on incentives:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html#seci414
"We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not pull their weight within a commune and are expelled will have access to the means of making a living outside the commune.
So let me get this straight:
- Commune membership is voluntary
- Force will not be used
- People will be free to make a living outside the commune
Sounds like the free market to me. I have no problem if you want to move to a commune, sleep in a bunk bed, and eat whole grains and tofu, so long as you don't force others to join or give up their property. Of course, the ends that anarcho-communists desire can only be achieved through coercion.
Machiavelli wrote:
We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism seem to be unable to understand this point (or prefer to ignore it and so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society, no one will be forced to join a commune simply because they do not have access to the means of production and/or land required to work alone.
Here's your options - either you use force, or you have a free market with a few ignorant hippies and disaffected college dropouts (but I repeat myself) living in communes.
Machiavelli wrote:
Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life is dependent on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and so, effectively, denied to the vast majority), an anarchist society will ensure that all have access and have a real choice between living in a commune and working independently.
So I choose to raise capital and start my own business. Now judging by the above statement you're not going to stop me from doing that, unless you want to contradict yourself.
Machiavelli wrote:
This access is based on the fundamental difference between possession and property -- the commune possesses as much land as it needs, as do non-members.
Define "need." But that's right, you don't provide concrete, testable definitions, you just speak in vague generalities and then beg the question when you're pressed on it. Also, you do realize that land is a finite resource, right? Just wondering how you plan on dealing with that, since every commune can have as much land as it "needs" - need still being undefined, of course.
Machiavelli wrote:
The resources used by them are subject to the usual possession rationale -- they possess it only as long as they use it and cannot bar others using it if they do not (i.e., it is not property).
Again, resources are finite, but anyone can use - or, rather, waste - them in some fashion. How do you determine the best use of these scarce resources without a market? I've asked this several times, and I'd appreciate a real answer.
Machiavelli wrote:
Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures the end of all forms of wage slavery.
Give me a concrete definition of wage slavery, or concede that this is not a valid theory, since it is not testable.
Machiavelli wrote:
in seattle during the 99' protests thousands of people paritcipated in the consensus spokes councils.
oops, the tern is stand aside not abstain. majority votes can be used in emergency, temporary officers can be appointed if they posses expertise, or in the case of militas.
So what?
By the way, way to dodge my pointing out that, on several occasions, democracy has resulted in genocide. Very nice.
Machiavelli wrote:
security:
the poor could not afford their own security guards becuase they earn low wages.
Poor person = someone who earns low wages
Someone who earns low wages = poor person
See the circular logic? Now, why couldn't the poor afford security services? Keep in mind that they already pay for inefficient, corrupt government security services.
Machiavelli wrote:
goverment exists to maintain the existing socal order
Supposedly. In reality, governments are parasites that exist to extract wealth from productive individuals.
Machiavelli wrote:
i posses my body
And own it.
Machiavelli wrote:
where will i find the capital to start my own buesness? under a rock?
Save yourself, or persuade others to put up their savings, duh. Wow you're a dumbass.
Machiavelli wrote:
as to employment the point is not to change bosses, the point is to get rid of them
Oh yeah, that would work well. So here's what I could do according to your system:
- Never show up or show up hammered
- Continue to be paid (or assigned goods by the benevolent planners)
- Exercise my veto power during a vote as to whether or not I should be fired
Machiavelli wrote:
Power is always illegitimate unless it proves itself to be legitimate. The burden of proof is on the authority. If it can't be proven, it should be dismantled.
And what standard can be applied to test this, other than whether or not people voluntarily submit themselves to said authority?
Machiavelli wrote:
Authority that puts some above others is illegitimate by assumption . corperations are illegitimate authority.
Non sequitur and naked assertion.
Machiavelli wrote:
you can determine value by how much the item costs to produce(in terms of materials expended),
A. That's accounting cost, not value.
B. Prices determine costs. Without a market, prices, and thus costs, will be determined in a manner that is purely arbitrary. This is the fundamental problem that makes socialism fundamentally unworkable.
Machiavelli wrote:
on the market it will be sold for more that it is worth so the porducer can make a profit
Not necessarily.
Machiavelli wrote:
i would like to see you try to sell people air
Knight already mentioned one example.
Machiavelli wrote:
doesnt everyone have an equal right to acess the unowed resourses?
Yes. Equality of opportunity (rights) doesn't mean equality of results, though.
Machiavelli wrote:
show me a theorist before Proudon who was an anarchist, i you cant i will assume you concede
That's not what Knight claimed.
Brian_Damage Just Arrived
Joined: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 6
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:15 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes. Of course, he's going to find out how few women will do that, and he'll have to change his tune.
