ckaihatsu wrote:
Just because you disdain the *non-equity* type of capital
Truth To Power wrote:
See? You can't even bring yourself to call things by their correct names: production goods and privilege.
We *don't* agree on terminology -- I'll interchangeably call rentier capital 'non-equity' capital, too, if I like, validly. Your pettiness and egotism leads you to think that you're scoring-a-point for your school of interpretation.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
doesn't mean that such *rentier* capital in any way curtails the potential for a 'free' (unregulated) type of market.
Truth To Power wrote:
False. Privilege inherently deprives others of their rights to liberty. A market whose participants trade in others' rights to liberty is a slave market. A slave market is not a free market, duh.
And yet your blithe comparison of *land-ownership* to *slave-ownership* is a non-starter -- it's a *strawman* construction, and invalid.
Since your concern is with the continued social reliance on the *market* mechanism for all economic purposes, the continued valuation of land (etc.) in *market* terms is what you and your ideology *inherit* -- you need to stop complaining to me and others about it, because it's *not* any kind of pressing social issue, plus it's *internal* to the capitalist camp.
You want to call rentier-capital ownership 'privilege'. Fine -- that's your own moralizing, but it's *not* a political issue. I take no stance, except for that of a generally *anti-capitalist* one. And, yes, of course I don't support the past feudalist practice of commodifying human beings as property, slavery.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
So any quasi-free-market, being based in the market mechanism, is inherently *capitalist*, and *not* anti-capitalist.
Truth To Power wrote:
Disproved above.
No, you *haven't* proved that 'free markets' are anti-capitalist. Markets *equal* capitalism, and anti-capitalism fundamentally means moving *past* the market mechanism, to something that's *non*-exchange-value (non-money-based), like societal *central planning*:
Emergent Central Planning
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you haven't.
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, I have.
No, you haven't. The economics of *any* market mechanism are generally capitalist, so being anti-capitalist means moving *past* the economics of markets altogether, to a *non*-exchanges-based material social economics, like my 'Emergent Central Planning' at the diagram above.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
The use of *any* kind of capital, in *any* kind of market, is the very practice of capitalism and is *not* 'anti-capitalist'.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that contradicts the definition of capitalism: private ownership of the means of production (production goods and natural resources (land)).
Capitalism includes *both* private ownership of the means of mass industrial production, raw materials / natural resources, *and* the economic practice of market exchanges. Capitalism is *not* anti-capitalism.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Don't call me 'junior'.
Truth To Power wrote:
Very well, child.
Don't leave huge blank spaces in your messages.
You may soon learn that it's a bad habit to *condescend* to people, particularly me.
You can always use a text editor to strip out any line spacing that you don't like.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Land, like anything else under capitalism, is a *commodity* -- it is bought and sold on the market.
Truth To Power wrote:
No. It is not a "commodity" like anything else because unlike anything else -- and most specifically production goods -- its supply is fixed: it cannot be produced, and the entire supply is always available to the market with no help from its owners or any previous owners. Why do you refuse to know that fact?
I don't *argue* these empirical petty distinctions because I *don't care* and I have *no interest* in such, either. Your internal complaints about the particularities of capitalism are your own, and you may find more receptive ears at your local Chamber of Commerce, or something.
Land and all rentier capital *are* commodities since they may all be bought and sold on capitalist markets. Just because rentier capital may be more deflationary / overvalued doesn't mean that it's not a commodity.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
That was my point, junior: capitalism requires landowning, which contradicts the free market.
ckaihatsu wrote:
You happen to *disdain* this fact, but it remains the existing practice under capitalism's markets.
Truth To Power wrote:
It's not a question of disdaining the fact, it's a question of knowing what it implies. Which you clearly do not, or you would not be disingenuously pretending that land is a commodity like anything else.
I'm not being disingenuous -- land / real-estate *is* a commodity within capitalism because it is bought and sold:
A real estate bubble or property bubble (or housing bubble for residential markets) is a type of economic bubble that occurs periodically in local or global real estate markets, and typically follow a land boom. A land boom is the rapid increase in the market price of real property such as housing until they reach unsustainable levels and then decline. This period, during the run up to the crash, is also known as froth. The questions of whether real estate bubbles can be identified and prevented, and whether they have broader macroeconomic significance, are answered differently by schools of economic thought, as detailed below.[1]
Bubbles in housing markets are more critical than stock market bubbles. Historically, equity price busts occur on average every 13 years, last for 2.5 years, and result in about 4 percent loss in GDP. Housing price busts are less frequent, but last nearly twice as long and lead to output losses that are twice as large (IMF World Economic Outlook, 2003). A recent laboratory experimental study[2] also shows that, compared to financial markets, real estate markets involve longer boom and bust periods. Prices decline slower because the real estate market is less liquid.
The financial crisis of 2007–2008 was related to the bursting of real estate bubbles that had begun in various countries during the 2000s.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_bubble
Real estate is "property consisting of land and the buildings on it, along with its natural resources such as crops, minerals or water; immovable property of this nature; an interest vested in this (also) an item of real property, (more generally) buildings or housing in general.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're even *acknowledging* that it's a necessary practice ('capitalism requires landowning').
Truth To Power wrote:
It's only "necessary" because that is how capitalism is DEFINED. HELLO???
