Why Communism Failed in under 5 minutes

[Libertus]

Communism is voluntary? So what happens if a group of people decides to accumulate capital, trade labor for wages and defend their private property including means of production from intruders (absentee ownership)?

 

Those were not rhetorical questions. Are communists going to interfere?

[square4]

This leads to one conclusion, any accumulation of wealth not directly created by the individual concerned (social and natural wealth) ought to be enjoyed equally by all.

 

 

By social wealth, do you mean the benefits gained through interactions between individuals, through division of labor, and the like? If these were voluntary, as demanded by anarchism, these should already have been beneficial to the parties involved, which means they already received some compensation, although indeed not necessary in an equal fashion. But with regard to natural wealth, as far as these natural resources are unimproved by men, I agree that ownership of it cannot be justified. But isn't the price of most products for only a very small portion determined by the raw materials in their original natural form, and most of it determined by the value added to it by the various laborers? This labor includes also the labor required for the production of the capital goods that were used during production. And if this labor was voluntary, this means they already felt compensated for it, when agreeing to the salary.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Those were not rhetorical questions. Are communists going to interfere?

Anarchism (including communism) preaches that personal property & usage rights are the only legitimate forms of possession (lockean proviso). A man has a right to assert his ownership of property so long as it can be shown to be entirely his (produced by his labour only [absolute ownership]), or falls under his right to lay claim to a part of the social wealth in proportion to others (usufruct only). Some forms of anarchism alternately state one can have absolute rights to products involving goods of social origin if everyone has equal access.

 

The trading of labour for a wage has no justification. It requires coercion and is therefore theft. Coercion MUST be involved to ever agree to receive any less than the full fruits of one own labour. Under an anarchist system a person can pay another a wage, but the labour, and so the fruits of his labour cannot be owned by the buyer. These fruits must stay the inalienable property of the producer or else transfer to a form of social ownership, of which the buyer only gets preferential usage right. The buyer can therefore never own another person and so the fruits of his toil.

 

Capital accumulation is fine, so long as it is used directly by the owner. The consolidation of capital today serves to create a coercive imbalance of power between owner and worker, so as to extract surplus labour from the latter. All capital accumulation that is not used by the owner is really a WEAPON for the oppression of others, and morally unjustifiable.

 

The defense of property is legitimate only if the property is legitimate. Absentee ownership, owning those things one will never use, that is, things only kept to exploit others, is illegitimate under a system of usage rights.

 

Anarchism (which communism is a type) is a social system that seeks to maximize liberty. That is the liberty of all, with the liberty of individuals only limited by the equal rights of others to their own freedom. We reject all rights and liberties which are had at the detriment of others. The right to keep slaves, to even keep workers, is an affront to liberty and can only come about through a coercive society.

By social wealth, do you mean the benefits gained through interactions between individuals, through division of labor, and the like? If these were voluntary, as demanded by anarchism, these should already have been beneficial to the parties involved, which means they already received some compensation, although indeed not necessary in an equal fashion. But with regard to natural wealth, as far as these natural resources are unimproved by men, I agree that ownership of it cannot be justified. But isn't the price of most products for only a very small portion determined by the raw materials in their original natural form, and most of it determined by the value added to it by the various laborers? This labor includes also the labor required for the production of the capital goods that were used during production. And if this labor was voluntary, this means they already felt compensated for it, when agreeing to the salary.

Sort of. Those are some ways of creating social wealth. Social wealth is the cumulative wealth of mankind, past and present, which has its origins in social collaboration.

 

Perhaps the individuals were remunerated justly during the original period of accumulation. The problem is those who come after. This train of thought largely parallels that of the lockean proviso, in that those whom made the initial acquisitions are justified only if their decisions would not have harmed any newcomers (who could not consent to decisions in the past) more than had there been no property rights. Examples include barriers to entry, greater economies of scale, brand familiarity etc. all serve as examples of generalized accumulation of capital as a weapon against competition.

 

As stated above, anything less than the full product of labour requires coercive exploitation. Perhaps such a degree of exploitation would be tolerable In a society which had an "inequality pressure release valve", but under capitalism private property allows the opposite, it has a "ratcheting" effect, which ensures coercion increases cumulatively.

[Libertus]

In other, less words, (your brand of) Communism isn't voluntary at all. You would interfere violently with contracts for labor, capital movement, rent, and many more. Wouldn't you? What happens if the capitalists resist your intervention?

[Thomasio]

I'm not really sure why you're arguing about coercion and effects of capitalism.

The answer to the question from the title of this topic is far easier.

 

The original idea of socialism was bringing democracy into the work place, have the workers decide what a company should be doing, rather than a board of directors.

The plan of how to achieve that was to capture government, either through elections or through revolution, make the laws neccessary to transform the work place and go from there.

 

The big mistake was, all alleged socialist parties throughout the world, whether in Germany, France, Russia, or anywhere else, once they had captured government power forgot the second step.

They kept themselves in power, but instead of converting to socialism they became state capitalism.

While in Europe at least they kept democracy, in Russia they even abolished democracy and called their dictatorial state capitalism then communism.

They couldn't have gone any further away from the original idea, the outcome couldn't be any further away from the meaning of the word "commune" and that's why it failed.

 

The really fun part is the latest development in silicon valley, where recently a few smart developpers and programmers have left their job at Microsoft and the other huge corporations, launching startups they call "TechCollective".

If you ask them, they will express how happy they are with the great success of their new capitalistic company, while in fact they run a plain socialist system, they only don't call it socialism, because nobody remembers what socialism was actually supposed to be.

[Libertus]

Why doesn't any Communist in modern times build a company, by themselves, with their own capital, and then hand over control to the workers collective? They can't all be disadvantaged, at least some of them should be able to. If all a successful collective needs is a bunch of workers, who do all the planning, strategy, market analysis and distribution of their product by themselves, democratically, why don't they exist by the thousands and have outsmarted, outclassed and outperformed all the capitalists on the market?