You think sexual harassment is okay, I don't. His economic position justifies this behavior. Just another example of how anarcho-capitalism is corporate tyranny, top-down authoritarian. By the way, you must be young, or haven't had a serious job if you don't think a lot of women, in this sexist society, would fall for the capitalists sexual wants if he threatened her with termination.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
So it's wrong to ask for recompense for your time and effort? You want everyone to just work and that's that? No recompense at all? Remember: any recompense is being paid.
Nice strawman, Knight. Very good, especially when you know damn well that
I'm
saying that workers don't get compensated enough.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Nonsense. They aren't ancillary tools in the first place, and your conclusion doesn't even follow from your premise.
Try harder.
Don't have to try harder. My explanation suffices just fine. Humans are treated as tools by capitalists. Why is that hard to believe? Especially when human labor is often replaced by machines.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No it isn't. Once again: your conclusion does not follow.
Yes, it does.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yet he did try it with "War Communism". Failed horribly, donchaknow.
From 1918-1921 Russia, already in a backward economic condition, were totally isolated from other countries and under attack on 14 fronts (one of them being the United States), so the new USSR didn't have the strength of desire to plunder their countries, and since the Revolution hit a country that was underdeveloped, when they nationalized industries, there was little to be taken over. Russian industry had to be constructed from almost scratch, and had to develop using its own resources.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Why should they have a direct say-so?
Because without the workers, the capitalism wouldn't work.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Now then, if you'd care to explain precisely how capitalism requires a government WITHOUT any question-begging references to exploitation, wage slavery, conflation with mercantilism/corporatism/etc, and all the rest of the bullshit that socialists try, I'd like to hear it.
Wow. I like the framework you constructed in which I have to form my answer, which is easy anyway. History. History shows that the government is utilized by capitalists when they're under siege. They control the state apparatus - the police, the courts, the army, the National Guard - do their work. There are numerous examples, like when strikers were shot down, Black people organizing, and their various agencies like the DIA, FBI and CIA are there to protect capitalism 100%. They are the agencies that staged coup d'etats, assassinations, rigged elections, propaganda and psych warfare ALL done in the name of "national security" (or some bullshit they make up), but its real reason was to protect and expand foreign investment (capitalism). So, if there was no government, workers probably would have taken over in America, or, at least, on a higher level. But since the GOVERNMENT launched a massive red scare in the 40s, 50s and 60s, that purged unnion leadership that were fighting capitalists (to an extent) on a large scale, and the Third World would have definitely gone socialist decades ago. But it was the United States government (the captalists muscle) that bleeds most of those countries dry. How many examples do you want?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Why would they fight? And are you of the idiotic notion that all "private armies" would be "personal armies", i.e. just for a singular charge and no one else?
They would "fight" because me and Machiavelli pooled enough money to hire them. They're a "private" firm that can be bought, right? Right (in this nightmare called anarcho-capitalism only, or course). So we hired them to fight...they won...so we take over the company.
offsprng46 wrote:
Not initiatory force. The employee voluntarily accepted an agreement that may be terminated by either party at any time. By your logic, it's just as evil for an employee to quit.
Horrible comparison. If a capitalist loses a worker, that worker can always be replaced (especially with a high level of unemployment; a hallmark of capitalism), but that worker wont always be able to find another job.
offsprng46 wrote:
And yet the person that inherited the wealth did not do so at the expense of others.
When a capitalist becomes a capitalist, he/she does so by devaluing the labor of his/her workers. As some classical economists admit, capitalism wouldn't exist without greed.
offsprng46 wrote:
That wealth must have been produced at some time (thereby benefiting the public)
The capitalists' goal is not to enrich the workers. A lot of what's done my capitalists may have, by accident, beneficial effects for the population. What are corporations trying to achieve? Not a better life for workers, but profits and market shares. That's no big secret - businesses try to maximize profits, and if it helps the workers, that's just by chance, or it's a concession to workers demands.
offsprng46 wrote:
So the incentive is then greatly reduced, and many will then decide that the utility to be gained from leisure is greater than that that can be gained from working to buy luxuries. And of course there's still the economic calculation problem.
Robert H. Dahl, a leading professor at Yale, wrote a book, Politics, Economics and Welfare, that "differential money rewards are of limited importance in transferring less industrious workmen into more". And with leisure time there would be a risng rate of inventions and innovation.
offsprng46 wrote:
No shit? Tell me something I don't know. However, unlike genuine entrepreneurial activities, interventions ALWAYS benefit some at the expense of others.
