[Eran]

Their ownership of the means of production certainly can, in itself, harm others.

Of course. But "harm" is far too vague a standard based on which to prohibit actions. We have to be much more careful in what types of harm justify our moral concern.

In modern societies, "means of production" can refer to so many different things, it is silly to try and address them in a single statement.

"Means of production" can be a $300 computer on which one develops computer code, a $700 car on which one offers rides to others, or, indeed, nothing but one's own energy and resources (as when offering house-cleaning services).

Or, "means of production" can refer to a multi-billion dollar semi-conductor production facility, embodying not just huge investment of resources, but also decades of experience, technical knowledge and entrepreneurial and managerial efforts.

In no case are the means of production monopolised (other than by government forces), nor, as far as a wide range of productive activities are concerned, are the means of production particularly difficult to obtain.

It's not really ownership of the means of production until they jump from "tools they use for their own work" to "tools being used for someone else's work."

I see. So if I use shears to cut hair, the shears aren't yet "means of production". But as soon as I pay you to cut hair with my shears, they stop being my legitimate property?

Then you don't believe people ought to be able to make free, uncoerced decisions.

If by that you mean "people cannot ignore the need to produce and work" than you are right. People are free to make decisions regarding their own property. They aren't free to make decisions regarding other people's property.

If you don't like "property", an equivalent statement is that people are free to do as they wish, but not to initiate force against other people (or their peaceful projects). Theft is theft, even if the only alternative available is work.

[SolarCross]

Sorry Someone5 but eran is making the more sense. Scale doesn't matter. Whether the means of production is a shipyard or a hairdryer is immaterial. The question is only whether the ownership of the means of production was acquired morally which objectively speaking can only mean without fraud or theft. As to employing another or many others to use the means of production, well again scale doesn't matter. Whether I pay someone to mow lawns with my mower or whether I pay 1000s of people to solder circuit boards in my factory doesn't matter, it only matters whether or not those employed agreed to that arrangement.

[Someone5]

Of course. But "harm" is far too vague a standard based on which to prohibit actions. We have to be much more careful in what types of harm justify our moral concern.

That is your opinion; there is no point in debating opinions since I am absolutely certain that none of the involved parties would even remotely be inclined to change theirs.

In modern societies, "means of production" can refer to so many different things, it is silly to try and address them in a single statement.

The means of production refers to non-sentient inputs to production; though from a practical standpoint there is a necessary distinction between tools used for personal enjoyment and tools used to produce things for others. It refers to a great many distinct objects, but as a class it is not difficult to discuss. If it is not money and not human beings, but is used to produce things for economic consumption it is a part of the means of production.

"Means of production" can be a $300 computer on which one develops computer code, a $700 car on which one offers rides to others, or, indeed, nothing but one's own energy and resources (as when offering house-cleaning services).

Utterly meaningless commentary. It does not matter whether we are talking about a computer or a hammer or a truck or a million dollar trash compactor. What matters is the tool's use in relationship to production (and what that production is intended for).

In no case are the means of production monopolised (other than by government forces), nor, as far as a wide range of productive activities are concerned, are the means of production particularly difficult to obtain.

The means of production are monopolized by capital; and therefore by the owners of capital. A monopoly need not be complete to be coercive. Merely controlling 70% of something is sufficient to coerce the other 30% into behaving as you demand.

I see. So if I use shears to cut hair, the shears aren't yet "means of production". But as soon as I pay you to cut hair with my shears, they stop being my legitimate property?

They should stop being your property, yes. That is not how it works under capitalism, but it is how things should work. To be more correct, as soon as you paid someone else to use your shears to cut hair, the shears ought to stop being property at all.

If by that you mean "people cannot ignore the need to produce and work" than you are right. People are free to make decisions regarding their own property. They aren't free to make decisions regarding other people's property.

That is why property systems are inherently coercive. It's why propertarians are a joke when they insist they believe in freedom. You cannot make a choice free of coercion if your basic human requirements are not met.

If you don't like "property", an equivalent statement is that people are free to do as they wish, but not to initiate force against other people (or their peaceful projects). Theft is theft, even if the only alternative available is work.

Which is also a harsh curtailment of human freedom. Sometimes it is legitimate to initiate force against others; denying people that option is a harsh limitation.

[Someone5]

Sorry Someone5 but eran is making the more sense. Scale doesn't matter.

Why is it that every time I post something, you so completely miss the point? I'm not kidding--every statement I have made here, you have misinterpreted in ways that shouldn't happen with an adequate understanding of English. Scale is irrelevant, yes, but relationships to production are not. It does not matter whether you are hiring one person or hiring a thousand, you are right about that. As soon as you hire even one person to use your "property" to produce something for you then your property has become a part of the means of production. One person, a hundred people, a thousand people, it does not matter. There is perhaps an argument to be made about tools that you own for your own use--even if you are making money by using the tool to make something, you're not really exerting any influence over others through that activity. So even if in a very technical sense the tools you use for your own work might be a part of the means of production, that wouldn't really be an important or meaningful category from a policy-setting standpoint.