 

Because it's a fantasy. Just because I'm good at woodworking doesn't mean I have a clue about who needs how much wood product at what time. It doesn't mean I have a clue about logistics. It doesn't mean I have examined all the alternatives to my product and can make a smart decision when to grow and when to cut back growth. As a woodworker, I can't run my company, and why should I learn how to do it? I am specialized in wood working, let somebody do the strategy who is specialized in that.

 

Communists still live and think in the pre-industrial age. That's why they focus on "workers" so much.

[Thomasio]

Why doesn't any Communist in modern times build a company, by themselves, with their own capital, and then hand over control to the workers collective? They can't all be disadvantaged, at least some of them should be able to. If all a successful collective needs is a bunch of workers, who do all the planning, strategy, market analysis and distribution of their product by themselves, democratically, why don't they exist by the thousands and have outsmarted, outclassed and outperformed all the capitalists on the market?

 

They do exist and their sizes as well as their numbers are growing.

They run into heavy resistance from big capital and many workers haven't discovered the advantages of the idea yet, but wherever they manage to get started, they are near unstoppable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

They are in fact the only thriving type of business in countries like Spain during times of deep depression, still paying low skilled workers 13% above minimum wage, simply because they do no allow salaries of top managers going off the chart.

[Libertus]

Mondragon is not run by workers, and only partially owned. What are you talking about. It says so right there in the article.

[Thomasio]

It's OWNED by the workers, that's the point.

It has grown too large to be run the way they started, so they had to select some managers, but most of those are former workers, elected by the workers and they don't get paid more than max 9 times the wages of the lowest worker in the company.

The fact workers own the place prevents greedy managers from outsourcing production to China.

 

If you wanna see how these companies start up, how many examples do you want?

Ask Google for "TechCollective", you'll find 37000 hits all over the US and Canada.

[LibertarianSocialist]

The problem with workers cooperatives under capitalism is that they transform back to a capitalist style of operation given any success. Workers cooperatives, and socialist style community development are incredibly effective at developing a fragile and nascent infrastructure. This is analogous to the nation-scale idea of protectionism which all first world countries employed during early development. Such protectionism is only of interest if you are the weaker party. For those stronger market players, protectionism is of little interest personally, and limiting when employed by others. Free markets are great if you are going to win.

Like nations, individual cooperatives transform back into predatory advocates of the market, once they, or those who have managed to wrest control of them, are in favourable positions.

 

The Israeli Kibbutz are (perhaps, don't know them in any detail) good examples of (partially socialist) workers cooperatives reverting to predatory capitalism once developed, representing today a disproportionate amount of agricultural and industrial production per capita.

 

This sort of corruption is an indictment of capitalism or at least partial-socialism, as it allows the ownership of private property, and so facilitates the creation of a class society of owners and non-owners, and so all the ills related to such a condition.

This is why socialists advocate that all individuals should have equal access to the means of production, and to all social and natural wealth.

[LibertarianSocialist]

In other, less words, (your brand of) Communism isn't voluntary at all. You would interfere violently with contracts for labor, capital movement, rent, and many more. Wouldn't you? What happens if the capitalists resist your intervention?

We don't recognize such rights because they are unjustifiable, as explained above and elsewhere. Under anarchism, the limits of one's rights and freedoms are the equal rights and freedoms of others. A propertarian society by virtue of its greater "freedom", permits individuals to sell themselves into slavery, to sell their children into prostitution, even if such consent is acquired through the worst coercion. This is not a system of liberty, it is a system of privilege.

 

All forms of society are involuntary to a degree, propertarianism included. The question is, is this justified?

I'm not really sure why you're arguing about coercion and effects of capitalism.

The answer to the question from the title of this topic is far easier.

 

The original idea of socialism was bringing democracy into the work place, have the workers decide what a company should be doing, rather than a board of directors.

The plan of how to achieve that was to capture government, either through elections or through revolution, make the laws neccessary to transform the work place and go from there.

 

The big mistake was, all alleged socialist parties throughout the world, whether in Germany, France, Russia, or anywhere else, once they had captured government power forgot the second step.

They kept themselves in power, but instead of converting to socialism they became state capitalism.

While in Europe at least they kept democracy, in Russia they even abolished democracy and called their dictatorial state capitalism then communism.

They couldn't have gone any further away from the original idea, the outcome couldn't be any further away from the meaning of the word "commune" and that's why it failed.

 

The really fun part is the latest development in silicon valley, where recently a few smart developpers and programmers have left their job at Microsoft and the other huge corporations, launching startups they call "TechCollective".

If you ask them, they will express how happy they are with the great success of their new capitalistic company, while in fact they run a plain socialist system, they only don't call it socialism, because nobody remembers what socialism was actually supposed to be.

That's a fair enough statement if we are considering only those who embraced government as a means of transition. But it should be noted that the second largest strain of socialism was anarchism. Anarchists have always rejected any form of government, accurately predicting such a transitional period would revert to state capitalism. We even have several examples of functioning anarchist societies, they have not all been statist. Personally I think state socialism (particularly bolshevism) was really a wolf in sheeps clothing, an intentional counter-revolutionary movement undertaken with full knowledge of its likely outcome, much in the same way fascists pretended to be socialists. Purely opportunistic. Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was far removed from Marx's original meaning, even if he himself was somewhat authoritarian at times too.

[Anuojat]

Nevermind i realised i wasnt curious to be honest.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Could it be because such operations dont work of people prefer differant style of operation such as a comany or some other form of cooperation? Also i agree with you that this happens in the system where the state is existing and active but we havent had a free market to see waht would such cummunities/operations do.

 

You keep saying capitalism is exploitive. And youve stated far above that "The trading of labour for a wage has no justification. It requires coercion and is therefore theft. Coercion MUST be involved to ever agree to receive any less than the full fruits of one own labour. Under an anarchist system a person can pay another a wage, but the labour, and so the fruits of his labour cannot be owned by the buyer. These fruits must stay the inalienable property of the producer or else transfer to a form of social ownership, of which the buyer only gets preferential usage right. The buyer can therefore never own another person and so the fruits of his toil."

