Anarchist Alliance - left and right love in. - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14238287
Yes sort of.

Essentially the fact that the black death came a along and killed a fucking ton of people (nearly half of the English population by some estimates) drove the supply of labour down.

This meant that wages (and freedoms accorded to workers) skyrocketed as the nobility competed to get enough workers to keep things running.

Before the black death free workers were not all that much much better off than serfs but afterwards being a worker rather than a serf was much better.
#14238298
Red Barn wrote:Peasants might have had farm implements that could be turned to war-like uses - pikes, flails and pitchforks, say - but they certainly wouldn't have had the high-end stuff like swords and armor.

English peasents, at least, had (and were even required to keep) one of the most powerful weapons of the medieval period, the Longbow. Most kept daggers too. Armour was expensive stuff, but looting armour from the dead was part of the pay when on campaign so peasents that actually went to battle could acquire bits and pieces of armour.
#14238326
Decky wrote:Yes sort of.

Essentially the fact that the black death came a along and killed a fucking ton of people (nearly half of the English population by some estimates) drove the supply of labour down.

This meant that wages (and freedoms accorded to workers) skyrocketed as the nobility competed to get enough workers to keep things running.

Before the black death free workers were not all that much much better off than serfs but afterwards being a worker rather than a serf was much better.

Oh, I see. That makes perfect sense.



That's interesting about the longbow, too.

You guys are very instructive.
#14239786
anticlimacus wrote: What I said was that the means of production typically refers to things, objects of control, not our bodies which do the producing.


Okay: why is that? Tools are useless without hands (and an intellect) to exploit them.

What I suggested was that even if we treat our bodies like the means of production, your argument simply doesn't fly: we all have bodies in common. A body is something that every human being shares by virtue of being human.


So you're back to saying that hands aren't a means of production because everybody has them.

It is under capitalism that our bodies become something we must sell for others to control.


Here's where I think your rhetoric is not accurate. I don't sell my body when I agree to work for someone else. I'm exchanging my skills for an agreed-upon compensation. It's a trade. Nobody thus controls my body, I can quit the job at any time and find another one.

I find leftists to be quite enamored of Orwellian-like speech: you have to subsume yourself to a collective in order to be free, you have to give up ownership of the means of production in order to produce, blah blah blah. Up is down, black is white.

Joe Liberty wrote: Personal liberty = economic liberty = property rights. These things are inseparable.


You do not need to make a whole bunch of references etc. You just need to make a rational reason for accept this dogma. And that is all this is Joe Liberty, DOGMA. Why should I, or anybody, accept such an absurd definition of liberty?


Which is it: do I not need to cite references, or do I answer your question? Because both will result in the same thing: I will post links to supporting articles, and you'll dismiss them out of hand. So I'll repeat: giving you the chain of logic that arrives at that conclusion would obviously be a waste of my time. If you're really interested in researching it, Google is your friend.

Boiled down to its essence, the thinking is that since you invest your time, creativity, and labor to create something, that something is an extension of you, a physical manifestation of what you spent to create it. You earned it, and thus it is yours; for someone else to place a claim on it is the same as placing a claim on you. If you cannot dispose of that which you create, then you are not truly free. Which, I suppose, may not be as terrible to those on the left as it sounds to others.
#14239812
I would like to offer a slightly different perspective which, ultimately, results in the same conclusion.

Just as nests and dams are, in Dawkins' language, part of the "extended phenotype" whereby the genes of, respectively, birds and beavers express themselves, so humans express themselves by engaging in long-term projects which involve external resources.

It is impossible to conceive of human life, even in the narrow, biological sense, without reference to external resources. It is impossible to conceive of human existence as human (as opposed to the narrowly biological sense of humans as living beings) without reference to ongoing, long-term projects incorporating external objects.

Engaging in such projects, therefore, is inseparable from our nature as human beings.

It follows that respecting the projects of other humans is integral, inseparable to the respect owed to those other humans as people.

In other words, saying I respect you as a human being while, at the same time, failing to respect the projects whereby you express your humanity would make my "respect" empty words.