Capitalism is all about one person's success being a million other's failures. In order for companies to compete sometimes, they have to take it out on their own workers (or in some cases, former workers). They cut expenses by cutting their work force, so the remaining workers will have to pick up the slack of the ones who got laid off or fired. Horrible, backfiring argument, offsprng46.
offsprng46 wrote:
Wars destroy wealth, you idiot. Again, some might benefit, but the economy as a whole will be harmed. As far as aggressive war is concerned, you won't find a bigger opponent of it than I.
I am in
such
opposition to war as well. World War 2, for example, was good for the American economy. I'm not talking about the New Deal, I'm talking about how other countries economies were destroyed, and contrary to popular belief, the only victor that came out of World War 2 was the United States. So war is bad for the losers, but good for the winners. Let’s go back to the Age of Imperialism. The US army (capitalist’s private army) busted down the doors of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. But why? And who benefited. We both know it was capitalists and their subservient government.
offsprng46 wrote:
Would you be so kind as to give me a testable definition of "wage slavery?"
"Wage slavery" is the wages the workers (who, at times, have an equivalent output level as here in Americas) being 10 cents an hour, offsprng. Having no social security, no medical plan, or benefits. No education. No labor rights, because they have an oppressive government that was essentially bought off, or maintained by the capitalists who use those people to work for them.
offsprng46 wrote:
Yes, they would hire defensive services to protect themselves from would-be thieves.
Yes, and we would hire "offensive services" to attack a particular business. If we win, we'd take the business.
offsprng46 wrote:
No, as it would be acquired through initiatory coercion. What ass did you pull that from?
Murray Rothbard's.
What law would stop me from expropriating a firm's private property via "initiatory coercion"? My private army that I hired did it.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:18 pm
Before I get into destroying your economic illiteracies, I'd just like to congratulate you on no longer trying to support the idea of "exploitation" or whatever vis-a-vis the "capitalist stealing surplus labor/value" from the worker. You didn't even bother to comment on the fact that you used the labor theory of value, even after being told (correctly, I might add) that the labor theory of value has been refuted to death. I trust that we'll see no further idiocy from you about "surplus value".
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes. Of course, he's going to find out how few women will do that, and he'll have to change his tune.
Brian_Damage wrote:
You think sexual harassment is okay,
Strawman.
Brian_Damage wrote:
His economic position justifies this behavior.
No.
btw, you must be a fucking moron if you think I'm young or never had a job. You must also be a fucking moron if you think that I think that sexual harassment is ok. While the behavior is aesthetically improper, there's nothing wrong with having such written into a contract. The big problem the guy will have is how many women will agree to it. I'd suspect that the number is right close to 0. But, if you feel that you must somehow try to score points with a strawman, please do. It will only harm your case.
Now then: would you like to start again, or do you want me to keep bashing you over the head with your own stupidity?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
So it's wrong to ask for recompense for your time and effort? You want everyone to just work and that's that? No recompense at all? Remember: any recompense is being paid.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Nice strawman,
No strawman at all, bubba.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Very good, especially when you know damn well that
I'm
saying that workers don't get compensated enough.
You're the one who said it's wrong for them to sell their labor. Now you're going back on your word. Pick a side, idiot. You can't play both sides of the field. Pick. A. Side. Moron.
In fact, just to show that your Dial-A-Fallacy Fallacy of calling "strawman" is just that--a Dial-A-Fallacy Fallacy, I'll post your words:
Brian_Damage wrote:
And under capitalism you've got the "freedom" to sell yourself to the highest bidder.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Is that bad?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Yes.
As long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves to the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, that's bad because the institutions that are central in society are under autocratic control.
Which we have a further response from me regarding.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Nonsense. They aren't ancillary tools in the first place, and your conclusion doesn't even follow from your premise.
Try harder.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Don't have to try harder.
You do. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Ergo, your explanation...isn't.
Brian_Damage wrote:
As I said before, workers are "free" to sell themselves. The worker is also "free" to be fired at will. With millions unemployed, this "freedom" to switch jobs is useless.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No it isn't. Once again: your conclusion does not follow.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Yes, it does.
Actually, it doesn't. The fact that there are many unemployed in no way means that the freedom to switch jobs is useless. Only some idiot would believe that it is.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yet he did try it with "War Communism". Failed horribly, donchaknow.
Brian_Damage wrote:
From 1918-1921 Russia, already in a backward economic condition,
And here comes the apologetics for communism.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Why should they have a direct say-so?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Because without the workers, the capitalism wouldn't work.
And without the capitalists, capitalism wouldn't work.