 

Which completely not true. If i choose a contract where i want to trade my labour for a wage and the other person keep waht ive helped to produces (since i am not the only worker there i am sure and not even the only type of worker).

 

Obviously if the employer were to force me to work at the point of a gun it would be wrong. But me or anypone else voluntarily willing to trade my sweat for a wage or for say afood and car and house it should be totally fine contract. Also i wont and cant keep the "fruits of my labor" in all jobs. As security gurad or as lobby manager or marketing director or employer hirer (and i am sure you can think many more) keeping the fruits of my labor wouldnt make much sense now would it.

 

And you use the word MUST a lot there. So if let my emplyoker keep the "fruits of my labor" its wrong? Who are you to tell what i and he dow our time and effort?

Surely not employ violance? Because this IS what the modern government do.

 

So exactly waht is exploitative or immoral about this very fundemental premise to the free market? :S

There may be instances where such wage labour is minimally coercive. The problem is the precedent this sets. It makes sense that an individual if given the option of receiving his full product of labour or a fraction of it will always choose the former. Thus the only way one can receive any less is to remove that option (coercive). This is not to say the coercion is done by the employer or even any person, coercion has many causes, many impossible to ever control. Biology is coercive.

If a man decides even with the option to receive his full product, to only receive a fraction, surely he is an altruist. But could not the same altruism be achieved by giving him his full product and having him see to its distribution?

 

It is not the ability to agree to work for or help others, or even the acceptance of a wage, that anarchists oppose but the condoning of a system that permits one party to exploit another through coercion. As coercion cannot be removed, profiting off it must be. Any allowance of one man to buy another person and so by extension what he produces during this time sets a dangerous precedent.

 

Don't confuse consent with absence of coercion. One can consent to a coercive situation (although I would although argue one cannot truly consent if coercion is involved). Your, accepting a wage because it is the best available option, is an example of consenting to a coercive situation.

[Libertus]

It's OWNED by the workers, that's the point.

 

My argument was about how a company can't be RUN by workers, because they don't know how. Mondragon is not RUN by workers, so it doesn't address my argument, which I will repeat at the end of this post.

 

Mondragon is "owned by workers" the same way Google is owned by workers: Some workers own shares, some don't. Is that a fact or is that not a fact?

 

If all a successful collective needs is a bunch of workers, who do all the planning, strategy, market analysis and distribution of their product by themselves, democratically, why don't they exist by the thousands and have outsmarted, outclassed and outperformed all the capitalists on the market?

 

Because it's a fantasy. Just because I'm good at woodworking doesn't mean I have a clue about who needs how much wood product at what time. It doesn't mean I have a clue about logistics. It doesn't mean I have examined all the alternatives to my product and can make a smart decision when to grow and when to cut back growth. As a woodworker, I can't run my company, and why should I learn how to do it? I am specialized in wood working, let somebody do the strategy who is specialized in that.

[square4]

Coercion MUST be involved to ever agree to receive any less than the full fruits of one own labour.

 

 

Suppose someone has created a machine, and offers another person a job to work for a wage, using this machine. By doing so, he does not diminish the available options for the laborer. It is still possible to work without the machine. It is still possible to use similar resources, and make a machine yourself. By offering a job, the capitalist is adding an extra possibility. How could that be called coercion? Suppose the laborer accepts the job, then the produced product will be the result of both of their labor, right? So what is the full fruit of ones labor?

 

It makes sense that an individual if given the option of receiving his full product of labour or a fraction of it will always choose the former. Thus the only way one can receive any less is to remove that option (coercive).

 

 

The production of capital goods and the offering of the job, should be taken as one process. Before this process began, the capital goods did not exist, and the worker also did not have the possibility to use those and receive its full produce. So this option has not been removed; it never existed. Similarly, a person who bakes bread and sells it, is not removing the option of getting bread for free, because that option never existed.

[Thomasio]

 

Suppose someone has created a machine, and offers another person a job to work for a wage, using this machine. By doing so, he does not diminish the available options for the laborer. It is still possible to work without the machine. It is still possible to use similar resources, and make a machine yourself. By offering a job, the capitalist is adding an extra possibility. How could that be called coercion? Suppose the laborer accepts the job, then the produced product will be the result of both of their labor, right? So what is the full fruit of ones labor?

 

 

On first view that's correct.

The problem arises, when this machine is operated by one single worker, where this one worker with the help of the machine produces as much as 100 workers would produce manually.

In this case you have one owner of the machine, able to dictate one worker a minimum wage, for the reason there are 99 others outside starving who would all be willing to take the job for a lower wage.

 

As long as there is a growing need for other products the machine helps society, because it enables 99 other workers to work on something else, but in this case the employer wouldn't be able to press wages down, because there are no unemployed people willing to work for less.

As soon as ALL production in the world is covered by machinery, there begins a gigantic suppression of workers, due to the simple fact, there are more workers needing a job than there is work to be done, which enables the owners of the machines to press down wages.

 

But the advantage for the employers of producing at lowest possible costs backfires big time, when the lower wages aren't enough anymore to buy the goods produced by the machines, because then they discover that lower wages lead to less consumption, which leads to the simple fact, with less and less consumption, more and more of the goods produced can't be sold anymore.

But then, as long as the idea of our world is ever harder competition, no employer can afford to pay higher wages, because he would be overtaken by all the others instantly.

Wonder how close we get to the point where nobody sells anything at zero wages, before the rich discover they are destroying themselves.

For the moment it surely looks like the richest of them have enough power to press the losers of the competition down into the unemployed area and they aren't interested in stopping the downfall.