Whether the means of production is a shipyard or a hairdryer is immaterial.

Yes, certainly. The shipyard owner and the owner of the hair salon are both capitalists; and their ownership of the means of production is equally illegitimate.

The question is only whether the ownership of the means of production was acquired morally which objectively speaking can only mean without fraud or theft.

If you exclude fraud and theft, there is no means by which you can acquire property.

[SolarCross]

So a thousand workers choose to put some portion of the honestly earned surplus (their profit) into shares for a shipbuilding enterprise. The workers who work in the shipyard do so by free agreement. Anyone who is unhappy with the contract is free to seek their fortune elsewhere. So the problem with this is? And why would slavery to some stinking comissariat be better?

[Eran]

That is your opinion; there is no point in debating opinions since I am absolutely certain that none of the involved parties would even remotely be inclined to change theirs.

I don't think mine was a controversial comment. Clearly we can't go around prohibiting any action which somebody somewhere could claim to be harmed by.

The classic example is a woman choosing between two courters. Whatever her choice is, one of them is going to be "harmed".

It refers to a great many distinct objects, but as a class it is not difficult to discuss. If it is not money and not human beings, but is used to produce things for economic consumption it is a part of the means of production.

Fair enough. With that in mind, what sweeping statement would you like to make pertaining to the means of production? It is clear, for example, that virtually any American can afford to purchase means of production for some productive activity (like a used computer for software development). So ownership of the means of production isn't concentrated, nor requires much by way of startup capital.

It is within everybody's reach.

The means of production are monopolized by capital; and therefore by the owners of capital. A monopoly need not be complete to be coercive. Merely controlling 70% of something is sufficient to coerce the other 30% into behaving as you demand.

How? How is the fact that 70% of capital is owned by a small group of people in any way allows them to coerce the other 30%? If I am one of those owning the 30%, and am able to come with a better product than those capitalists, consumers will buy what I have to offer. I don't have to ask anybody's permission.

They should stop being your property, yes.

We could do that, of course. But since these are expensive shears (they can easily cost $700!), I am much less likely to want to employ another person if doing so will cost me my expensive shears.

More likely, I will tell interested workers that they have to come with their own shears, and that will stop them from being able to work, gain experience, save and perhaps buy their own shears in a few years.

As somebody who cares for the working class, isn't it better to give them a choice? If they want to bring their own shears - fine. But why exclude the possibility that they are happy to use my shears instead?

You cannot make a choice free of coercion if your basic human requirements are not met.

Of course you can. I can choose whether I want to buy my bread at Asda or Tesco's. I can decide whether to work for Fund A or Fund B. I can choose whether to live in my own house, or rent an apartment. I can choose whether to wear black or red. I am not coerced into any of those decisions, even thought my basic human requirements aren't met.

Conversely, by your standards, the only free people are parasites whose basic requirements are met through the work of others.

Sometimes it is legitimate to initiate force against others;

Please give me an example of circumstances under which it is, in your opinion, legitimate to initiate force against others.

If you exclude fraud and theft, there is no means by which you can acquire property.

Why is that? For example, if I walk in the forest and find a rock, take it and shape it into a useful form, I argue this rock is now my property. I haven't stolen it from anybody (since it wasn't owned), and certainly haven't defrauded anybody.

Making exclusive use of previously-unowned natural resources is one way of acquiring property without fraud or theft. Exchanging justly-acquired property for some of my property, or my labour is another such way.

[Andalublue]

It strikes me that the rampant individualism of right libertarianism is antithetical to the idea of communal living, i.e. living in a communal fashion striving for the wellbeing of the group and subsuming personal interests to that end. Why on Earth would a right libertarian want to live in a commune?

[Rothbardian]

It strikes me that the rampant individualism of right libertarianism is antithetical to the idea of communal living, i.e. living in a communal fashion striving for the wellbeing of the group and subsuming personal interests to that end. Why on Earth would a right libertarian want to live in a commune?

All individualism means is that when you join a group, whether you want to call it a society or something else, you do not cease being an individual. It means that there is no imaginary 'society' that can, by some mystical imaginary virtue, do things to you that would otherwise be considered wrong.

What that boils down to is, individualist libertarians have no prejudice against communes and other forms of social interaction, as long as all parties involved take part voluntarily.

[Eran]

Both communitarian and libertarian views are consistent with a world in which individuals are associated in groups while still enjoying some individual autonomy.

The key difference is that communitarians see the group as supreme, with individual freedom being whatever the group as a group decided to award individuals.

Libertarians see individuals as supreme, with groups having whatever significance and power that individuals as individuals give it.