So why should the workers have a direct say-so?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Now then, if you'd care to explain precisely how capitalism requires a government WITHOUT any question-begging references to exploitation, wage slavery, conflation with mercantilism/corporatism/etc, and all the rest of the bullshit that socialists try, I'd like to hear it.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Wow. I like the framework you constructed in which I have to form my answer,
Yeah: reality.
Brian_Damage wrote:
which is easy anyway. History.
Doesn't show what you think it does. History does not show that capitalism requires a government. History shows that while some businessmen will use the government for their own ends (thus bringing interventionsim, mercantilism, etc) , that in no way means that capitalism requires a government. Only someone trying a flagrant non sequitur would say otherwise.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Why would they fight? And are you of the idiotic notion that all "private armies" would be "personal armies", i.e. just for a singular charge and no one else?
Brian_Damage wrote:
They would "fight" because me and Machiavelli pooled enough money to hire them.
So why would they fight? You're not actually answering the question.
offsprng46 wrote:
Not initiatory force. The employee voluntarily accepted an agreement that may be terminated by either party at any time. By your logic, it's just as evil for an employee to quit.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Horrible comparison.
No.
Brian_Damage wrote:
If a capitalist loses a worker, that worker can always be replaced (especially with a high level of unemployment; a hallmark of capitalism),
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! High unemployment is not a hallmark of capitalism. Try again.
Brian_Damage wrote:
but that worker wont always be able to find another job.
And that employer may not always be able to find enough workers. But you conveniently forgot that, didn't you?
offsprng46 wrote:
And yet the person that inherited the wealth did not do so at the expense of others.
Brian_Damage wrote:
When a capitalist becomes a capitalist, he/she does so by devaluing the labor of his/her workers.
Prove it.
offsprng46 wrote:
That wealth must have been produced at some time (thereby benefiting the public)
Brian_Damage wrote:
The capitalists' goal is not to enrich the workers.
So?
Brian_Damage wrote:
A lot of what's done my capitalists may have, by accident, beneficial effects for the population.
Adam Smith wrote:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
offsprng46 wrote:
So the incentive is then greatly reduced, and many will then decide that the utility to be gained from leisure is greater than that that can be gained from working to buy luxuries. And of course there's still the economic calculation problem.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Robert H. Dahl, a leading professor at Yale, wrote a book, Politics, Economics and Welfare, that "differential money rewards are of limited importance in transferring less industrious workmen into more".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh that's hilarious. Offering more money won't get more out of people? What is that guy smoking?
Brian_Damage wrote:
And with leisure time there would be a risng rate of inventions and innovation.
Evidence? Oh that's right--you haven't got any.
offsprng46 wrote:
No shit? Tell me something I don't know. However, unlike genuine entrepreneurial activities, interventions ALWAYS benefit some at the expense of others.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Capitalism is all about one person's success being a million other's failures.
No, that's what socialism is.
offsprng46 wrote:
Wars destroy wealth, you idiot. Again, some might benefit, but the economy as a whole will be harmed. As far as aggressive war is concerned, you won't find a bigger opponent of it than I.
Brian_Damage wrote:
I am in
such
opposition to war as well.
Then why are you for the war of all against all called "socialism"?
offsprng46 wrote:
Would you be so kind as to give me a testable definition of "wage slavery?"
Brian_Damage wrote:
"Wage slavery" is the wages the workers (who, at times, have an equivalent output level as here in Americas) being 10 cents an hour, offsprng.
How is that wage slavery? And can you show that it exists without resorting to the aforementioned refuted to death labor theory of value?
offsprng46 wrote:
Yes, they would hire defensive services to protect themselves from would-be thieves.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Yes, and we would hire "offensive services" to attack a particular business.
So you think, anyway. I challenge that premise from the start.
offsprng46 wrote:
No, as it would be acquired through initiatory coercion. What ass did you pull that from?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Murray Rothbard's.
Cite please.
Brian_Damage wrote:
What law would stop me from expropriating a firm's private property via "initiatory coercion"?
Nothing, if you're a criminal in the first place (which you are). Laws don't stop people from being murdered or raped or mugged, do they?
You think sexual harassment is okay, I don't. His economic position justifies this behavior. Just another example of how anarcho-capitalism is corporate tyranny, top-down authoritarian. By the way, you must be young, or haven't had a serious job if you don't think a lot of women, in this sexist society, would fall for the capitalists sexual wants if he threatened her with termination.
And just how many people will work for a company where sexual harassment is allowed?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Very good, especially when you know damn well that
I'm
saying that workers don't get compensated enough.
And how much is "enough?" If you can't come up with a testable answer, this is a meaningless claim.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Humans are treated as tools by capitalists. Why is that hard to believe?
