) the practical problems of majoritarian voting (interest groups etc.), (5) the economic superiority of free markets on a macro (>150) scale due to the calculation and incentive problems inherent in a priori human organization, etc.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful petty insults? did you or did you not try to say Camus was against worker democracy? As for 1- I spoke of the coercive nature of private ownership of the means of production not the emergence of private property although it (private property) has always been a matter of exuding the masses from equal sustenance at the benefit of a minority. From feudal lords ruling over serfs to capitalists ruling over workers. Theft from the masses forces them/us into the property owners system.
crud4 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful as for 2- 3 workplace direct democracy and general equality go hand in hand. Of course bourgeois economists and thinkers will say general equality is impossible. I bet you're a fan of the Bell Curve. Are you not aware anarchist societies have existed only to be destroyed by fascists? The thought of it probably makes your nipples hard. Collectivist democracy has existed. As Francisco Franco how to end it.
crud4 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful As for 5. There has never been a free market. If anything is impossible it is capitalism without a state. How will the elite minority subjugate the masses without a state? They cant. Private property, rent and interest cannot exist without a state. If anything is impossible it is your Rothbardian fantasy land of "free markets".
crud4 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful As for 4- again, capitalists despise direct democracy because it would marginalize their authority. Of course we have a representative system under capitalism. One in which each representative represents the interests of concentrated wealth. You should watch "Century of Self" by Adam Curtis. Has any people ever voted to drop nuclear bombs on other people? Nope. That was a result of your precious American plutocracy.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
...so people will want to work for my firm because it will be much more productive, efficient, and sustainable and thus I will be able to pay them much more than your hippie-totalitarian non-firm where even if they earned equal wages, those wages would be less. See every example of attempts at imposing equalitarian economic organization in the real world, and basic economics.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
@asdfgasdfasdful LOL. Ya right. You'll be able to both pay your wage slaves more and profit while competing with workers who make less than your workers? LOL How old are you? Also please watch the video on my page entitled "the interests of capital and wage labor". And no I'm not a communist. One can read and understand Marx's critique of capitalism without agreeing with the plan to end capitalism by taking over the state. Abolish the state and the capitalists have nothing to stop expropriation.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
I'm 23 and I am a published and degreed economist... no, I'm not going to watch your video on Marxism. I am very familiar with Marxian economics (as I was a Marxist revisionist social democrat in my younger years) and with the reasons why Marxian economics is long-debunked, obsolete mysticism akin to creationism and geocentrism. You have made no arguments for your "democratic" firm being efficient, sustainable, or even possible... I take it you have none.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
this is very redundant. Nobody would grant someone the power to deny them the thing they need to survive. That was clear at 1:00. I don't think the other 5 min were necessary.
What's your point?
'Would you ever have sex with a chicken and then beat yourself to death with it?' Ask 100 people and see if anyone says yes. That would be about as productive and informative.
verstwo2 2 years ago
The capitalist denies you nothing. If you take (steal) the property of the capitalist you are denying him what he needs to survive. What the capitalist does (in the real world in which private property exists, has always existed and will always exist) is, by providing opportunities, grants the individual the power to EARN enough to obtain the things he neds to survive.
The premise of this video is entirely specious.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The very definition of capitalism has to do with capital/property the capitalist doesn't "need to survive" -- which results in the exploitative "work for a boss or else" status quo capitalists collectively impose (wage slavery). True, the capitalists "provides you the opportunity" to endure exploitation and workplace dictatorship under threat of starvation. Great opportunity!
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Sigh. The whole theory (labor theory of value) behind *exploitation* was thoroughly debunked more than a century ago (sorry you didn't get the memo. The capitalist CANNOT *impose* anything on anyone. Work for a boss, or yourself, or another boss or live off savings - on planet Earth, it's entirely voluntary. That people must eat and that they must obtain the means to do so from somewhere is not an imposition, it is the state of reality. Wage slavery is an oxyMORON.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You wrongly assume that the LTV is behind of all theories of capitalist exploitation. And you confuse the subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance) with the subjection of man by man (having to work for a boss). That's one of the arguments slave owners used: "Why is slavery wrong, slaves have to work anyway to survive right?"