[A Madman Person Guy]

Why this negativity about "machines taking the jobs" all around? You sound like 19th century Frenchmen to me. It's not like we need more people in the world, and most anyone with something between their ears who's worked a hands-on job for any longer time (yours truly) would rather be doing the theoretical stuff (or, to quote my uncle; "You'll know you're on the right track when you work from behind a desk and come home to play in the garage, rather than the other way around"). If anything can drop the nativity and increase the performance of and living standards for people, then it's technological and industrial improvement.

 

I don't see the issue as being that we need to control the advancement of the tech, because no matter how much you try you're not going to be able to suppress it and maintain a growing, free capitalist system while at the same time maintaining economical and environmental efficiency (and if you doubt this, just look at China). The issue - the problem - is as always the bloody people, and getting into their heads that they need to take heed to things, no matter how "uncomfortable" in their worldview, because they happen to be simple mechanistic facts.

[LibertarianSocialist]

If LibertarianSocialist would like to call into the show do have a socialist debate/discussion, please let me know. That sounds like fun...

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't own a phone or a computer, and I don't have Skype. My internet is also shared via WiFi with my neighbours and is really intermittent and prone to dropouts. Besides, I'm not yet familiar enough with right-wing terminology and concepts to debate in real time. One day for sure.

[Thomasio]

Why this negativity about "machines taking the jobs" all around?

 

There is nothing wrong in letting machines work for us, but there is a lot wrong in letting machines replace half of our jobs while not decreasing the working hours for the people because that leads under all circumstances to insane wealth for the owners of the machines, very low wages for the half of the workers that still have a job and plain poverty for the other half.

 

The common argument, if such a machine was generating so much wealth, then everybody could build such a machine and get rich is the same nonsense as claiming everybody could get a job in a 40 hour week.

We have in fact seen a gigantic wave of such enterprises popping up on the market, which has led us to the ridiculous situation where now a huge over supply of products exists, but half the people do not have the money to buy them.

 

In Spain they have used the boom the EURO has created to build 100s of 1000s of houses, but those are nearly all empty today, because nobody has the money to buy a house, most people don't even have the money to rent an apartment which is why even investors aren't interested in buying such a house for investment.

At same time there are 100s of 1000s of people in Spain homeless and daily a huge amount of foreclosures increases both, the amount of empty houses as well as the amount of homeless people.

 

Now you MIGHT think it's the fault of the people who didn't manage to make a living and make enough money to buy or rent a house, but if you look at the situation as it is today, you see the error in that thought.

Empty houses nobody cares for are falling apart up to a point where the owner has to pay for demolishing the leftovers and clean up the place, so owning an empty house costs the owners more than giving it for free to some homeless people, because at least you could make it part of the contract that they keep the house intact, still nobody is willing to do that, in most cases they can't even do that, because giving the house to homeless people means admitting the money for building it is gone, while the empty house currently has a nominal value which most of the owners have to have to backup the loan they took to build it in the first place.

Even though it's a 99.99% probability that these houses will never bring a single cent of rent for the owners but will cost them even more money in the end, the pressure their banks puts on them for their debt doesn't allow them to do the right thing and at least get some poor people off the streets.

 

The same holds true for everything else.

We produce absolutely ANYTHING in way bigger quantities than humans could possibly consume, but half the population doesn't have the money to buy anything, therefore roughly 1/3 of all produced goods can't be sold while at same time half the population can't afford anything at all.

 

There are two ways out of this:

 

1) Decrease working hours per worker until almost all people have a realistic chance to earn a living.

That would give a gigantic boom in production, it would allow for even more insane profits for the rich, because instead of not being able to sell 1/3 of their products and competing with ever lower prices against each other, they would see a need to invest, increase production and increase prices to keep demand under control.

 

2) Decrease production or throw away 1/3 of all new products.

That's not only a gigantic waste of resources, it leads to a spiral downwards, where more and more competition with lower and lower prices leads to lower and lower wages, which leads to less and less consumption, which leads to less and less sales, until nobody produces anything because nobody can buy anything.

 

I for one highly prefer option #1.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Why this negativity about "machines taking the jobs" all around? You sound like 19th century Frenchmen to me. It's not like we need more people in the world, and most anyone with something between their ears who's worked a hands-on job for any longer time (yours truly) would rather be doing the theoretical stuff (or, to quote my uncle; "You'll know you're on the right track when you work from behind a desk and come home to play in the garage, rather than the other way around"). If anything can drop the nativity and increase the performance of and living standards for people, then it's technological and industrial improvement.

 

I don't see the issue as being that we need to control the advancement of the tech, because no matter how much you try you're not going to be able to suppress it and maintain a growing, free capitalist system while at the same time maintaining economical and environmental efficiency (and if you doubt this, just look at China). The issue - the problem - is as always the bloody people, and getting into their heads that they need to take heed to things, no matter how "uncomfortable" in their worldview, because they happen to be simple mechanistic facts.

Mechanisation is a doubled edged sword. Employee conditions largely depend on how much power he has. Where labour is cheap and unorganised, poor conditions result. Mechanisation can lead to the dispensation of the worker, who having to still buy the goods he formerly made, must seek new employment as a servant for his boss, at largely reduced pay, or even face unemployment where even such a job is unavailable, generally resulting in lower consumption of goods. Where the workers own the technology, the profits can be realised by them in full and results in increased consumption and material well-being, lower working hours and increased leisure.

 

Propertarians seem to ignore the fact that capital can be used as a weapon, as leverage against those without. They seem to think that the child born into the world with nothing only has to "work hard" if he wants to compete with the wall-mart heir. If you were to join a game of monopoly late, you wouldn't think 'Gee, what a prosperous world I live in with all these hotels everywhere!', you would be indignant that you were birthed into such a coercive reality.

 

Thomasio was not arguing against technology, but rather the misuse of technology for short term individual gain at the expense of the long term prosperity of society at large.

[Libertus]

To close up our thread of discussion: yes, you would interfere in accumulation of capital, contracts and trade, and yes, you would absolutely use violence to do so, thank you for clearing that up.

[LibertarianSocialist]

To close up our thread of discussion: yes, you would interfere in accumulation of capital, contracts and trade, and yes, you would absolutely use violence to do so, thank you for clearing that up.