By the same logic, you could say capitalists are being treated as tools by workers. If anything, that is much more tenable, since a capitalist in this context, by definition, is one who provides the tools used by workers.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Especially when human labor is often replaced by machines.
Ah yes, the curse of machinery! We should just smash all the high-tech factories and other capital goods that enable once-luxuries to be available to the masses, that way we'd all be so much richer! Plus, just think of all the jobs that could be created! Moron.
Brian_Damage wrote:
From 1918-1921 Russia, already in a backward economic condition, were totally isolated from other countries and under attack on 14 fronts (one of them being the United States), so the new USSR didn't have the strength of desire to plunder their countries, and since the Revolution hit a country that was underdeveloped, when they nationalized industries, there was little to be taken over. Russian industry had to be constructed from almost scratch, and had to develop using its own resources.
Except that after the implementation of War Communism, industrial output dropped to less than 10% of pre-revolution levels. The war didn't help, but it was central planning that really fucked things up.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Because without the workers, the capitalism wouldn't work.
And without the capitalist, the workers wouldn't work. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Wow. I like the framework you constructed in which I have to form my answer, which is easy anyway. History. History shows that the government is utilized by capitalists when they're under siege. They control the state apparatus - the police, the courts, the army, the National Guard - do their work. There are numerous examples, like when strikers were shot down, Black people organizing, and their various agencies like the DIA, FBI and CIA are there to protect capitalism 100%. They are the agencies that staged coup d'etats, assassinations, rigged elections, propaganda and psych warfare ALL done in the name of "national security" (or some bullshit they make up), but its real reason was to protect and expand foreign investment (capitalism).
Strawman. Corporatism/Mercantilism is not Capitalism. Try again.
Brian_Damage wrote:
So, if there was no government, workers probably would have taken over in America, or, at least, on a higher level. But since the GOVERNMENT launched a massive red scare in the 40s, 50s and 60s, that purged unnion leadership that were fighting capitalists (to an extent) on a large scale, and the Third World would have definitely gone socialist decades ago.
The third world did go socialist decades ago, you idiot. There isn't a single country that has embraced markets that isn't developed or is making its way out of poverty; nor is there a single developed socialist country. There are no exceptions to this.
Brian_Damage wrote:
How many examples do you want?
One valid one will suffice.
offsprng46 wrote:
Not initiatory force. The employee voluntarily accepted an agreement that may be terminated by either party at any time. By your logic, it's just as evil for an employee to quit.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Horrible comparison.
Actually, it's perfectly valid.
Brian_Damage wrote:
If a capitalist loses a worker, that worker can always be replaced (especially with a high level of unemployment; a hallmark of capitalism), but that worker wont always be able to find another job.
A. For the ninth time, involuntary unemployment doesn't exist in the free market.
B. Workers cannot always be immediately replaced. If they could, there would be no open employment positions anywhere.
Brian_Damage wrote:
When a capitalist becomes a capitalist, he/she does so by devaluing the labor of his/her workers. As some classical economists admit, capitalism wouldn't exist without greed.
Capitalist enhance the value of labor by providing capital to increase the productivity of labor, you stupid cock. As to greed, what is the point? Human beings are greedy. How would socialism change that, or do you think the planners are made from a "finer clay" than everyone else?
offsprng46 wrote:
That wealth must have been produced at some time (thereby benefiting the public)
Brian_Damage wrote:
The capitalists' goal is not to enrich the workers. A lot of what's done my capitalists may have, by accident, beneficial effects for the population. What are corporations trying to achieve? Not a better life for workers, but profits and market shares. That's no big secret - businesses try to maximize profits, and if it helps the workers, that's just by chance, or it's a concession to workers demands.
Exactly. I've never said that capitalists are trying to improve the lives of workers (or if they do, it's a means to the end of higher profits). What capitalist does is to channel this self-interest in a way that enhances the public good. Profits are a reflection of how well a firm serves consumers. The higher the profit, the better consumer wants are satisfied.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Robert H. Dahl, a leading professor at Yale, wrote a book, Politics, Economics and Welfare, that "differential money rewards are of limited importance in transferring less industrious workmen into more".
That's a wonderful bit of nonsense. I don't suppose you have any evidence for that.
Brian_Damage wrote:
And with leisure time there would be a risng rate of inventions and innovation.
Even if that were true - which it isn't - without a rational allocation mechanism (a free market), there is no way to know which inventions/innovations are useful, and which aren't.
offsprng46 wrote:
No shit? Tell me something I don't know. However, unlike genuine entrepreneurial activities, interventions ALWAYS benefit some at the expense of others.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Capitalism is all about one person's success being a million other's failures. In order for companies to compete sometimes, they have to take it out on their own workers (or in some cases, former workers). They cut expenses by cutting their work force, so the remaining workers will have to pick up the slack of the ones who got laid off or fired. Horrible, backfiring argument, offsprng46.