I imagine that it must be embarrasing that someone who claims to "fletch" for freedom is in reality "fletching" for slavery
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Capitalism is economic liberty - the power of the individual to choose from the options that exist in the real world from the option to avail oneself of an opportunity from someone else (hierarchical structures are neither inherently oppressive or anything less than the norm - see any family) or choose to go without a "boss". It is the assumption that one may simply take the property of others, perhaps all of it, using force if necessary (as must happen) that is oppressive.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Dinging my comments doesn't change the fact that we come into this world with neither the means to survive or any entitlement to them. My question remains unanswered - how then should one obtain those means? In a free market (which, by definition, does not involve coercion so the comparison to slavery is moronic)? Or wealth redistribution by force?
I imagine it must be embarrassing that someone so quick to insult me cannot answer this obvious basic question.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The "work for a boss or else" capitalists collectively impose means "wealth redistribution by force" -- by those who reap non-labor income exploiting those who work.The alternative means worker self-management of industry/economy--based among other things on the distinction between non-exploitative property (for personal active use, like a bed, toothbrush, home etc) &exploitative property (industries, swaths of land etc which must remain democratic to prevent dictatorial exploitative workplaces)
mr1001nights 2 years ago
You have said that the (debunked) labor theory of value is not the only basis for the term "exploitation". Please put forth an objective definition of exploitation that demonstrates how an employment contract entered into voluntarily by a worker that guarantees him a specific income for a specific task (just as a table-maker gets paid for his table), that demonstrably makes him better off than he would otherwise be, is somehow esploitation.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
"that demonstrably makes him better off than he would otherwise be, is somehow exploitation"
irrelevant, since the coercive "work for a boss or else" situation already assumes the person has decided to work for a boss over the (capitalist-imposed) unpleasant consequences he has as an alternative
mr1001nights 2 years ago
But the "eork for a boss or else" situation is pure fantasy. There is no coercion taking place. If you choose not to work for a boss, capitalism doesn't care - GO DO IT. If you cannot do so and earn sufficient income to support your chosen standard of living, no one has imposed that circumstance upon you. There is no circumstance imposed on you (or anyone else) that requires you to "work for a boss". That is dictated by your own abilities.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Finally, my question remains effectively unanswered. Priovate property exists (always has, always will). We are bnorn with neither the resources to survive nor any entitlement to them. Again, given that state, how do you propose that the individual obtain the means to survive, by free negotiation or by force?
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The freemarket does not guarantee one freedom of slavery firstly the notion that one has self sovreignty or an inate right to govern ones activity irespective of property doesn't apply to any free market philosophy as it does not relate to the notion of property, or to profit further more any notion to self property doesn't intrinsic to grant one freedom to any form of slavery. As one may still be coerced into slavery under self ownership.
peaceful0tiger 2 years ago
Your statement is objectively false. By definition the free market (economic liberty) requires the protection of self-opwnerhip else the actors in the marketplace are not free. Certainly nothing short of greater armaments totally prevents the imposition of coercion, but, by definition, the application of such coercion is not capitalism (the free market). Even anarchism cannot prevent such imposition, but, likewise, its imposition is not anarchism.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Freedom (and the free market) end at the infringement upon the liberty of others - slavery is almost universally a government institution and the term "wage slavery" is a complete oxymoron because no coercion occurred to create the labor agreemnet and it can be severed at any time. Perhaps the problem is with the notion of property which syndicalists often assume has not always existed and/or is defensably different when speaking of a toothbrush or a factory (both fallacies).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
If by "debunked" you mean "misunderstood" and/or "straw-manned" by its ideological opponents (i.e., the power elite, a.k.a. "capitalists," and their slavishly sycophantic stooges).
It is perfectly tautological that nothing humans produce would be produced unless they produced it. That's the LTV for dummies, and it's a self-evident fact.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
At any rate, as Mr1001nights implied, it's rather trivial to poke holes in the mythology of the Church of the Invisible Hand, even using Its own Chapter & Verse. The LTV was official Church doctrine until it was turned against the Hand and had to be dropped by It. Comically, every new doctrine the Church adopts (e.g., "Marginal Productivity") ends up turned against It by those who refuse to abandon the fight for liberty.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
If you don't want a boss, capitalism doesn't object. We come into this world with neither the means to survive or any entitlement to them. There are only two ways to obtain them, either freely - 1) a free market in which I can offer something of value (including labor) for something else of value or 2) the property of someone must be taken away (by force) in order to provide it. There's no escaping that reality and there is no third option. As my nom du guerre implies, I prefer freedom.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
i cant help but write this :D:D:D:D
workers of all lands, UNITE!