I never denied that certain types of capitalist actions will be opposed by anarchists. Maybe you want to explain why these actions are justified? Because I have given pretty clear reasons why we oppose certain "liberties" and the ethical reasons for doing so, namely that exceptional liberty for a few at the expense of the many is privilege, and certainly not freedom. How you could equate freedom with the right to keep slaves is beyond me.

Violence is completely justified in self defence.

[Libertus]

You're now equivocating "use violence" and "interfere" as "oppose". I'm not playing your games. My direct question was repeated several time: would you interfere? would you use violence interfering in the accumulation of capital, contracts and trade and the answer is, yes of course you would.

 

I'm not asking "would you oppose..." but "would you (or communists) interfere violently in the accumulation of capital, contracts and trade and the answer is, yes of course you would. That's the answer every single Communist has given me, after being pushed numerous times to stop coating their language in vagueness. Yes, you would use violence and you would interfere in labor contracts and exchange of resources and you can tell yourself you're justified in doing so all day long, the conclusion is, that Communism is not voluntary except for when you're a full blown Communist.

[Alan C.]

...I don't own a phone...

 

Why don't you own a phone? You can buy a T-Mobile flip phone for $30 and a pay-as-you-go plan. That's what I do.

 

Even if you never want to talk to anybody, it's a prudent measure in the event of an emergency.

[LibertarianSocialist]

You're now equivocating "use violence" and "interfere" as "oppose". I'm not playing your games. My direct question was repeated several time: would you interfere? would you use violence interfering in the accumulation of capital, contracts and trade and the answer is, yes of course you would.

 

I'm not asking "would you oppose..." but "would you (or communists) interfere violently in the accumulation of capital, contracts and trade and the answer is, yes of course you would. That's the answer every single Communist has given me, after being pushed numerous times to stop coating their language in vagueness. Yes, you would use violence and you would interfere in labor contracts and exchange of resources and you can tell yourself you're justified in doing so all day long, the conclusion is, that Communism is not voluntary except for when you're a full blown Communist.

Yes socialists would use violence, in the same way one uses violence against the highwayman. Perhaps you want to show why I am mistaken in opposing such exploitative capitalist acts?

 

Is capital accumulation past what one can personally use (that is, capital only kept for exploitative purposes) valid?

What if latter generations could not consent to those original accumulations, but were nevertheless detrimentally effected by them?

Are exploitative labour contracts agreed to under coercive conditions valid?

Is any sort of profit derived from coercion valid?

Why don't you own a phone? You can buy a T-Mobile flip phone for $30 and a pay-as-you-go plan. That's what I do.

 

Even if you never want to talk to anybody, it's a prudent measure in the event of an emergency.

No reception out here. I could use the neighbour's phone but her kids would be noisy, and would be awkward.

[Anuojat]

Yes socialists would use violence, in the same way one uses violence against the highwayman. Perhaps you want to show why I am mistaken in opposing such exploitative capitalist acts?

 

Is capital accumulation past what one can personally use (that is, capital only kept for exploitative purposes) valid?

What if latter generations could not consent to those original accumulations, but were nevertheless detrimentally effected by them?

Are exploitative labour contracts agreed to under coercive conditions valid?

Is any sort of profit derived from coercion valid?

 

I think the big issues is the word coersion with all your posts.

 

verb (used with object), coerced, coercing.

1.

to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition:

They coerced him into signing the document.

2.

to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact:

to coerce obedience.

3.

to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.:

The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

 

Now can i coerse anyone with my own property? No i cant. And neither can they. So we negotiate.

 

The scenarios you speak of require massive broad states where in the the capitalist "just owns" all/lot of land, all/lot of mahinery, lot/all currencies.

Which is only possible if there is a state. As long people can compete in any ways (be it trough differant currencies, labor or property they create themselves) every single scare scenario collapses, so it will never ever happen. ESPECIALLY since there will be so many people like you who will make lots of noise if any person or company even thinks about owning lot of land or capital equipment.

 

All this really sound me like the "a starving child steals bread" scenario. If you truly care for these people then ina fre society you would go help them right? You would have lot of other people helping other people and maybe even kickstarting campaing to buy up more land use and perhaps even become the best factory owner ever yourself.

 

I know this is all pragmatic things ive said but ive said it because if you really care about those who are poor or those with less choices...then you are a living proof that there will be people who would not "exploit".

 

Also one last note: Think of how many rich people who live now in a free society would remain rich without the state?

Think how many land owners of companies would remain rich that rely on the state to keep competation out?

 

They would be done for.

[LibertarianSocialist]

I think the big issues is the word coersion with all your posts.

 

 

verb (used with object), coerced, coercing. 1.

to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition:

They coerced him into signing the document.

 

 

2.

to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact:

to coerce obedience.

 

 

3.

to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.:

The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

 

Now can i coerse anyone with my own property? No i cant. And neither can they. So we negotiate.

 

The scenarios you speak of require massive broad states where in the the capitalist "just owns" all/lot of land, all/lot of mahinery, lot/all currencies.

Which is only possible if there is a state. As long people can compete in any ways (be it trough differant currencies, labor or property they create themselves) every single scare scenario collapses, so it will never ever happen. ESPECIALLY since there will be so many people like you who will make lots of noise if any person or company even thinks about owning lot of land or capital equipment.

 

All this really sound me like the "a starving child steals bread" scenario. If you truly care for these people then ina fre society you would go help them right? You would have lot of other people helping other people and maybe even kickstarting campaing to buy up more land use and perhaps even become the best factory owner ever yourself.

 

I know this is all pragmatic things ive said but ive said it because if you really care about those who are poor or those with less choices...then you are a living proof that there will be people who would not "exploit".

 

Also one last note: Think of how many rich people who live now in a free society would remain rich without the state?

Think how many land owners of companies would remain rich that rely on the state to keep competation out?

 

They would be done for.