I think the libertarian perspective is superior both in principle and in practice. In principle, it is superior because the focus of our ethical consideration ought to be the individual. That, however, is a matter of personal taste.

In practice, the libertarian perspective is superior because the communitarian programme inevitably clashes with problems of power (e.g. abuse by elected officials) and knowledge (individuals know their preferences and circumstances better than strangers).

[anticlimacus]

I think the libertarian perspective is superior both in principle and in practice. In principle, it is superior because the focus of our ethical consideration ought to be the individual. That, however, is a matter of personal taste.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Communitarians don't necessarily abrogate the individual, but focus on strengthening the community in such a way that individuals can be more meaningful participants within it.

In practice, the libertarian perspective is superior because the communitarian programme inevitably clashes with problems of power (e.g. abuse by elected officials) and knowledge (individuals know their preferences and circumstances better than strangers).

Of course you well know that this would be the same critique thrown back at the libertarian: problems of power (the elite few controlling production and resources) and knowledge (manipulation for profit, individuals being overburdened with too much choice as opposed to having certain decisions being made and guaranteed by society)

[Eran]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Communitarians don't necessarily abrogate the individual, but focus on strengthening the community in such a way that individuals can be more meaningful participants within it.

The critical question, as always, is who decides.

If the individuals are interested in the community and what it has to offer, a community can easily exist through voluntary cooperation. Libertarians have no problem with that and, in fact, point out ways in which the modern welfare state has weakened a range of voluntary organisations and communities.

The difference between us starts when the measures required to strengthen the community are not acceptable to some of its members. Communitarians, at that point, will advocate a preference for the interests of the community (as articulated by a few chosen people) over that of its individual members.

Libertarians reject that on both moral (it is wrong to force people to serve their community against their will) and prudential (the interests of the community are always articulated by a small number of powerful individuals, often presenting their own perspective or a vision motivated by their own interests) grounds.

Of course you well know that this would be the same critique thrown back at the libertarian: problems of power (the elite few controlling production and resources)

And I am eager to engage in a rational conversation over the issue. The problem of power is much less severe under a libertarian regime. The concern of critics of libertarianism is over the unchecked power of wealthy individuals and organisations. A careful examination of the modalities of exercising power shows that without violating people's property rights, profit-seeking people must act in compliance with the expressed preferences of their consumers.

For example, the unpopular action of closing a local factory is driven by consumer preference for paying lower prices over purchasing locally-produced products.

and knowledge (manipulation for profit, individuals being overburdened with too much choice as opposed to having certain decisions being made and guaranteed by society)

Individuals can always opt to reduce their own range of choices, e.g. by only shopping in certain stores, or only considering products marked as suitable by a trusted authority (observant Jews, for example, restrict their food choices to only those marked "Kosher" by an authority they trust).

Thus individuals can make use of knowledge and expertise of others they trust.

It is much more difficult (in fact, impossible) for central decision-makers to be aware of the range of personal circumstances and preferences applicable to each individual. THAT is why the ultimate choice has to be left to the individual.

[anticlimacus]

The problem of power is much less severe under a libertarian regime. The concern of critics of libertarianism is over the unchecked power of wealthy individuals and organisations. A careful examination of the modalities of exercising power shows that without violating people's property rights, profit-seeking people must act in compliance with the expressed preferences of their consumers.

For example, the unpopular action of closing a local factory is driven by consumer preference for paying lower prices over purchasing locally-produced products.

As far as I can tell, there is no transparent link between consumers and owners of industry. In other words, capitalists (profit-seeking people) will always, on the surface, feign to be satisfying the needs and preferences of consumers. But this is not always the case, because their bottom line is always to be making profit. Thus consumers are always having to be exceedingly market savvy in order get exactly what they want.

We can take your example of closing the factory: It is not necessarily driven by consumer preference in paying lower prices, but rather by the corporate preference in exploiting labor for profit. Those who have the capital to exploit labor where it is cheaper can sell goods in a "one-stop-shop" (thus a walmart has a grocery, clothing, tools, toys, etc) for lower prices and thus beating local competition that might specialize in a particular industry. However, these lower prices come from cheaper labor (often exploited from a distant locality) which also often replaces local industry with lower paying jobs, all of which, again reinforces the need by consumers to have cheaper goods. In every way, we see the owners of industry gaining more control and more power.

Individuals can always opt to reduce their own range of choices, e.g. by only shopping in certain stores, or only considering products marked as suitable by a trusted authority (observant Jews, for example, restrict their food choices to only those marked "Kosher" by an authority they trust).

Thus individuals can make use of knowledge and expertise of others they trust.

It is much more difficult (in fact, impossible) for central decision-makers to be aware of the range of personal circumstances and preferences applicable to each individual. THAT is why the ultimate choice has to be left to the individual.