What respect do we owe other people's projects? Surely we are not obligated to actively assist them, as that would enslave us to their purposes (note - we can certainly choose to assist them, for then our assistance is part of our own expression as humans). But by the same token, we are not allowed to physically interfere with those projects, provided always, of course, that the projects in question themselves respect other people.

Respect for other humans can thus be understood to encompass refraining from physical interference with the ongoing (and peaceful) projects of those people.

When physical resources are incorporated into such a project in a way that (reasonably) requires exclusive access as condition for non-interference, such non-interference becomes equivalent to respect to property rights in those physical resources.
#14239908
Eran wrote:Just as nests and dams are, in Dawkins' language, part of the "extended phenotype" whereby the genes of, respectively, birds and beavers express themselves, so humans express themselves by engaging in long-term projects which involve external resources.

It is impossible to conceive of human life, even in the narrow, biological sense, without reference to external resources. It is impossible to conceive of human existence as human (as opposed to the narrowly biological sense of humans as living beings) without reference to ongoing, long-term projects incorporating external objects....

...Respect for other humans can thus be understood to encompass refraining from physical interference with the ongoing (and peaceful) projects of those people.

When physical resources are incorporated into such a project in a way that (reasonably) requires exclusive access as condition for non-interference, such non-interference becomes equivalent to respect to property rights in those physical resources.



Here is the problem, Eran. You use examples like "nests" and "dams"--all of which are physically produced and used by the animals that make them. So too your human examples also often always point to a very simple farmer or craft maker working on his project that he/she makes and utilizes. Rarely do I ever see you, in order to make your point about "peaceful projects" pointing to a man who owns vast quantities of resources, which he never uses, touches, or sees and simply by virtue of owning it by means of buying it (which assumes then an open market for these resources legally created and enforced), this man can do what he wants with it: fire those who were engaged in working it or lower their pay (and so disrupt their "ongoing peaceful projects"). It is one thing to say you have a right to what you produce, but it is quite another to say you have a right to control another's production by virtue of owning the necessary means to produce.

So what you have done is quite tricky, and part if it has to do with the vagueness of your terminology "ongoing peaceful projects". You have said we simply must respect a person's ongoing peaceful projects. Really what you mean by that is property. Is it our "ongoing peaceful project" to assume that the land we hunt bison is not owned by us, or anybody? But then you come by and see that nobody is occupying or using that land and then claim it for yourself, set boundaries and then when we come to hunt the game you tell us we are now interfering with your "ongoing peaceful project"--what kind of bullshit is this?

Accumulating social resources, such as capital, and then using that to take control a vast amount of resources, which you may never touch, see, or even care about, is not the same thing as building a damn with your own hands or a home that you will live in and reside. The fact that you acquire the means to control others is not what I or most anybody would call a "peaceful project". It is claiming property through enforceable legal means, so that others can only live and work by your permission. No other animal does this--and humans have only recently begun to do this. I find your moralization particularly repugnant, and primarily because it is described in such a nice way so as to avoid the reality. You are not trying to justify the local farmer working his/her field. You are not trying to justify the family who builds a home or the artist who paints a picture. You are trying to justify the owner of large amounts of capital and by virtue of that is able to acquire a whole bunch of resources that are out on "private markets"--regardless of who works them or lives on them or near them and how his purchase may or may not affect them. The whole irony of what you say is that it is worded in such away that it seems to defend the simple producer, but in reality what you mean to do is give justification for the one who has the social power to control producers of all sorts.
#14239920
Joe wrote:So you're back to saying that hands aren't a means of production because everybody has them.


Joe, no--follow along with what I am saying.

Joe Argues: You want to socialize the means of production? Well my body is the means of production so are you going to socialize that?
Anticliamcus Responds: No, because what I mean by "means of production" are things that humans can control, not humans themselves.
Joe's Counter: Oh, Anticlimacus, that's just a slight of hand, an easy way for you to get out of this tricky moral dilemma. Admit it--if you are going to socialize the means of production you are going to have to socialize human bodies. The community will have say on my body and I will not be free, admit it, for that is the logical conclusion of your analysis.
Anticlimacus's Final Response: Okay, Joe, for the sake of argument I'll admit that bodies are the means of production. But why would we need to socialize bodies? Everybody already owns their own body! My argument was that we should all have equal access to the means of production--well if our bodies are means of production we all have access to our own personal bodies. In other words, bodies are universally distributed naturally. It is nature's communism, if you will. What I would be against, then, is a system within which we would have to sell our own bodies to others in order to subsist, i.e. capitalism.