 

 

 

When I talk of coercion I mean all those ulterior factors which influence a person's decisions.

Property is certainly coercive. If I own own a oasis in the desert and refuse water to the man dying of thirst unless he agrees to be my life-long slave, has he been coerced? True, it was not me, but his own physical needs which compel him to accept, but have I not played a significant role in the deprivation of that man in meeting his own needs? Surely any just society would recognize the invalidity of such such a coercive contract.

 

I don't think everyone is evil and exploitative, I think man has as much capacity for altruism. My quarrel is with a system which punishes altruism. How many times have you heard 'I would love to raise wages, but then we would lose profits and no longer be competitive'. If a man chooses to support the needy, he takes on a competitive disadvantage, he loses the competition and becomes swallowed up by the victor. This is true between capitalists, workers and classes.

 

The problem with such self-help under capitalism goes back to my posts several back about workers coops. Men are not static entities, they are constantly shaped by their environment. Men always try to rationalize, to justify, what they do. Pol Pot in his own twisted way thought himself a man of great personal virtue, sent to uplift the people of Cambodia. It is such rationalization which allows men to believe that their governance is just, that they are a positive force, a necessary element to the smooth functioning of society. The boss and the dictator differ little in this.

My point to all this is that men seek to justify their privilege, and where given the opportunity to dominate, will, usually in the name of some paternalistic altruism.

 

State intervention has a distorting effect on other forms of capitalism, but it is not the sole reason for the existence of capital accumulation and wealth inequality. Following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, we do not see an end to capitalist inequality and extortion, though it did change significantly. Following the collapse of international trade after a period of Inflation, the Roman tax base was severely reduced. This led to a reduction in the ability of the Empire to maintain an army sufficient to maintain authority in the region. The collapse of state power structures and reduced international trade resulted in a mass exodus to the remaining structures of power, the privately owned latifundia. These agricultural estates remained the new centers of power through the entire period of feudalism, embracing all those features of a state, albeit on a localized scale. It is the feudal holding, the company town, which is the inevitable state of decentralized capitalism.

[Anuojat]

When I talk of coercion I mean all those ulterior factors which influence a person's decisions.

Property is certainly coercive. If I own own a oasis in the desert and refuse water to the man dying of thirst unless he agrees to be my life-long slave, has he been coerced? True, it was not me, but his own physical needs which compel him to accept, but have I not played a significant role in the deprivation of that man in meeting his own needs? Surely any just society would recognize the invalidity of such such a coercive contract.

 

A flagpole scenario. Didnt Stefan already Adress this like million times? And others than stef too?

 

Also a man owning an oasis in the middle of nowhere...? Why would he do that? In order have ownership of the land one msut maintain it somehow and i dout any evil person would waste there time unless if there was some other use. I refuse to accept flagpole scenarios since they not reall important or happen at all.

 

I don't think everyone is evil and exploitative, I think man has as much capacity for altruism. My quarrel is with a system which punishes altruism. How many times have you heard 'I would love to raise wages, but then we would lose profits and no longer be competitive'. If a man chooses to support the needy, he takes on a competitive disadvantage, he loses the competition and becomes swallowed up by the victor. This is true between capitalists, workers and classes.

 

Free market in no way punishes those who give higher wages unless those wages arent earned. The worker can work harder to earn more and the people negotiate this with the emplyoee, theyre DRO and or porivate uniuons. Lots of options available.

It feel as if youre saying that in free society people who work hard wouldnt earn enough for living which is utterly false given how muhc crap and waste ones paychek today has to bear.

 

If you want as bussness owner to be charitable go ahead. It wont kill your company if you set it up right and you can always use it´as a selling point.

Pay higher wages if you can.

The problem with such self-help under capitalism goes back to my posts several back about workers coops. Men are not static entities, they are constantly shaped by their environment. Men always try to rationalize, to justify, what they do. Pol Pot in his own twisted way thought himself a man of great personal virtue, sent to uplift the people of Cambodia. It is such rationalization which allows men to believe that their governance is just, that they are a positive force, a necessary element to the smooth functioning of society. The boss and the dictator differ little in this.

My point to all this is that men seek to justify their privilege, and where given the opportunity to dominate, will, usually in the name of some paternalistic altruism.

 

Boss or manager is not looking to exploit you and you are ther voluntarily HUGE differance. Also if you boss mistreats you then he is bringing down your value as employee and thus the company as a whole. If i act like dick to at work or act irresponceably then guess what? I am mager who takes value rather than adds it.

 

Speaking of enviroment Pol pot would never have had change in workplace coming from such horrendeus childhood and family and society. He would have had to gone to theraphy before taking basic low tier lever work here in the west LET ALONE ina free society.

 

Asserting one of the greaters mass murders and the title dictator with the title of boss is totally painting a picture. All humans seeks self interests yes its true but the dictator does this on everyone elses expense the boss/manager does not.

 

And sure EVIL men try to justify themselves because they need to in order to stay in power or to shut theyre own feelings. But they are still evil and reasons why they do evil in theyre parenting and childhood almost in every single case.

 

State intervention has a distorting effect on other forms of capitalism, but it is not the sole reason for the existence of capital accumulation and wealth inequality. Following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, we do not see an end to capitalist inequality and extortion, though it did change significantly. Following the collapse of international trade after a period of Inflation, the Roman tax base was severely reduced. This led to a reduction in the ability of the Empire to maintain an army sufficient to maintain authority in the region. The collapse of state power structures and reduced international trade resulted in a mass exodus to the remaining structures of power, the privately owned latifundia. These agricultural estates remained the new centers of power through the entire period of feudalism, embracing all those features of a state, albeit on a localized scale. It is the feudal holding, the company town, which is the inevitable state of decentralized capitalism.

 

Capitalism in western roman empire are you kidding me!? And hey feudalism beign associated with capitalism? LAst i cheked those people did not know property rights, did not apply it consistently or abolish slavery. They still believed in God/Gods in the medievals style and also the feudal lord were that lords not landowners. And thye served un the barbarian kings of that age.