There are certain things that individuals can "opt" to make simpler. But the fact of the matter is the more globalized the economy has become, the less simpler the choices have become. People are forced to make all kinds of decisions in increasingly more precarious situations (due to economic fluctuations) that cause excessive stress, like travel, work, health care, education, savings, etc.

Individuals can make use of the knowledge and expertise of others--but in a capitalist based system this is often creating an additional problem of knowledge: because they are all trying to get my money, which experts can I trust? Such passing off knowledge to experts can be better done in a non-profit based system.

[Eran]

As far as I can tell, there is no transparent link between consumers and owners of industry. In other words, capitalists (profit-seeking people) will always, on the surface, feign to be satisfying the needs and preferences of consumers. But this is not always the case, because their bottom line is always to be making profit. Thus consumers are always having to be exceedingly market savvy in order get exactly what they want.

That's not how the world works. The leading corporations serving consumers work very hard to maintain a consistent level of quality, well beyond what a random consumer is likely to be able to notice.

As usual, the argument against free markets applies with much more force against governments.

If capitalists are able to fool consumers, how much easier is it for politicians to fool voters? After all, voters make their choice much less frequently, have much less at stake (after all, election results will never depend on your personal vote), and can only base their choice on promises, never on concrete "products" or service offerings.

We can take your example of closing the factory: It is not necessarily driven by consumer preference in paying lower prices, but rather by the corporate preference in exploiting labor for profit. Those who have the capital to exploit labor where it is cheaper can sell goods in a "one-stop-shop" (thus a walmart has a grocery, clothing, tools, toys, etc) for lower prices and thus beating local competition that might specialize in a particular industry. However, these lower prices come from cheaper labor (often exploited from a distant locality) which also often replaces local industry with lower paying jobs, all of which, again reinforces the need by consumers to have cheaper goods. In every way, we see the owners of industry gaining more control and more power.

Wal-mart displaces local competition because it gives people what they prefer - lower prices and convenient shopping experience.

Wal-mart sells the kinds of goods people are looking for. If American shoppers strongly preferred American-made shirts (and were willing to pay the higher price that they cost), Wal-mart would be more than happy to stock such shirts. It turns out, however, that American consumers prefer a less expensive Chinese shirt over a more expensive American one. Wal-mart complies.

It is true that the immediate incentive of capitalists is profit. To make profit, you need to beat your competition by either offering a superior product or a less expensive one. Thus a capitalists might reduce costs to increase profits, but competition compels them to pass the lower costs to the consumers. Not immediately, but within a short period of time.

But the fact of the matter is the more globalized the economy has become, the less simpler the choices have become. People are forced to make all kinds of decisions in increasingly more precarious situations (due to economic fluctuations) that cause excessive stress, like travel, work, health care, education, savings, etc.

In the spirit of "anything you can do, I can do better", it is easy to see that if consumers are really worried about excessive stress associated with precarious situations or excessive set of options, they can always voluntarily subject themselves to the combination of constraint and safety offered by government.

They can, for example, limit themselves to only purchasing "certified" goods (or goods sold by "certified" retailers), purchase various forms of insurance, etc.

Individuals can make use of the knowledge and expertise of others--but in a capitalist based system this is often creating an additional problem of knowledge: because they are all trying to get my money, which experts can I trust? Such passing off knowledge to experts can be better done in a non-profit based system.

Again, this is no worse than the knowledge problem associated with the democratic system. Because all politicians are trying to get power, which ones can I trust?

In real life, people often develop justified trust in particular brands. Brand name owners work extremely hard to build up and maintain their credibility, credibility that is much easier to destroy than to restore.

Unlike politicians, however, for-profit producers can be judged by comparing their actual offerings (rather than merely promises regarding the future), making assessment of reliability, suitability and competence much easier than in the political arena.

[Rainbow Crow]

Incentivizing self-interest sounds kind of redundant ..

[anticlimacus]

That's not how the world works. The leading corporations serving consumers work very hard to maintain a consistent level of quality, well beyond what a random consumer is likely to be able to notice.

As usual, the argument against free markets applies with much more force against governments.

If capitalists are able to fool consumers, how much easier is it for politicians to fool voters? After all, voters make their choice much less frequently, have much less at stake (after all, election results will never depend on your personal vote), and can only base their choice on promises, never on concrete "products" or service offerings.

Leading corporations work very hard to know what people are thinking and how to get them to buy things--and quality is often compromised, well beyond what the random consumer is able to notice, as are the interests of the fragmented middle American worker. The irony of what you say about politicians is that their political campaigns are modeled after advertising PR campaigns that are used in the business world. It's the same manipulative BS that is designed to make people passive to the entire system. You will get no argument from me suggesting that the American political system is defunct and corrupt--to me it's little different than the corporate world we live in. In fact, that is the model.

Wal-mart displaces local competition because it gives people what they prefer - lower prices and convenient shopping experience.