And what will happen to the laid off workers? Those resources will be reallocated to more efficient producers, as the market will tend to full employment of available resources. If you would have had your way, we'd still be riding around in horse-drawn carriages.
Brian_Damage wrote:
I am in
such
opposition to war as well. World War 2, for example, was good for the American economy. I'm not talking about the New Deal, I'm talking about how other countries economies were destroyed, and contrary to popular belief, the only victor that came out of World War 2 was the United States. So war is bad for the losers, but good for the winners. Let’s go back to the Age of Imperialism. The US army (capitalist’s private army) busted down the doors of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. But why? And who benefited. We both know it was capitalists and their subservient government.
Strawman.
offsprng46 wrote:
Would you be so kind as to give me a testable definition of "wage slavery?"
Brian_Damage wrote:
"Wage slavery" is the wages the workers (who, at times, have an equivalent output level as here in Americas) being 10 cents an hour, offsprng.
A. If foreign workers have productivity equivalent to domestic workers but are paid 10 cents an hour, other firms will rapidly begin drawing those workers away from the firm pay 10 cents an hour. However, "sweat shop" employees' productivity is vastly lower than domestic workers, so your original claim is false anyways.
B. So then 11 cents an hour is OK? If that's a yes, please tell me how you've arrived at that conclusion. If your answer is no, then you have still yet to provide a testable definition.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Having no social security, no medical plan, or benefits.
Because the workers would rather take all compensation in cash, and then decide for themselves what they want to buy. But I know you don't think people should have the right to buy what they want.
Brian_Damage wrote:
No education.
Not the fault of foreign investors.
Brian_Damage wrote:
No labor rights, because they have an oppressive government that was essentially bought off, or maintained by the capitalists who use those people to work for them.
In which case we're not talking about capitalism, and you have set up yet another strawman.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Yes, and we would hire "offensive services" to attack a particular business. If we win, we'd take the business.
Which would be theft, not capitalist methods of production.
offsprng46 wrote:
No, as it would be acquired through initiatory coercion. What ass did you pull that from?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Murray Rothbard's.
Liar. What source?
Brian_Damage wrote:
What law would stop me from expropriating a firm's private property via "initiatory coercion"? My private army that I hired did it.
If they did that, would anyone else hire this group of armed thugs? And if no one else hires them, they go bust.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 593
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:26 am
Machiavelli wrote:
hello Brian!!!!
on incentives:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html#seci414
"We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not pull their weight within a commune and are expelled will have access to the means of making a living outside the commune.
And I will "abstain" or "stand aside" during the vote to throw me out for mooching off the commune, because one person does have veto power.
Machiavelli wrote:
We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism seem to be unable to understand this point (or prefer to ignore it and so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society, no one will be forced to join a commune simply because they do not have access to the means of production and/or land required to work alone. Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life is dependent on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and so, effectively, denied to the vast majority), an anarchist society will ensure that all have access and have a real choice between living in a commune and working independently. This access is based on the fundamental difference between possession and property -- the commune possesses as much land as it needs, as do non-members. The resources used by them are subject to the usual possession rationale -- they possess it only as long as they use it and cannot bar others using it if they do not (i.e., it is not property).[/qutoe]
Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures the end of all forms of wage slavery (see also section I.1.4). The member of the commune has the choice of working as part of a community, giving according to their abilities and taking according to their needs (or some other means of organising production and consumption such as equal income or receiving labour notes, and so on), or working independently and so free of communal benefits as well as any commitments (bar those associated with using communal resources such as roads and so on)."
And if the exiles create a capitalist system right next to the utopia, and then have a higher standard of living, will all the communists move in, take over, and create a new commune? Or will the leaders of the commune allow people to leave and join the capitalist system with its higher standard of living?
Machiavelli wrote:
voting:
in seattle during the 99' protests thousands of people paritcipated in the consensus spokes councils.
oops, the tern is stand aside not abstain. majority votes can be used in emergency, temporary officers can be appointed if they posses expertise, or in the case of militas.
Notice how quickly you are changing your tune. You were talking about the veto power of the one individual, but in an effort to not admit you were talking about unanimity you instead allow majority votes again - and even appointed officers.
Which brings us back to 10 guys and 1 girl voting on whether or not to rape the girl.
Either she is outvoted, or you are using unanimity.
Machiavelli wrote:
security:
the poor could not afford their own security guards becuase they earn low wages.
Currently.