 

Also i fail see how a collapse of an empire has anything to do with the free market. Especially time of such strong irrationallity, no scientific method and  most importantly FAILED STATE hardly seems like the thing youre concer about in Moderm times. Infact given all these circumstances around collapse of the western roman empire and reading about the so called "dark ages" which according to historians wasnt really so dark id say people did pretty well consifering the utter maddening circumstances.

 

Also Feudalism has been called into question even as valid historical concept my some moderm historians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism#Feudalism_revisionism

 

Libertarian socialist. I feel that while i could write more on the subject there seems to be an undertone to all that you write about capism and about exploitation that could be discussed in simple matter.

 

Do you feel that there is perhaps something like that? Because i am concerned that we could go on and on forever and there would never a "what would convince me otherwise" on either side. I say this because i do not wish to go into statistics or enless arguements about what COULD happen.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Libertarian socialist. I feel that while i could write more on the subject there seems to be an undertone to all that you write about capism and about exploitation that could be discussed in simple matter.

 

Do you feel that there is perhaps something like that? Because i am concerned that we could go on and on forever and there would never a "what would convince me otherwise" on either side. I say this because i do not wish to go into statistics or enless arguements about what COULD happen.

Probably the most fundamental divergence is how we formulate our beliefs. Propertarians largely follow the Austrian school, whose principles are largely axiom led. They posit: as humans behave like this, then we ought to expect this outcome. The problem is where this diverges from reality. If an assumption is slightly incorrect, or the scenario slightly imperfect, outcomes can differ, quite drastically, from what is expected.

Socialists tend to view society by what has happened. Basing our assumptions off of empirically observable facts. This is why propertarians here often tell me that I am straw-manning, criticizing instead what they call 'corporatism', rather than a true free market society. This is only because I reject the possibility of anything but imperfect markets, especially if under capitalism.

 

Austrian economics is an attempt to create create a fantasy scenario, an unobtainable ideal of "pure capitalism". It is an attempt to justify the current system, to say, capitalism isn't bad! It's just what we have now that needs improving. If you lay down and let us walk all over you, do whatever we say, we can put in place a perfect system, where everyone is better off. That day never comes. Never has, never can. It makes too many false assumptions about man. It is the pie in the sky, the carrot on the stick.

 

The reason I used the example of the Roman Empire was because it has very similar parallels to the USA. I am concerning myself with the real world, and probable real world outcomes. You think Gina Rinehart cares about the free market? Free market rhetoric is to help them sleep at night, to make the masses think the boot stomping on their face forever is for their own benefit, good for them!

On a generalized level, people if given the opportunity to further themselves at the expense of others will. You can't expect the whole world to accept an-cap morality, when it is clearly against their personal interest, just because they had a 'good upbringing'. Power corrupts, the iron law of oligarchy is inevitable. The only means of ensuring no one takes power, is to give others the power to resist them, to ensure everyone holds power in (at least near) equal measure. Creating an asymmetric society, as capitalist inequality allows, directly facilitates the rise of the powerful and powerless, and so exploitation based on this.

 

How exactly can I be charitable and survive on the market? If my charity actually creates greater profits, that is not charity, it is marketing, of which the consumer is actually the charitable one. For a boss to 'take value' is not important, only the bottom line, profit, is. All other values are externalities. He can externalise these because of his coercive position of power.

How does the boss not exploit? His only incentive is exploitation. If he couldn't find people willing to work for a wage less than their productivity, he would never have become a boss, would he? He knows however that there will be people born into poor conditions who are willing to accept such a crap deal, because it's the best opportunity they have. They couldn't choose their life, It was thrust upon them. It then follows nothing past this point can be truly consensual, they are forced to make do with what they are given. They can choose a boss, yes, but they cannot choose to reject the concept of a boss without expecting to suffer as as result.

 

When you guys talk of capitalism, you talk of a specific type. Hell, farming Helots was a former of capitalism. Invest in capital (weapons) coerce workers (helots) into providing surplus labour. Reinvest profit into capital, repeat, accumulate.

[Anuojat]

Probably the most fundamental divergence is how we formulate our beliefs. Propertarians largely follow the Austrian school, whose principles are largely axiom led. They posit: as humans behave like this, then we ought to expect this outcome. The problem is where this diverges from reality. If an assumption is slightly incorrect, or the scenario slightly imperfect, outcomes can differ, quite drastically, from what is expected.

Socialists tend to view society by what has happened. Basing our assumptions off of empirically observable facts. This is why propertarians here often tell me that I am straw-manning, criticizing instead what they call 'corporatism', rather than a true free market society. This is only because I reject the possibility of anything but imperfect markets, especially if under capitalism.

 

Austrian economics is an attempt to create create a fantasy scenario, an unobtainable ideal of "pure capitalism". It is an attempt to justify the current system, to say, capitalism isn't bad! It's just what we have now that needs improving. If you lay down and let us walk all over you, do whatever we say, we can put in place a perfect system, where everyone is better off. That day never comes. Never has, never can. It makes too many false assumptions about man. It is the pie in the sky, the carrot on the stick.

 

The reason I used the example of the Roman Empire was because it has very similar parallels to the USA. I am concerning myself with the real world, and probable real world outcomes. You think Gina Rinehart cares about the free market? Free market rhetoric is to help them sleep at night, to make the masses think the boot stomping on their face forever is for their own benefit, good for them!

On a generalized level, people if given the opportunity to further themselves at the expense of others will. You can't expect the whole world to accept an-cap morality, when it is clearly against their personal interest, just because they had a 'good upbringing'. Power corrupts, the iron law of oligarchy is inevitable. The only means of ensuring no one takes power, is to give others the power to resist them, to ensure everyone holds power in (at least near) equal measure. Creating an asymmetric society, as capitalist inequality allows, directly facilitates the rise of the powerful and powerless, and so exploitation based on this.