Wal-mart sells the kinds of goods people are looking for. If American shoppers strongly preferred American-made shirts (and were willing to pay the higher price that they cost), Wal-mart would be more than happy to stock such shirts. It turns out, however, that American consumers prefer a less expensive Chinese shirt over a more expensive American one. Wal-mart complies.

It is true that the immediate incentive of capitalists is profit. To make profit, you need to beat your competition by either offering a superior product or a less expensive one. Thus a capitalists might reduce costs to increase profits, but competition compels them to pass the lower costs to the consumers. Not immediately, but within a short period of time.

.

Of course people prefer cheaper prices and convenient shopping experience--particularly when those people are consistently earning less and working more hours. At any rate, the point is how the cheap and convenient shopping experience is provided--and it is provided by exploiting labor. Walmart is a perfect example of setting labor up against labor: its producers come from where labor is very easily exploited in ways that most Americans shopping for Walmart would not stand for. But since this is happening thousands of miles away, there is a sense of apathy and disconnect. However, what it is doing is creating cheaper labor both in the US by exploiting it elsewhere. It's no different from most of the US interventionist foreign policy: since the effects of it are far away, there is often a sense of apathy and disconnect to the destruction it causes--and how that destruction comes back to hurt Americans.

Again, this is no worse than the knowledge problem associated with the democratic system. Because all politicians are trying to get power, which ones can I trust?

In real life, people often develop justified trust in particular brands. Brand name owners work extremely hard to build up and maintain their credibility, credibility that is much easier to destroy than to restore.

Unlike politicians, however, for-profit producers can be judged by comparing their actual offerings (rather than merely promises regarding the future), making assessment of reliability, suitability and competence much easier than in the political arena.

Politicians can be voted out--and they can be voted out for the very same reasons you claim capitalists can lose consumers: they fail to deliver. And they need not be determined solely by promises. They are determined just as much by their history, and sometimes more (hence all the attempts to dig up crap about politicians). But again, our political system, much like our economic system, alienates its citizens from the political process to becoming passive "voters" who can only select from a pre-selected corporate elite. After they vote, they are to go home while their politicians make decisions for those who bought them. The resemblance to corporate capitalism is actually uncanny.

[Red Barn]

You will get no argument from me suggesting that the American political system is defunct and corrupt--to me it's little different than the corporate world we live in. In fact, that is the model.

Yes, it is - quite literally - the very same model.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html

Thus:

Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the Year

Just weeks before he demonstrates whether his campaign's blend of grass-roots appeal and big media-budget know-how has converted the American electorate, Sen. Barack Obama has shown he's already won over the nation's brand builders. He's been named Advertising Age's marketer of the year for 2008.

Mr. Obama won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered here at the Association of National Advertisers' annual conference. He edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. The rest of the shortlist, selected by Ad Age's editorial staff, was rounded out by megabrand Nike, turnaround story Coors and Mr. Obama's rival, Sen. John McCain.

http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama ... ar/131810/

To claim that there's some sort of ethical, moral or even practical difference between political deception and market deception is either painfully naive or intentionally misleading. The mechanics of engineering "preference" are exactly the same in either case, and the people who actually do the work of marketing understand this perfectly.

[anticlimacus]

To claim that there's some sort of ethical, moral or even practical difference between political deception and market deception is either painfully naive or intentionally misleading. The mechanics of engineering "preference" are exactly the same in either case, and the people who actually do the work of marketing understand this perfectly.

I couldn't agree more. In fact the attempt to compare the two is almost doing a disservice to the libertarian argument for markets, considering the dominant political system is modeled after commercialized markets.

[Eran]

Leading corporations work very hard to know what people are thinking and how to get them to buy things--and quality is often compromised, well beyond what the random consumer is able to notice, as are the interests of the fragmented middle American worker.

Do you have any examples in mind for quality being compromised by leading corporations?

The irony of what you say about politicians is that their political campaigns are modelled after advertising PR campaigns that are used in the business world. It's the same manipulative BS that is designed to make people passive to the entire system. You will get no argument from me suggesting that the American political system is defunct and corrupt--to me it's little different than the corporate world we live in. In fact, that is the model.

I am not sure what you have in mind, then, by way of a superior system to the one in which individuals decide what they do or do not want to consume with their own property.

the point is how the cheap and convenient shopping experience is provided--and it is provided by exploiting labor.

Are you using "exploitation" in the Marxist technical term (in which case it is a value-neutral concept), or do you wish to imply that something is morally suspect about the process of "exploiting labour"? IF it is the former, why should we care? If it is the latter, please explain what makes you think so.

In what way is a shirt factory in Vietnam in which former subsistence farmers find employment under what they consider to be superior terms, morally problematic?

Politicians can be voted out--and they can be voted out for the very same reasons you claim capitalists can lose consumers: they fail to deliver. And they need not be determined solely by promises.