DestroyerAlexandros 2 years ago
This is a stupid video.
First of all to grant someone the 'power to deny you the things you need to survive' assumes that that power can be had.
Second if that power could be wielded then of course people would deny others total control of their ability to live.
mikefarinha 2 years ago
"It is a political question?"
It is a stupid answer? Are you asking a stupid answer?
denisplaku 2 years ago
Next time, ask them the following: "Would you grant someone the arbitratry power to confiscate your money or property according to perceived need?"
Guncriminal 2 years ago
not "granting permission to deny you the things you need to survive" does not imply arbitrary power-- it's philosophical underpinning is self-management, no bosses (neither government nor capitalists) and that my freedom ends where yours begins. funny how people like you who defend wage slavery and capitalist power and privilege ignore the confiscation of money and the "perceived need" to defend exploitative property and elites -- projecting your own slavish subordination onto others
mr1001nights 2 years ago
"Are you asking a political question? I really don't want to answer that."
...All things are politics, lady. You wouldn't be sitting on that train or wearing those lovely earrings without politics.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 13
LOL.If I was a betting man I would put all my money on the fact that she is a Far Left lunatic.Not a Liberal,there is a difference.She would want to grant someone that power because shes to incompetent to take care of herself.Otherwise she would of answered the question.Also,your statement"all things are politics".That is 100% right.I agree with your entire comment.
jays2474 2 years ago
mr1001 sounds like borat in this video
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
NO, in a capitalistic system, nobody has power over anyone, and one cannot grant someone a power they themselves do not have, the market comprises only of voluntary interactions, what you are refuting is statism and corpratism, not capitalism.
The unintended consequence of your train of thought is you justify almost any action if it is a matter of survival.
I also think that most people who answered didn't really understand that they were answering.
norcofreerider604 2 years ago
so norcofreerider604; your basically saying capitalism doesn't exhist in the real world? Capitalism, by your definition, is free of power and therefore must be perfectly competive. I challenge you to find me one single perfectly competitive system, because Im pretty positive you wont find one. The fact is, capitalism needs its checks and balances because it doesn't exhist in the real world, its the same way for any political ideology.
jpat911 2 years ago
Not free of power, but free of legitimate coercive power. This is not to ingnore that there will always be coercive forces at work in any system, it can only de-legitimize the initiation of force against others. By stating "would you grant anyone the power to deny you the things you need to survive" you legitimize the initiation of force.
As for a perfectly competitive system, there are none today, because government exists everywhere, but this does not mean the idea is invalid.
norcofreerider604 2 years ago
They all said yes but, they all have and so have we, what is stopping our goverments from taking everthing we own and just leaving us in a ditch to rot??
I'm not saying they would but, they could.
mandlorianwarior 3 years ago
you confuse anarchism with mini-states fighting for control. Of course, bosses would want u to believe that unless you subject yourself to their authority you'll live in such a hell hole.
mr1001nights 3 years ago
Brilliant! Proves we're all anarchists at heart.
aelffin 3 years ago
The American public has granted "Obama" the power to deny US all...you will see. "before you can enslave completely, you must disarm"..tyrants ( What is up with 1:57..the retard train?)
ca919a 3 years ago
Only people with money can choose to be substistance farmers. The only choice poor people have is to work for others hoping that they will get a big enough paycheck to save some money and one day be able to go into business of their own. But since there are no protections for poor people they're rights are violated and they are only paid enough to continue being wage slaves for the rest of their life.
chocomeerkat 3 years ago
Your depiction of capitalism is logically incoherent.
You frame capitalism as providing a certain group of people the power to deny people the "things" they need to survive. This is false.
In capitalism, people must provide for their own lives and cannot use force to deny others the things they need to survive.
Capitalism provides the freedom to not be forced to work for the benefit of others.
Only in a socialist economy, where decisions are political, can needs be arbitrarily refused.
mlkovach01 3 years ago
u shouldn't confuse the unavoidable subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance), with the subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss). I suggest you read the wikipedia article on wage slavery to understand what I mean.
mr1001nights 3 years ago
I understand the theory. The problem is that the theory is nonsense.
No man is forced to work for another man. People only work as laborers if they feel they are better off selling their labor than retaining it for their own use.