Now you call the latter a simple trade. I call that bullshit. If it were a simple trade between equals, you wouldn't own means of production and I would own more than just by labor power needing your permission in order to work. The fact that we sign a contract says nothing about the material conditions under which the contract is made: i.e. conditions where there is capital one side, controlled by a you and a few others, and labor on the other side who must live by wages. The fact that I am "free" to not sign this contract does not make me free. It simply means I am free to not work and so starve. That is not freedom. That is an ultimatum: work, or else. And the fact that I can choose my master, also does not make me any freer than the person who gets to choose his/her poison.
#14239948
anticlimacus wrote:Anticlimacus's Final Response: Okay, Joe, for the sake of argument I'll admit that bodies are the means of production. But why would we need to socialize bodies? Everybody already owns their own body!


So if everybody had a screwdriver, screwdrivers would no longer be a means of production?

What I would be against, then, is a system within which we would have to sell our own bodies to others in order to subsist, i.e. capitalism.


But, again, I don't sell my body when I agree to work for an employer. I'm selling what I produce with my body. Only if I decide to conflate wage-work with slavery does that make sense, but that comparison is an insult to people who are truly enslaved.

Now you call the latter a simple trade. I call that bullshit. If it were a simple trade between equals, you wouldn't own means of production and I would own more than just by labor power needing your permission in order to work.


So to you, "equals" means equally endowed? Nobody is equal in that sense. The very concept of trade means that two people of unequal means commit to an exchange, which by definition is mutually beneficial (you have the machine, I have the skill to run the machine, so we trade). Nobody is exploiting anyone in that case because we both require the other to produce anything.

The fact that I am "free" to not sign this contract does not make me free.


Why not? If it were really slavery you wouldn't even have that freedom. And who said freedom was comfortable and warm at all times?

It simply means I am free to not work and so starve. That is not freedom.


Well, if you're not smart enough to find a competing employer or learn another skill set or start your own business, then yeah I guess you starve. Freedom includes the freedom to fail, and survival requires adaptation.
#14240359
anticlumacus wrote:Okay, Joe, for the sake of argument I'll admit that bodies are the means of production. But why would we need to socialize bodies? Everybody already owns their own body!

Indeed. But not all bodies (not to mention the much more important minds that go with them) are the same.

Some people are obviously much more productive than others.

Presumably, you don't feel there is no need to socialize the means of production merely because we hand every person a screw-driver (technically means of production) and suggest that we have absolved ourselves from concern over inequality because of that.

In the same way, while every person has a body, some people are obviously much more productive with theirs. The same concern over inequality could logically extend to demand socialisation (full or partial) of the productive powers of human bodies.

The normal form that takes, obviously, is income tax. If a talented singer, for example, is able to become very wealthy by performing for pay, all without ever owning any "means of production" herself, wouldn't your philosophy still demand that part of her earnings are socialised?


Furthermore, you must be familiar with the term "human capital". It derives its meaning from the observation that human bodies are not just unequally productive, but can be made more productive through investment of time and resources (e.g. education).

What is the difference, in principle, between a person investing his time and effort purchasing, building and perfecting a machine, to be used as means of production, vs. a person investing his time and effort training and educating himself, consequently using his own body as a much more effective means of production?

The fact that we sign a contract says nothing about the material conditions under which the contract is made: i.e. conditions where there is capital one side, controlled by a you and a few others, and labor on the other side who must live by wages. The fact that I am "free" to not sign this contract does not make me free. It simply means I am free to not work and so starve. That is not freedom. That is an ultimatum: work, or else. And the fact that I can choose my master, also does not make me any freer than the person who gets to choose his/her poison.