 

How exactly can I be charitable and survive on the market? If my charity actually creates greater profits, that is not charity, it is marketing, of which the consumer is actually the charitable one. For a boss to 'take value' is not important, only the bottom line, profit, is. All other values are externalities. He can externalise these because of his coercive position of power.

How does the boss not exploit? His only incentive is exploitation. If he couldn't find people willing to work for a wage less than their productivity, he would never have become a boss, would he? He knows however that there will be people born into poor conditions who are willing to accept such a crap deal, because it's the best opportunity they have. They couldn't choose their life, It was thrust upon them. It then follows nothing past this point can be truly consensual, they are forced to make do with what they are given. They can choose a boss, yes, but they cannot choose to reject the concept of a boss without expecting to suffer as as result.

 

When you guys talk of capitalism, you talk of a specific type. Hell, farming Helots was a former of capitalism. Invest in capital (weapons) coerce workers (helots) into providing surplus labour. Reinvest profit into capital, repeat, accumulate.

 

A lot of assumptions there infact all of these are assumptiosn and assertions without any proof. Also Austrians ecnomists was totaly straw man, none of them are trying to construct any society.

 

No libertarian or austrian is trying to justify the current system and you should know better than that making such allegations.

 

"Power corrupts, the iron law of oligarchy is inevitable." Non-sequitor.

 

You assume people will exloit one another in a free market society. We have never had free market just close to it or remnants of it.

 

I am done you have clearly demonstrated that you have no ACTAUL arguemtns but web of assumptions and assertions.

Especially the last one where you dont seem to understand that "market" is simply free human interaction as well as ecomic and otherwise. Happiness and trust IS profit. Both ecnomic for company and personal.

 

But i am done i shouldnt continue if i feel theres no reason to try to change your mind.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

As stated in a previous post (perhaps not here, I apologize if so), communism is voluntary, socialism is not. Communism is not mandatory whereas some for of socialism is. Both socialism and capitalism are involuntary and exclusive ideologies, though capitalism has no justification. Private property is an exclusive concept, one which socialists feel is invalid on the grounds that latter generations cannot consent (eg. Lockean proviso). This proviso essentially invalidates anything but an equal distribution of wealth, for example possession (usufruct) based property. Socialism is justified on the ground that people should not be bound to rules and decisions taken before their ability to consent, and that coercion invalidates consent (ie. artificial scarcity from property monopoly). Or in the least those laws are invalid if they would have been better off without them. This leads to one conclusion, any accumulation of wealth not directly created by the individual concerned (social and natural wealth) ought to be enjoyed equally by all.

Libertarian socialism is not forced collectivism, it is the belief that all men are born equal and have the inalienable right to a life of equal opportunity, not dictated by the decisions of past generations, and of access to the earth's natural resources, whom no one can rightfully own.

 

It is only where individuals use the accumulation of wealth as a weapon (as they will in an unequal society) that socialists object. Joining a game of monopoly near the end is no fun, I assure you, and hardly fair for the player coming late.

Left-wing market anarchism looks like this. Communism would likely be a voluntary evolution of this, In which individuals may regress at any time.

Right, so socialism is coercive then. So if I and my friends go live as capitalists (accepting private property and non-aggression) while allowing you to live as a socialist then you will violently force me to be socialist?

[LibertarianSocialist]

Right, so socialism is coercive then. So if I and my friends go live as capitalists (accepting private property and non-aggression) while allowing you to live as a socialist then you will violently force me to be socialist?

We will violently defend the right of individuals to reject the imposition of capitalism upon them. Why do capitalists have the right to claim absolute ownership over property, at the expense of others and without the possibility of their consent? Perhaps you want to debunk the lockean proviso.

 

Tell me, if you and your friends begin a game of monopoly, knowing full well others must come to play at a later time, should those late comers be obliged to acknowledge the acquisitions made before their ability to give consent? Is it just for the earlier players to take every square of board and build hotels on each, and so deprive the late comers to a means of existence, to create barriers to opportunity, and so force him to comply to the coercive demands of the owners? Can a man reject this state of affairs under capitalism?

 

You and those who likewise believe in private property can of course practice capitalism, but you cannot expect others to honour your impositions. It is unlikely others will recognize your right to create the conditions of artificial scarcity through absentee property rights necessary for a capitalist society.

[square4]

 

We will violently defend the right of individuals to reject the imposition of capitalism upon them.

 

A socialist commune is compatible and allowed within a voluntarist anarcho-capitalist society, and its (collective) property right claims would be respected. The question to you is if socialists would similarly allow a freely chosen capitalist society within their socialist commonwealth, and respect their property. Within this question, let us assume that this capitalist society will only claim resources in their own area, and those they have imported through voluntary trade. Further assume that the capitalist area does not contain a disproportional amount of natural resources, compared to the rest (such as Hong Kong, compared to China). Would this be acceptable?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

We will violently defend the right of individuals to reject the imposition of capitalism upon them. Why do capitalists have the right to claim absolute ownership over property, at the expense of others and without the possibility of their consent? Perhaps you want to debunk the lockean proviso.

 

Tell me, if you and your friends begin a game of monopoly, knowing full well others must come to play at a later time, should those late comers be obliged to acknowledge the acquisitions made before their ability to give consent? Is it just for the earlier players to take every square of board and build hotels on each, and so deprive the late comers to a means of existence, to create barriers to opportunity, and so force him to comply to the coercive demands of the owners? Can a man reject this state of affairs under capitalism?

 

You and those who likewise believe in private property can of course practice capitalism, but you cannot expect others to honour your impositions. It is unlikely others will recognize your right to create the conditions of artificial scarcity through absentee property rights necessary for a capitalist society.

So your answer is yes. Everyone must be a socialist or be violently forced to live under socialism, right? 

[Libertus]

So your answer is yes. Everyone must be a socialist or be violently forced to live under socialism, right? 

He has already answered yes, they would absolutely use violence. How any of it is "voluntary" - beats me.