When people were subsistence farmers, they were their own boss. People can still live that way if they choose, or they can create jobs, thereby also being their own boss.
The argument for wage slavery is logically fallacious by equivocating work with slavery.
mlkovach01 3 years ago
the objection has to do NOT with working for a living, but having to work for a BOSS in order to prosper or merely to subsist (a coerced set of choices). Even if the amount of social mobility in capitalism were as great as supporters claim, it wouldnt matter. Some slaves in Colonial Brazil were able to buy their own freedom&become self-employed or even slave owners themselves. Did that justify chattel slavery? Would the ability to go from homeless to millionaire fascist dictator justify fascism?
mr1001nights 3 years ago
When Frederick Douglass escaped slavery and took a paying job, he declared "Now I am my own master." According to Douglas, wage labor did not represent oppression but fair exchange and former slaves for the first time receiving the fruits of their labor. According to abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, "wage slavery" (in a time when chattel slavery was still common) was an "abuse of language."
mlkovach01 3 years ago
The wiki article from which u quote addresses that: Wage slaves just like chattel slaves remain so even if they identify with their oppressors&think of themselves as free due to propaganda self-deception&false consciousness. Chattel slavery was also perceived as legitimate because of the influences of its power structure&moral arguments were offered in its favor. There's no reason to believe that 1 day we wont look back at wage slavery w/the same moral outrage w/which we react to chattel slavery
mr1001nights 3 years ago
Guy at 1:15 is high as fuck!
popehatesrap 3 years ago
Not a loaded question...just proving the point that capitalism is common sense. Who would grant that kind of power to anyone?
illini2k 3 years ago
gee thats not a loaded question....
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
the first guy was completely right. we are all doing it every day by living in a capitalist state.
xSammBAM 3 years ago
I don't believe anyone would want us not to survive. We are needed to man the factories,call centers,do the work. This is not a question of survival it a question of 60% of the wealth belonging to 2% of the population.
louiethegreater 3 years ago
It is a question of survival. They don't see you as a human being, they don't see you as an equal. They see you as a number, an interchangeable, expendable entity that is only relevant when it benefits their desires. Why would they care if you live or die, starve or cry? to them you are only apart of the statistics. They will use you and your tragedies to benefit them, it is more than evident.
ultimategoobah 3 years ago
Haha, this is great, it's human nature to be social. Most of us don't tolerate this injustice. But there's allot of work, I think parecon is a wonderful experiment cause it gives people a realistic view on how society could be. It is the practical theory of the ideals the left in general always had. Keep up the work!
iggmister 3 years ago
Allowing the abolition of private property is allowing others the power to deny you of the things you need to survive. Private property is the means for the individual to survive on his own.
DackBev 4 years ago
What kind of question is that? Power is not granted. It's taken.
DackBev 4 years ago
millions of people allow power to all forms of authority to deny what the need to survive...to be succesfull.....
capitalism......canibalism
anarkholic 4 years ago
Yeah!!! Take at will, take everything you want as you see fit!! That will be fun! ...
anarkoFred 4 years ago
What I said was that keeping me away from the things I need to survive is coercion, it doesn't matter if it's my 'property' or not. Taking things that I don't need to survive is not coercion, depending on the specifics it may be immoral in some peoples views but it's not coercion by any logic.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Do you ever think about what would happen if everyone could take at will what he consider to be needed for his survival? Why should anyone produce something or pay for something they have the right to take from someone else?