The description above (work for one of the "few" or starve) has never been an honest depiction of reality. IT is very far from an honest description of today's economy. But even more to the point, it becomes utterly ridiculous in the context of the society you are advocating.

Recall, you object to capitalist enterprises even when existing alongside a flourishing network of worker-controlled syndicates. In other words, even under circumstances in which workers have ample viable alternatives to work, none of which implies starvation.


As for freedom, you repeatedly miss the difference between the fake freedom of being allowed to choose amongst an artificially limited set of options (freedom to choose your poison, or "your money or your life"), and the true freedom from any artificial restrictions which still, by the necessity of the human condition and the material world we occupy, implies a limited range of viable options.


Finally, what you are offering workers is a worse, not better deal than what they have now (not to mention what they would have under truly free market conditions). Here is why.

IN a world in which all workers were identical drones, a person given one vote in a thousand in the operation of a factory would feel like he controls the factory himself. In a choice between A & B, he would vote in the same way as the other 999 workers (as they are all identical drones), his choice would also be everybody else's choice, and carry the day.

But in the real world, a worker is as likely to find his wishes frustrated by his 999 co-workers as by a capitalist employer. In neither case can our worker have everything he wants. The best avenue to flourishing wouldn't be based on giving the worker one vote in 1000. Rather, it would be based on giving him as many alternative places of employment as feasible.

To give an analogy from consumption, which would you prefer, pick your shirt from amongst hundreds offered in a department store (despite having no a-priori say as to which shirt patterns are produced), or have one vote in 1000 as to shirt patterns, but then be forced to wear the shirt chosen by a majority?

So how to we maximise the number of options available to workers in a world in which productive employment requires use of costly means of production? The answer is obvious - encourage not just investment in, but also diverse creation of many different means of production (and environments in which those are deployed). Encourage many different factories, workshops, loans for start-ups, single-proprietorships, small partnerships, syndicates, multi-national and local corporations, etc, etc.

In other words, (1) remove artificial barriers to the creation of diverse productive enterprises, and (2) encourage creation of such enterprises by allowing their creators to benefit from the rewards of their success.
#14241235
Eran wrote:Some people are obviously much more productive than others.


However in a syndicate, all would determine each other's payment (market socialism) or production would go to the needs of all as determined by interlocking networks of syndicates and communities (Communist anarchism). In neither case is a wage structure determined by a small group of owners who make all the decisions and thus create vast inequalities in income and wealth. Socialist anarchism thus produces a much more egalitarian structure than a capitalist hierarchical structure.

Similarly anarchist society does not demand equality in the sense that all are the same and have the exact same rewards. What we reject is inequality in social power. Thus the primary concern is inequality in economic and political decision making. Thus regardless of production power or abilities, all participate in economic and political decision making processes. The same cannot be said of capitalism which fundamentally links wealth and ownership of property to social and economic power.

Also, quite in contrast to capitalist production, true anarchism (socialist anarchism) seeks to liberate productive capacity and creativity from control of others who seek to gain profit off of labor. By providing equality in means, our inequalities (or differences) in body and capacity can actual flourish in a meaningful and non-oppressive way. Capitalist ideology simply cannot see beyond inequality in terms of social power. It assumes that differences in ability must inevitably result in differences in social power, control, and well-being--however, we all know this to be thoroughly untrue even in capitalism because rarely does it reward talent, ability, or honest effort.

What is the difference, in principle, between a person investing his time and effort purchasing, building and perfecting a machine, to be used as means of production, vs. a person investing his time and effort training and educating himself, consequently using his own body as a much more effective means of production?


Machines, resources, land etc. those are means of production. Why are those means of production? Because we have such a thing called producers. Education, training, etc. those are both means of production and means to participation--participation in meaningful and dignifying work, participation in society, etc. Who are they a means of participation? Because we have such a thing called participants (and in capitalist society structured non-participants). Human bodies only become a means of production if they are controlled and exploited and are used to produce wealth not for themselves, but for somebody else who uses them as a means. If I get an education, my education becomes my means--not my brain (which is "me"). It becomes my means to produce a particular service (e.g. teaching) and also to participate in a certain kind of production (e.g. education). Again, in an anarchist society these are things we would all have access to, without discrimination (either in wealth or status) and say over.