In theory, sure. In practice, the political feedback process is much weaker and slower than the one in the free market. For one thing, a voter can never compare apples-to-apples between two political parties. No two historic periods are the same, and every politician can always claim that "things would have been even worse if it weren't for my policies". Whether or not that is the case cannot be answered with any confidence. Voters are thus left to applying their own subjective judgement as to the value of the promises of various politicians.

Consider Obama's reelection campaign. The economy hasn't done brilliantly since Obama first took office. Does that mean he failed? Who knows? Democrats believe the problem is that the economy was in worse shape than anybody anticipated, and that without Obama's policies (or with the ones that he couldn't get past Congress Republicans) things would have been much worse. Republicans claim otherwise. Without getting into the substance of this disagreement, do you see how Obama's record is impossible to assess objectively?

Things are, of course, much worse for legislative representative, as no one of them is ever clearly responsible for any policy outcomes.

Contrast that with consumers who typically get to compare concrete competing products and choose the one they believe would best meet their needs.

But again, our political system, much like our economic system, alienates its citizens from the political process to becoming passive "voters" who can only select from a pre-selected corporate elite. After they vote, they are to go home while their politicians make decisions for those who bought them. The resemblance to corporate capitalism is actually uncanny.

Not even a little bit. Voters are alienated because their choice makes no difference. Not to the country, and certainly not for themselves. The likelihood that a single vote will determine the results of the elections is just to small.

The choices of a single consumer make very little difference to society as a whole, and in that respect the two choices (vote vs. consumption) are similar. However, a consumer choice makes a huge difference for that consumer. I am now in the market to buy a new car. Which car I end up buying matters a lot to me, which is why I am spending much time and effort researching different options (and why there are many resources, mostly free, available to help me with my choice).

The average consumer, when faced with a major purchasing decision of that nature, will rationally dedicate time and other resources to studying, educating themselves and ultimately making their choice. The average voter, by contrast, will rationally put much less effort into deciding whom to vote for. After all, their own lives are not in any way impacted by their choice, plus there is no objective data to go by in making that choice.

To claim that there's some sort of ethical, moral or even practical difference between political deception and market deception is either painfully naive or intentionally misleading. The mechanics of engineering "preference" are exactly the same in either case, and the people who actually do the work of marketing understand this perfectly.

As I showed above, there are several substantive differences:
1. Voting choice doesn't impact the individual, whereas consumption choice does. Hence people rationally devote much more effort into making their consumption choice.
2. Consumption choice is typically between two (or more) identifiable, concrete and comparable alternatives. Voting choice is between two sets of empty promises. Objective judgement of a political record is impossible.
3. People making voting choices much less frequently. Thus the volume of information conveyed by voters is much less than that conveyed by consumers. Voting choices wrap together many disparate issues, and commits the voter for a period of years. Consumption choices are typically highly specific, and often don't commit the consumer significantly.
4. From a moral perspective, a consumption choice is moral because the choice applies only to the property of the person making the choice. A voting decision, on the other hand, is part of a mechanism in which decisions are imposed (using force) on others.

[anticlimacus]

Do you have any examples in mind for quality being compromised by leading corporations?

Sure--a major one is the news media, or you can look at the most recent economic collapse and the major financial and banking institutions like AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc.

I am not sure what you have in mind, then, by way of a superior system to the one in which individuals decide what they do or do not want to consume with their own property.

I was referencing politics and voting and its relation to commercialism--are you asking what I have in mind as far as an alternative to capitalism or the current democratic process?

Are you using "exploitation" in the Marxist technical term (in which case it is a value-neutral concept), or do you wish to imply that something is morally suspect about the process of "exploiting labour"? IF it is the former, why should we care? If it is the latter, please explain what makes you think so.

In what way is a shirt factory in Vietnam in which former subsistence farmers find employment under what they consider to be superior terms, morally problematic?

I use it as both. On the one hand it's a description of how capitalists make profit (i.e. by exploiting labor) which also gives light to the social conflict embedded within the capitalist system; but on the other hand, I do find it morally suspect that a standard for labor, deemed dignified and rightful to workers in one part of the world, can be simply bypassed and ignored by reaping it from another "less fortunate" part of the world where workers have exceedingly less power. Using one nation's poverty (be it political and/or economic), which capitalism both causes and/or exploits, as an excuse for poor labor conditions and long working hours is no excuse for the double standard, but to me leads back to a fact of mere analysis of capitalism: the hypocrisy produced in its moral system.

In theory, sure. In practice, the political feedback process is much weaker and slower than the one in the free market. For one thing, a voter can never compare apples-to-apples between two political parties. No two historic periods are the same, and every politician can always claim that "things would have been even worse if it weren't for my policies". Whether or not that is the case cannot be answered with any confidence. Voters are thus left to applying their own subjective judgement as to the value of the promises of various politicians.