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Do you ever think about the reasons why people work? I recommend look into it. People aren't productive members of society just so they can have more stuff, the reasons go way deeper than that. Work doesn't always have to be something you hate doing and would rather be sitting on your ass watching TV. It's way today because of capitalism, it turns workers into cobs in a machine. That can easily be changes if workers are actually in control of their work and can therefore take pride in it.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
If you cannot keep the product or your work, if you cannot deny others from taking the product of your work, because everyone has the right to take it and not pay, then you won't work, I would not, and nobody would, except if they can keep or hide the product of their labor for themself or for their familly or for their friends. That thing you keep from the product of your work is called PROPERTY.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
By the note I got on my comments I guest most of you would work even if everyone can take at will the fruit of your labor and not pay you back, it's very altruistic of you but not wise.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
People don't work for the fruits of their labour. Again, the reason goes way deeper than that. The basic reason why people work or do anything at all, if you get right down to it, is simply to secure a future for their genes and/or genes that are similar to theirs. It's the same for all living things.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Being selfish and being altruistic are different means to that same ends. But it's been shown that, in most cases, being altruistic is much more effective/efficient. I recommend watching "nice guys finish first" on google video. Capitalism puts emphasis on selfishness to achieve that goal. socialism puts emphasis on altruism to achieve that goal.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
For ants the reproductive agent is the queen, so every individual in the colonie is born to sacrifice himself for the good of the queen; therefore ants are "altruistic". For humans the reproductive agent is every individual himself; therefore humans are egoist. For humans altruism is only a matter of habits and instinct on a background of egoism.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
I suggest you to read Robert Axelrod, (I'm not sure of the english title) How to succede in an egoist world : theory of cooperative behavior.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
If that were the case then how could anarchy exist at all? If society really is a war of all against all then how is it that no individual would use coercion on others if he had more ability to use coercion than others?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
It don't says and I don't say that society is a war of all againts all, it says that individuals seek their own interrest, that may mean cooperation and/or coercion, but has you pointed out before cooperation is mostly more efficient as shows Axelrod, but as shows Axelrod cooperation is or can be motivated by egoism; because one may need to cooperate for his own interrest and mostly it is more efficient then not cooperate.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
I wasn't responding to Axelrod. I was responding to "For humans the reproductive agent is every individual himself; therefore humans are egoist. For humans altruism is only a matter of habits and instinct on a background of egoism."
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Capitalism mean nothing if you delibarately want to take it in a pejorative manner. Socialism by necessity means the use of coercion, their cannot be socialism without coercion (obligatory work, imposition of moral obligations, taxation or collectivisation). Else socialism could be voluntary, but it would become part of a market economy unless that voluntary socialism isolate itself from the world ...
anarkoFred 4 years ago
You're quick to tell me not to use capitalism in a pejorative manner yet you do the same for socialism in the very same comment, you have a double standard. Capitalism means property rights, socialism means voluntary property relations. Obligatory work, moral obligations and taxes are not socialism. Capitalism requires forcing people into accepting property rights. Socialism doesn't force anyone to accept any rights, as long as people treat their own rights the same way they treat others rights.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
That the most weird comments I ever read about socialism and capitalism. No body force you to recognize the fruit of your labor as your property, if you don't want property you may let people take it at will. I don't take socialism in a pejorative manner I take in by the most common definition of it. Socialism implies collectivisation of all property and means of production by a central governement or by a voluntary group.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Then can I use the most popular definition of capitalism if you're allowed to do the same with socialism?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
The most common definiton of capitalism is private property, private property of the means of production and free-trade.
And your property is the fruit of your labor not everything you wish to own. If you grow vegetables those vegetables are yours, you can eat them, trade them, trash them, transform them. Am I coercing you by producing vegetables and keeping them for my own use?
anarkoFred 4 years ago
The most common conception of capitalism is one with a state, taxes, moral obligations and coercion. If you can use the most common conception of socialism can I use the most common conception of capitalism? You have a pretty obvious double standard for the two.
And that isn't the most common definition of property by the way, thats just one theory of property amongst countless others. Don't act like your one definition is the only divinely inspired concept of property.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Mostly capitalism means property right and free trade, that's not pejorative, what is pejorative is telling that capitalism put emphasis on selfishness as a values, capitalism promote no values, values are personal choice.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Moral obligation, obligatory work, and taxes have been promoted by most socialist and communist alike from the beginning. Capitalism don't force you to into accepting property rights, if you don't want to claim your rights of property on the fruit of your labor that's your own choice.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Property, by definition, doesn't only affect one person, it affects everyone. Property is to limit someones liberty to use certain objects and act in certain ways. Therefore those who define property need to be those who are affected by the definition, not simply the 'proprietor'. If I define my property as everything under the sun can I use coercion to 'protect' it? Whats the difference between my right to that property and your right to your property as you define it?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
You're saying let the property owner define whats his property is. thats like saying let the criminal judge if hes guilty, or let the student grade himself, or let the winner of the game define the rules. It just doesn't make sense.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Your property is the fruit of your labor not everything you wish to own. If you grow vegetables those vegetables are yours, you can eat it, trade it trash it transform it. Am I coercing you by producing vegetables and keeping them for my own use?