Eran wrote:The description above (work for one of the "few" or starve) has never been an honest depiction of reality.


You are correct, sometimes it is much worse: There is simply no work for you, so find some way to make ends meet even though you have no means to do so. But if you prefer we could put it in these terms: work or beg. Either way you are not presented with a substantive free choice that dignified human beings should have.

As for freedom, you repeatedly miss the difference between the fake freedom of being allowed to choose amongst an artificially limited set of options (freedom to choose your poison, or "your money or your life"), and the true freedom from any artificial restrictions which still, by the necessity of the human condition and the material world we occupy, implies a limited range of viable options.

What is this except for a mere rationalization for capitalist hierarchical relations? You are basically saying this is the best kind of freedom--the freedom to choose your master--that can be offered simply because that is how things are. This is emblematic of authoritarian systems: there is simply no other way, even if we wanted it!

But there is another way. We can reject private property and the state that comes with it. We can depend more on solidarity as opposed individual fragmentation, we can form a society where participation and democratic control stands above personal profit. There are alternatives.
Finally, what you are offering workers is a worse, not better deal than what they have now (not to mention what they would have under truly free market conditions). Here is why.

IN a world in which all workers were identical drones, a person given one vote in a thousand in the operation of a factory would feel like he controls the factory himself. In a choice between A & B, he would vote in the same way as the other 999 workers (as they are all identical drones), his choice would also be everybody else's choice, and carry the day.

But in the real world, a worker is as likely to find his wishes frustrated by his 999 co-workers as by a capitalist employer. In neither case can our worker have everything he wants. The best avenue to flourishing wouldn't be based on giving the worker one vote in 1000. Rather, it would be based on giving him as many alternative places of employment as feasible.

To give an analogy from consumption, which would you prefer, pick your shirt from amongst hundreds offered in a department store (despite having no a-priori say as to which shirt patterns are produced), or have one vote in 1000 as to shirt patterns, but then be forced to wear the shirt chosen by a majority?

So how to we maximise the number of options available to workers in a world in which productive employment requires use of costly means of production? The answer is obvious - encourage not just investment in, but also diverse creation of many different means of production (and environments in which those are deployed). Encourage many different factories, workshops, loans for start-ups, single-proprietorships, small partnerships, syndicates, multi-national and local corporations, etc, etc.

In other words, (1) remove artificial barriers to the creation of diverse productive enterprises, and (2) encourage creation of such enterprises by allowing their creators to benefit from the rewards of their success.


1) Capitalism does not necessarily maximize options. In fact, quite the opposite--it is the goal of a capitalist to restrict options where possible; a socialist anarchy would allow for diverse productive enterprises. It would be a society where freedom of production would be much more realizeable than any kind of capitalism we have known. 2) Again two describes a socialist anarchy. It has really been a product of capitalist systems where artificial barriers are produced to favor the powerful, and start-ups face the up hill battle against big capital. If we socialize the means of production, everybody has the means to start up an industry.

As for your description of workers, it's simply not accurate. Worker coops actually have a high rate of satisfaction coupled with good productivity, and pay is fairly egalitarian. And 1 vote in a 1000 is typically not the case. Mondragon, for instance, has various enterprises under one corporation and is democratically controlled and has a fairly egalitarian pay structure. Workers find themselves frustrated only where they have no control and their attempts at gaining control is constantly thwarted and contested by their employers. Where workers are able to unite and in their common effort fight for change, they are generally not only more satisfied, but able to raise their standard of living.
#14241251
Capitalism does not necessarily maximize options. In fact, quite the opposite--it is the goal of a capitalist to restrict options where possible; a socialist anarchy would allow for diverse productive enterprises.

How can people in a market anarchy (not to be confused with state capitalist society neither one of us advocates) restrict options?


As for the dynamics of a socialist anarchy, that is very hard for me to address, since it is impossible to get a coherent notion of how such a society operates, beyond generalities.