Consider Obama's reelection campaign. The economy hasn't done brilliantly since Obama first took office. Does that mean he failed? Who knows? Democrats believe the problem is that the economy was in worse shape than anybody anticipated, and that without Obama's policies (or with the ones that he couldn't get past Congress Republicans) things would have been much worse. Republicans claim otherwise. Without getting into the substance of this disagreement, do you see how Obama's record is impossible to assess objectively?

Things are, of course, much worse for legislative representative, as no one of them is ever clearly responsible for any policy outcomes.

Contrast that with consumers who typically get to compare concrete competing products and choose the one they believe would best meet their needs.

I don't have nearly as much distrust in democratic processes as you do, and I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that you think consumption is a good equivalent to democratic participation in society. As i have already admitted (with enthusiasm), the American political system is a defunct and corrupt system, which is and has been unabashedly dominated by two business oriented parties of corporate capitalism and whose entire electoral process is guided by the PR model of commercialism. Again, as I have already stated, to me it ironically resembles more the sham of our economic system which boasts of being about "free choice" and "merit", but in reality is about alienation and discipline.

But I think this gets to one of the main roots of our differences: Where you seem to think that the privitization of an economy is a de facto democratization of "free choice", I see it as uprooting any substantial free choice for the establishment of privitized tyrannies under the mere formality of "free choice". I am for democratization of the means of production, of the work place, and of people's social life. The authoritarian, top-down model of the capitalist economy is no equivalent to participatory deliberative democratic practice. The idea that merely voting without thinking, and without being at all involved within the democratic politics of the society except for that one moment when a ballot is cast, seems to be the exact model of the private consumer whose only power in society is to buy something and then go home. You seem to be willing to trade the capacity to think and deliberate in a substantive and meaningful way about the shaping of social life by becoming a meaningful participant in its democratic processes, with thinking and rationalizing solely on one's own consumption, irrespective of what goes on in wider society. I see these as taking us in widely different directions--the one leading to a more robust and meaningful communal life which also liberates our private lives, and the other leading us down deeper roads of social fragmentation, isolation, and private authoritarianism.

The choices of a single consumer make very little difference to society as a whole, and in that respect the two choices (vote vs. consumption) are similar. However, a consumer choice makes a huge difference for that consumer. I am now in the market to buy a new car. Which car I end up buying matters a lot to me, which is why I am spending much time and effort researching different options (and why there are many resources, mostly free, available to help me with my choice).

The average consumer, when faced with a major purchasing decision of that nature, will rationally dedicate time and other resources to studying, educating themselves and ultimately making their choice. The average voter, by contrast, will rationally put much less effort into deciding whom to vote for. After all, their own lives are not in any way impacted by their choice, plus there is no objective data to go by in making that choice.

This is inaccurate. I think on a national level, within a corporatized system where both parties are basically sold to the highest bidder of a corporatized economy, your point about the ineffectiveness of voting is better put. But more locally, citizens do have power to make a huge difference if they are mobilized. Consumption depends entirely on context (which you conveniently ignore)--so, for example, the way in which a wealthy, white male, born under relatively wealthy conditions with a trajectory of professionalism and success consumes is going to be much different than the pattern of consumption of a black female born in a ghetto whose trajectory is dependence and service of those who are more powerful. Not only this, so will the way in which these two demographics will be marketed and propagandized by the business class: the wealthy male with marketed by showing his power and goods that will lead him towards professionalism, the poor black female will be marketed by showing her subordination with products suitable to her low position in society. The consumption model, by itself, does nothing except reproduce and solidify existing forms of domination. Now if this is transformed into a democratic processes in which those in the ghetto actually get a substantive capacity to determine their lives and participate in a meaningful way in larger society, that leaves much more liberating potential.

[Eran]

Sure--a major one is the news media, or you can look at the most recent economic collapse and the major financial and banking institutions like AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc.

So in the context of "quality is often compromised" the best you can come up with is the financial crisis, demonstrably caused by, and under the noses of, government regulators?

What about consumer products, the actual topic of conversation?

I was referencing politics and voting and its relation to commercialism--are you asking what I have in mind as far as an alternative to capitalism or the current democratic process?

If the process of electing politicians (the democratic system) is as bad as the capitalist system (in terms of the role of deceitful PR campaigns), what do you have in mind by way of a superior alternative to the current politician-regulated-capitalism?

On the one hand it's a description of how capitalists make profit (i.e. by exploiting labor) which also gives light to the social conflict embedded within the capitalist system.

I don't understand why the arrangement whereby the capitalists pay pre-agreed wages for pre-agreed labour is in any way indicative of a "social conflict". The relation between capitalist and worker is no different, in principle, than that between producers and consumers (or producers and other producers with whom they interact). In each case the two sides engage in a mutually-beneficial transaction on pre-agreed terms. Naturally, the terms of the transaction could be changed in ways that benefit one side or the other. But, by the same token, both sides benefit from the arrangement, and proper understanding gives light to cooperation rather than social conflict as the fundamental attribute of capitalism.