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Yes you are. Thats the point. After several generations certain groups of individuals accumulate so much property that they can use it to coerce others. The only way they can do that is by using coercion to keep people away from the vast amounts of property they accumulated.
Why do you think a person could not claim ownership of everything even if he didn't 'mix his labour' with everything?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
And if I don't grow those vegetables I am still coercing you?
anarkoFred 4 years ago
No.
I thought you were asking if it was coercion to keep me away from the food you produced assuming that you produce more than what you can use. I though you were actually asking a realistic question that had relevance in the real world.
If you simply produce/use food that is not coercion in itself.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
You had well understood, I was talking about producing food and keeping you away from that food I had produced.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Then my answer stays the same.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Then my answer stays the same.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
If I define my property as everything under the sun can I use coercion to 'protect' it?
That is what nation states do.
stratvic 4 years ago
I agree, and it only confirm what I said before here and elsewhere. If I don't secure the fruit of MY labor for MY own good or for the good of MY FAMILLY or for the good of MY FRIENDS (fiends/allies), MY genes won't win the game of natural selection, thus humans HAVE to keep or deny others (others = competitor genes from the SAME species) from taking the fruit of their labor.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
You're assuming that you, your family and your friends are a tiny community of people that are entirely dependent on each other. The world has grown out of that. The entire world is interdependent now and in a sense your 'allies' and family (people who share similar genes) consists of countless people you've never met before. You just pointed out that you don't need to secure your products from family and friends, just "competitors". Who are you competing against in this world?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
1) I did not said you don't need to secure the product of your labor from your familly and allies, I said that humans as individual and group need to secure the product of their labor someway or an other.
2) In the game of natural selection the competitors are everyone single human being because every single human can transmit his gene.
3) The world is interdependant True, but it is true because we trade stuff(property), it is true because of specialisation/division of labor.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
People don't need to compete for food, shelter and the necessities of life anymore. There is more than enough of those things to go around. Yes, if there was a shortage of those things then there would be a reason to secure them and build a state around them to protect them. but that's no longer needed. There's no reason for people to compete for those things anymore. The competition between each individual today is much more about attracting people of the opposite sex than strictly to survive.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
If mister A produce a lots of vegetables, but mister B, C, D, have the right to take at will without paying from the crop of mister A, mister A will not produce as much vegetable the next years, he will produce what he and his familly need and he will secure his crop from the hunger of mister B,C,D. Mister B,C,D will have to start growing their own food and secure their own crop and so on.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Why were misters B,C,D not doing anything for mister A if mister A was supplying them with food?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Because this is trade just like in a market economy, which you reject. If mister A have property right over his production, mister B,C,D will have to trade with mister A if they want to get food from mister A. But if mister A cannot have a right of property over his production, mister B,C,D could take at will the production of mister A without trading with mister A. Thus if mister A found no interest in supplying mister B,C,D, mister A will stop to supplying them.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
I reject trade and markets? Anyways...
What will mister B,C,D do with all their free time?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Do you reject property right? If yes you also reject trade and market, there cannot be trade without property, and there cannot be market without trade. I don't know what mister B,C,D will do in their spare time but if it don't reward mister A, mister A will has no interest to supply them in food.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
I'm not opposed to property. I'm opposed to property as a absolute and unchangeable right.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
You said that you consider coercive to produce and keep you away from the vegetable I produce, that means you oppose property. I don't know what you means by unchangeable right but I don't think there's such thing as unchangeable right.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
No, that means I oppose forms of property that lead to so much oppression that people will not voluntarily agree to it. I'm all for voluntary concepts of property.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
This is vague statement.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
There cannot be trade if you cannot deny others from taking the product of your labor. If mister A produce good X, but mister A cannot deny to mister B,C,D the access to good X, mister B,C,D won't trade with mister A, they will just take good X and not pay mister A for his work, and then mister A will stop supplying mister B,C,D. If mister B,C,D cannot have property, they will have nothing to trade with mister A to acquired good X
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Don't mister B,C,D realize that cooperation with mister A is much more efficient than acting selfishly?
There's no trade in material goods if they can't agree to any property. There can be other forms of trade.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Mister B,C,D will certainly realize that if they want the help of mister A, they will have to recognize the property of mister A, and do fair trade (whatever the form of trade) with him, that's the basic of market economy which is a form of cooperation. Any type of property need only to be accepted by a system of laws that will protect property rights as many other right