For example, it was made quite clear that a single person wouldn't be welcome to the resources required to start a business. However, it isn't clear what minimal critical mass of workers would qualify as an acceptable "syndicate". Nor do I have any idea how resources would be allocated amongst syndicates (beyond vague and content-free expressions like "consultation through a democratic process").

The dynamic of large groups makes it quite clear that the most likely attitude would be opposition to change and innovation. The latter, in the short term, always operates against the interests of the status quo. Whenever the champions of the status quo have a major say, innovation tends to be suppressed or discouraged.

The structure you are describing is precisely one in which champions of the status quo will have an effective veto over any innovation that threatens their interests.

As for your description of workers, it's simply not accurate.

It might not be accurate as it pertains to current syndicates which tend to be few and far between.

But in the context of an entire society, the problem is actually much worse, isn't it? Because even a whole syndicate has very limited power, being so intricately dependent on other syndicate as both suppliers and buyers.

Ultimately, the coordinating functions require centralised decisions impacting (and, presumably, involving input from) millions, not thousands of people. Since millions of people cannot all have an equal say, the decisions are inevitably going to be delegated to representatives, leaders, bureaucrats, functionaries, committee chairs, vote brokers, etc.

Where workers are able to unite and in their common effort fight for change, they are generally not only more satisfied, but able to raise their standard of living.

Which again raises the question - if workers naturally prefer working for syndicates, why are you so scared of allowing syndicates to compete with capitalist-owned enterprises on equal terms? If your claims are correct, capitalists would never be able to attract significant number of workers away from the much more attractive syndicates.
#14241277
I don't think there is much merit in turning the debate into a "who has the better socio-economic paradigm" pissing contest, because if we are talking about a voluntary society absent the state then surely no-one is going to stop anyone joining a worker-coop, investing in shares or doing whatever else they like?
#14241290
Of course left-anarchists are wrong on more than one level.

They are morally wrong, as their system clearly depends on the routine initiation of force.

But they are also pragmatically wrong, because their socio-economic model would inevitably result in stagnation and decay.
#14241310
Eran wrote:Of course left-anarchists are wrong on more than one level.

They are morally wrong, as their system clearly depends on the routine initiation of force.

But they are also pragmatically wrong, because their socio-economic model would inevitably result in stagnation and decay.

Morally they are very confused, but at least some parts of their "system" do not require routine initiation of force. The trouble is they think it does require it, which is really sad; it is like they have the least confidence that their way will work.
#14241314
Indeed.

It is hard to understand the internal logic of the following set of claims:

1. We can educate members of society to appreciate the value of syndicalist cooperation

2. Workers are better off working for a worker-controlled syndicate

but

3. If we allow private ownership of the means of production as well as syndicates (with a level playing field between the two forms), workers will choose to work for the former rather than the latter, and capitalist exploitation will reassert itself.
#14241649
Eran wrote:Indeed.

It is hard to understand the internal logic of the following set of claims:

1. We can educate members of society to appreciate the value of syndicalist cooperation

2. Workers are better off working for a worker-controlled syndicate

but

3. If we allow private ownership of the means of production as well as syndicates (with a level playing field between the two forms), workers will choose to work for the former rather than the latter, and capitalist exploitation will reassert itself.


Because you are missing 2.5;

2.5: Capitalists control most of the capital, and are capable of wielding that capital in ways that effectively shut down cooperatives if they chose to do so.

Thus;

3: If we allow private ownership of the means of production as well as syndicates, workers will be strongly pressured to abdicate their rights as human beings and work under traditional wage employment models because they will have no realistic alternative. And thus, capitalist exploitation will continue.

Because, after all, socialists aren't assuming a blank slate, as your logical "dilemma" seems to assume.
#14241776
Eran wrote:Indeed.

It is hard to understand the internal logic of the following set of claims:

1. We can educate members of society to appreciate the value of syndicalist cooperation

2. Workers are better off working for a worker-controlled syndicate

but

3. If we allow private ownership of the means of production as well as syndicates (with a level playing field between the two forms), workers will choose to work for the former rather than the latter, and capitalist exploitation will reassert itself.