Machiavelli wrote:
goverment exists to maintain the existing socal order
Actually it exists to maintain itself.
Machiavelli wrote:
i posses my body
I own mine.
Machiavelli wrote:
i know many people who do volunteer work and recive no remuneration, i do so ocasionally
So?
Machiavelli wrote:
you can determine value by how much the item costs to produce(in terms of materials expended), on the market it will be sold for more that it is worth so the porducer can make a profit
No. You can determine value by how much someone is willing to pay for a product. If I build a steam powered unicycle, it would cost a lot in equipment and time, but would be worthless.
Machiavelli wrote:
doesnt everyone have an equal right to acess the unowed resourses?
Does the person who sits at home and does nothing have as much right to the coal as the person who goes out and digs it up?
Before I get into destroying your economic illiteracies
I don't have any.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I'd just like to congratulate you on no longer trying to support the idea of "exploitation" or whatever vis-a-vis the "capitalist stealing surplus labor/value" from the worker.
What the hell made you think that? I clearly said that the rate of surplus-value is an expression for the measure of exploitation of labor-power by capital, or of the laborer by the capitalist.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
the labor theory of value has been refuted to death.
No it hasen't. It's been refuted by people who think like you.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
While the behavior is aesthetically improper, there's nothing wrong with having such written into a contract. The big problem the guy will have is how many women will agree to it. I'd suspect that the number is right close to 0.
So BEFORE the capitalist hires a woman (or a man), he's going to have it written in the contract that it'd be okay for him to sexually harass her? That's (along with your economic beliefs) absurd.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But, if you feel that you must somehow try to score points with a strawman, please do. It will only harm your case.
Score? It's a damn discussion; I'm not keeping score to "win" some argument against two guys who are advocating something impossible.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You're the one who said it's wrong for them to sell their labor.
Within a capitalist framework that's what happens with 99% of the population. That's how capitalism works; you sell your labor and don't have access to capital goods, like factories, machines or raw materials. And because of this, an extremely small group of people live in unimaginable luxury and elegance while the rest of the world wallows in environmental degradation and increasing squalor.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The fact that there are many unemployed in no way means that the freedom to switch jobs is useless.
This is why I say you seem young. Either that or you live in a wealthy community, or don't have many blue collar friends. When a company cuts expenses by cutting jobs, throwing massive amounts of people into unemployment where they cannot find a suitable replacement (since costs of living continually increases WHILE so many are losing jobs), that "freedom" would be useless.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And here comes the apologetics for communism.
Right. Here is a fine example of why people (like you, for example) don't study history - you learn too much.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And without the capitalists, capitalism wouldn't work.
So why should the workers have a direct say-so?
So you concede that capitalists need workers. Very good.
But workers don't need capitalists. That's why.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Doesn't show what you think it does.
You may know the economic philosophies of Rothbard or Mises, but you don't know a damn thing about politics or history.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
History does not show that capitalism requires a government. History shows that while some businessmen will use the government for their own ends (thus bringing interventionism, mercantilism, etc) , that in no way means that capitalism requires a government. Only someone trying a flagrant non sequitur would say otherwise.
Horrible refutation, Knight, just horrible. Those "some businessmen" were capitalists who owned private property. Some wanted natural resources. They had their private army (U.S. military), in Wilson's words, "batter down" the "doors of the nations which are closed". And domestically, had their private agencies (like the FBI) disrupt the labor movement. Why'd they do that? Ever heard of COINTELPRO? Although COINTELPRO targeted the labor movement only marginally, it spells out that the interests of the owners of capital are being served directly by the government.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
So why would they fight? You're not actually answering the question.
I answered it the first time I brought it up; what are you talking about? They would fight because we hired them...we paid them...we have them money....voluntarily...since they're a *private* firm that exchanges goods and services for money.
Christ...do I have to clarify it again?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! High unemployment is not a hallmark of capitalism. Try again.
The hell it isn't. Unemployment happens when the capitalist gets more from leaving people out of work to keep wages and expenses down. An "army" of unemployed people basically is utilized by the capitalist class as a threat of replacement to his current workers. A good book by Spurgeon Bell called Productivity, Wages and National Income cataloged countless examples of this infamous practice.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And that employer may not always be able to find enough workers.
With massive unemployment he will. As previously stated, it's a hell of a lot easier for a capitalist to hire than a worker to find a job. Ever work in a business?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Prove it.
It's already been proven dozens of times. For example, get the book Economics: A Tool for Understanding Society by Tom Riddel (who is far from a socialist), who spoke about the norm of maximization.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Offering more money won't get more out of people? What is that guy smoking?