I do find it morally suspect that a standard for labor, deemed dignified and rightful to workers, can be simply bypassed and ignored by reaping it from another country where workers have less power.

The standard which you deem "dignified and rightful" isn't deemed as realistic by workers in other countries. In brief, they simply cannot afford this "standard".

How would you respond to a suggestion to raise minimum wage in the US to $250/hour? Or to require that all employers provide employees with 10 weeks of paid vacation a year, with a working week of, at most, 20 hours? Or to insist that all employees should be provided free meals? Those conditions sound great, but do you really think ordinary American workers would benefit from the legislative imposition of such terms?

Using one nation's poverty (which is often caused by the capitalist system!) as an excuse for poor labor conditions and long working hours is no excuse for the double standard.

The poverty is an indirect cause for the poor labour conditions, not an excuse. Here is why. The reason the nation is poor is that its people are less productive. They lack the capital goods, skills and institutions that allow American or European workers (in cooperation with American or European capitalists!) to earn the first-world wages that they do.

Because the people are much less productive, it wouldn't be possible for an employer to provide them with the (much more expensive) labour conditions of developed countries. The cost of such conditions would inevitably come out of the pockets of the workers, and they can no more afford that cost than American workers can afford the cost of 20 hour weeks and 10 week paid vacations.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that you think consumption is a good equivalent to democratic participation in society.

To be clear, I think it is a vastly superior alternative to democratic participation.

The authoritarian, top-down model of the capitalist economy is no equivalent to participatory deliberative democratic practice.

Actually, capitalist production is greatly superior, both in practical and ethical terms, to the democratic (or any other government) practices.

Ethically, the capitalist production is, in principle, entirely voluntary. No person can be forced to work under any terms against his will, nor to spend one penny on products he isn't interested in. By contrast, government rules and regulations apply to all under threat of force.

The authority of authoritarian workplaces is accepted by workers in their voluntary choice of employment. Workers always have alternatives, albeit typically inferior ones, including becoming self-employed, joining other workers in a co-op, moving or taking employment with one of many potential employers. The authority of government leaders (whether democratically elected or not) isn't accepted voluntarily by those subject to it (with the possible exception of immigrants). Rather, it is imposed on anybody wishing to live and work within a large geographical territory.

In practice, in capitalist production, consumers get refined choice of which products they want. They can choose company A for their food purchases, and company B for their electronics. Actually, they can switch suppliers (for most products) every day. In the political system, people can, at best, make one formal choice every few years. They are then stuck with the same political leaders making decisions on a wide range of topics.

Further, consumers who benefit or suffer directly as a result of their own personal consumption choices are much more likely to invest time and energy in making the correct decision (for them) than are voters whose lives are unaffected by their personal choice.

Furthermore, consumers can typically choose between two concrete offerings, often relying on their personal experience, that of friends and family, or a growing range of review and commentary web sites. Voters, by contrast, can either compare promises made by politicians, or compare the actual performance of the outgoing government against a hypothetical, unknowable alternative reality in which the other party was ruling.

Thus in practice, capitalist production provides a much more refined, timely and accurate feedback on popular demand than does the democratic system.


The main argument against capitalist production and in favour of democratic process is that in the latter system we have the famous "one-man-one-vote", while in capitalist production, different people obviously have different means.

But to counter that argument, we must keep in mind what it is that each system purports to control. In the democratic system what is chosen is the government that rules over the entire country. In the capitalist production process, on the other hand, all that is chosen is what each consumer chooses to buy (or worker chooses to sell his labour). Thus a wealthy person's choice in the capitalist production process makes very little difference to a person of lower means. What do I care whether Bill Gates purchases a private jet or not? On the other hand, the choices of complete strangers in the democratic system can radically impact my life, whether I want to or not.

the way in which a wealthy, white male, born under relatively wealthy conditions with a trajectory of professionalism and success consumes is going to be much different than the pattern of consumption of a black female born in a ghetto whose trajectory is dependence and service of those who are more powerful.

That is undoubtedly true, though I must note that the black ghetto female is indeed dependant, but not on anything to do with the capitalist system. Rather, she is dependant of the welfare system and the government bureaucrats who run it. They are the "more powerful" people that run her life.

Not only this, so will the way in which these two demographics will be marketed and propagandized by the business class: the wealthy male with marketed by showing his power and goods that will lead him towards professionalism, the poor black female will be marketed by showing her subordination with products suitable to her low position in society.

I am not sure about that. I think greedy capitalists market to each demographic segment those products that, based on past experience, members of that demographic section are likely to want.

Thus wealthy white males might be shown fancy cars, while poor black females might be shown discount deals in the local discount supermarket. What that has to do with subordination I am not sure.