Yes, as Someone5 pointed out, 2.5 is certainly missing, as is the glaring question: Why should we assume that workers will choose capitalist organization after they have revolutionized into a non-capitalist society? Not only would workers have no reason to sell themselves into wage labor, but capitalists themselves would have no reason or substantive ability to become capitalists. Workers--which we all are--already control the means of production, and we can socially ensure some basic needs equally among us all. What is our would-be-capitalist going to be able to tempt a worker with that a) will convince a worker to enter into a wage relationship where a capitalist controls production and b) that will leave the capitalist with enough profit after bringing in such powerful labor? Not only this but this would have to occur within a society where all syndicates and even those who produce outside of syndicates will have to network with other syndicates, communal boards, and labor cartels. So why should we simply assume that capitalist production would naturally develop?

I also think Someone5 is correct, and I have mentioned this before as well, that you seem to envision a sort of blank slate, which is why you can make the assumptions you make about people "choosing" capitalist organization. The only way for you to envision capitalist practices developing spontaneously is if we begin at "ground 0" where everybody just comes together tries to decide what they want to do. This is one of the reasons of critiqued the libertarian as abstract. Historically the only way it will develop and become a systematic norm is if it is forced upon society and then enforced. This is why capitalism has always had a state--always. The fact that you think it will exist without one is what is illogical (and morally confused). The only thing you seem to be doing in your anarcho-capitalist society is establishing a private state, run by private corporations and their private police and armies, as opposed to a public state with some democratic institutions.
#14241849
Someone5 wrote:Because you are missing 2.5;

2.5: Capitalists control most of the capital, and are capable of wielding that capital in ways that effectively shut down cooperatives if they chose to do so.

What if our starting point was one of full redistribution of current assets?

How would capitalists come to control most of the capital, if workers consistently prefer working for syndicates?

From a position of equal distribution of assets, then, would you relax your opposition to private ownership of the means of production?

3: If we allow private ownership of the means of production as well as syndicates, workers will be strongly pressured to abdicate their rights as human beings and work under traditional wage employment models because they will have no realistic alternative. And thus, capitalist exploitation will continue.

How do you explain the fact that most new businesses are started on the capitalist, rather than syndicate model?

If capitalists controlled most of the capital, how is it that new entrepreneurs are able to raise capital, but new syndicates aren't?

anticlimacus wrote:Why should we assume that workers will choose capitalist organization after they have revolutionized into a non-capitalist society? Not only would workers have no reason to sell themselves into wage labor, but capitalists themselves would have no reason or substantive ability to become capitalists.

Fine. So you would have no objections to capitalists enterprises being allowed within your society?

So why should we simply assume that capitalist production would naturally develop?

I am prepared not to make any assumptions, but rather to let events unfold naturally, without interference. If you are right, entrepreneurial capitalists will fail to recruit workers (and thus acquire and accumulate capital), and your world will remain as you like it.

If I am right, we will see a mixture of capitalist and syndicate enterprises, with the latter keeping the former "in check" in the sense that capitalists would have to offer decent terms to workers to attract them away from syndicates. By the same token, capitalist enterprises will force syndicates to adopt efficient production methods and to produce items for which demand exists, even when these moves (towards greater efficiency, for example) might not suit the majority of syndicate members.

Such a mixed economy would have the best of both worlds.

The only thing you seem to be doing in your anarcho-capitalist society is establishing a private state, run by private corporations and their private police and armies, as opposed to a public state with some democratic institutions.

Since you obviously find such scenario threatening, I would be happy to discuss a democratically-controlled minimal state, engaged exclusively in prevention of crime and maintaining security, but dis-engaged from the economic sphere (as current governments are dis-engaged from the sphere of religious practice).

As for a "blank state", it isn't a radical suggestion in the context of our discussion. In fact, I would start with your societal end-state. You are advocating a given society. I will grant you your wishes, but then explore the potential for further evolution from there.

Previous conversations explored how small capitalist enterprises might start even from a perfectly socialist starting point.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

I dont know if you recall, but la loca MTG at one[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]