Ever live in any country besides America? The few studies on this subject show no correlation. In Cuba, for example (a place I've been to, and have friends who still live there), doctors proportion to their population is second on the world (next to Italy).
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then why are you for the war of all against all called "socialism"?
Socialism is about the solidarity of the working class.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
How is that wage slavery?
"Wage slavery" is a euphemism. They are, after all, paid for their labor...10 cents/hour (or less, since capitalist nature races to the bottom in terms of wages). They also have repressive governments paid for by capitalists and their acquiescent government that stomps unions and any indication of workers solidarity. What justifies a capitalist to pay a Mexican worker X amount when that man/woman/little kid produces as much as the American worker, when he/she gets Y?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Nothing, if you're a criminal in the first place (which you are). Laws don't stop people from being murdered or raped or mugged, do they?
Not at all. The laws of this government are here to protect capitalists. By and large, in this country, rich people don't go to jail, unless,
1. They do something just
too
despicable that it's impossible to ignore, or
2. They do something to another rich person.
Me being a "criminal" means nothing under your nightmare of anarcho-capitalism when I'll just volentarily enguage in a contract with a private firm, and hire an army to protect me. So what if you call me a "criminal".
offsprng46 wrote:
And just how many people will work for a company where sexual harassment is allowed?
"Allowed"? What's "allowed" is whatever the capitalist feels. He may get horney one day and see a fine worker, and demand that she slob him up...she doesn't....she's FIRED!!!! After all, who does he have to answer too? He's the capitalist; the dictator of his firm. He makes the rules.
offsprng46 wrote:
And how much is "enough?" If you can't come up with a testable answer, this is a meaningless claim.
The value of what they produce in the form of wages. I make 10 bucks an hour for 12 hours, and produce $200 worth of whatever; I want the rest of my $80.00.
offsprng46 wrote:
By the same logic, you could say capitalists are being treated as tools by workers. If anything, that is much more tenable, since a capitalist in this context, by definition, is one who provides the tools used by workers.
For whose benefit does the capitalist provide those tools too? The workers? ANYTHING the capitalist does is done for his benefit because it may be a good investment.
offsprng46 wrote:
Except that after the implementation of War Communism, industrial output dropped to less than 10% of pre-revolution levels. The war didn't help, but it was central planning that really fucked things up.
"Central Planning" within a economically backward framework, pulling themselves up from their bootstraps and starting from scratch, along with a war on 14 fronts, and just getting out of the First World War is what caused the problems. Economic life was totally subjected to the needs of the fronts. ""War Communism" was the systematic regimentation of consumption in a besieged fortress.
offsprng46 wrote:
And without the capitalist, the workers wouldn't work.
Not true.
offsprng46 wrote:
Corporatism/Mercantilism is not Capitalism.
*Sniff sniff*. I smell offsprng46's bullshit with a nice No True Scotsman on the side.
offsprng46 wrote:
The third world did go socialist decades ago, you idiot. There isn't a single country that has embraced markets that isn't developed or is making its way out of poverty; nor is there a single developed socialist country. There are no exceptions to this.
The few countries that went socialist had to fight tooth and nail against capitalism's private army, the US military. And the US succeeded in plundering their land, killing their economy and destroying their very country to its core enough where when US military presence was gone, they weren't able to function. This is why, contrary to popular belief, the US objectives were won in, say, Vietnam. All those other countries were not "socialist", they were capitalists, since their governments allowed foreign capital into their countries and basically said, "Here boys, take what you want, however much you want, just give me a good enough army to control 'my' people, and have me live like a king".
offsprng46 wrote:
One valid one will suffice.
Guatamala.
offsprng46 wrote:
Capitalist enhance the value of labor by providing capital to increase the productivity of labor
More capital means more market share, investments, and money for the capitalist, who often does not return to the workers in the form of wages.
offsprng46 wrote:
you stupid cock
lol
offsprng46 wrote:
I've never said that capitalists are trying to improve the lives of workers
Very good, offsprng46.
offsprng46 wrote:
"sweat shop" employees' productivity is vastly lower than domestic workers, so your original claim is false anyways.
Wrong. Read Home and Foreign Investment by Cairncross.
offsprng46 wrote:
If they did that, would anyone else hire this group of armed thugs? And if no one else hires them, they go bust.
Correct. That's why your silly fantasy is absurd. People WOULD hire a private army to do shit for them.
transientangent Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 1138
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:33 am
I hate it when people conflate capitalism with fat cats in suits keeping the man down. Capitalism means being free to exchange goods or services with whoever's willing to exchange. This is effective because of opportunity cost and specialization. What you must remember when you criticize capitalism for