Okay, so what are *you* proposing? How *should* land, etc. (all rentier capital) be handled, if not through markets?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll repeat the question, How else would people handle the apportionment of land within capitalism, if not through land-commodity markets?
Truth To Power wrote:
I'll repeat the answer: there is BY DEFINITION no way to apportion land under capitalism but through private ownership and trade because that is what capitalism IS.
So then you're admitting here that, through capitalism, the only way to apportion land is through market exchanges. Your only point here is that rentier capital is non-commodity-productive, and is deflationary / overvalued -- it's a complaint that's *internal* to capitalism.
Since I'm a revolutionary anti-capitalist *I* say overthrow *all* private property, both equity capital *and* rentier capital valuations.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
My politics *don't require* belief because my reasoning / ideology is based in the empirical world. My *politics* is for the working class. That's it.
Truth To Power wrote:
No. Your politics is based on absurd and anti-scientific Marxist bloviation.
Well, this is just name-calling -- what parts of it are 'absurd', 'anti-scientific', and 'bloviation'?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
My *politics* is for the working class. That's it.
Truth To Power wrote:
So you gladly sacrifice liberty, justice and truth, putatively for the working class. Hence the idiotic Marxist gibberish. OK.
Again you need to define your terms -- what do *you* consider, exactly, to be paragon examples of 'liberty', 'justice', 'truth', and 'Marxist gibberish' -- ?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
This is the *opposite* of a fact, because, yes, the markets are capitalist, and, yes, libertarians *are* capitalists because they / you support the 'free market' ideal.
Truth To Power wrote:
Already disproved. Capitalism is defined by OWNERSHIP, not MARKETS.
GET IT??
No, I can *generalize* from this -- there have been *several* modes of production, not just capitalism, that have featured class-based 'ownership' -- feudalism, Asiatic, barbaric, antique.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_productionOnly capitalism has exchange-value-based *markets*, and finance.
But, most importantly, one cannot have capitalism *without* markets / market-exchanges -- if you're going to disdain markets then you have to suggest something to replace them, for material economic functioning. (I have already, with my 'Emergent Central Planning' diagram / framework.)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
because 'free market' and 'anti-capitalist' are *contrary* terms.
Truth To Power wrote:
I just proved they aren't.
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you haven't proved jack-shit
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, I have proved everything I said I have proved.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
you're proving that you think your own repetition of a falsehood will somehow alter the greater objective world, so that it magically conforms to your opinions and wishes, much like Trump. The world doesn't work this way.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's you -- and all Marxists/socialists.
Look, here, I'll *spell it out for you*:
We all exist within a number of enveloping 'layers' -- if-you-will -- the outermost is *nature* / natural reality, since all life on earth evolved out of organic chemicals that were already here. Within this natural layer is 'objective social reality', meaning all regular social institutions that tend to last beyond a single person's lifetime and that have great social impact / influence on people's lives in general (say, government, for example).
Now within *that* 'layer' is *subjective social reality*, and this will vary person-by-person, since people live in various geographic and social locations. Those that a person interacts with on a regular basis will be those of the 'subjective social reality', along with more-formal, but individually particular, interactions with the larger 'objective social reality'.
Finally we can also view the individual *individually* -- the 'individuality / subjectivity' layer.
So all of that is prelude to addressing your prior contention (in agreement with Sivad) that there can be such a thing as a 'free-market anti-capitalist'. I'm maintaining, of course, that those terms are *mutually contradictory* in meaning, and thus the construction is invalid.
Worldview Diagram
Anatomy of a Platform
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
so that it magically conforms to your opinions and wishes, much like Trump. The world doesn't work this way.
Truth To Power wrote:
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
(And, by this admission, I'll ask you / the reader to look into what economic mechanism / dynamic *is* favored by libertarians -- it's the *markets*, and markets are a feature of *capitalism*, so libertarians favor capitalism and are *not* anti-capitalist.)
Truth To Power wrote:
No. Libertarians favor markets because markets work by CONSENT. Capitalism cannot work by consent because land is not and cannot be property by consent.
Will you also acknowledge that *you're* a libertarian?
If so, then I can validly say that *you* favor markets in capitalism because markets work by consent.
You're being confusing, here, though -- does capitalism work through market-consent, or does it *not* work through market-consent? (Land / real estate functions as a commodity since it's bought and sold, through market-consented exchanges, correct?)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
By 'liberty' you mean 'private property ownership', and you *don't* mean 'government upholding of people's own individual civil rights, by punishing those who violate these civil rights, for social justice'.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, the right to property in the fruits of one's labor is different from the right to liberty.
Okay, well, then, you may want to define / explain what you mean by 'right to libery', and 'liberty', here.
I'll note that I don't agree with your meaning for the term 'fruits of one's labor' since such fruits, according to your definition, may derive from actual wage-labor, *or* they may derive from financial gains. That's why I use the term 'labor' to strictly refer to wage-labor work.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
and you *don't* mean 'government upholding of people's own individual civil rights,
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, in fact, I do.
Okay -- well, please be more *explicit* and *forthcoming* in general with your meanings and terms, so as to facilitate communication here.
So, for the record, TTP's meaning of 'liberty' includes people's enjoyment of government-upheld civil rights in society.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
by punishing those who violate these civil rights, for social justice'.
Truth To Power wrote:
Social justice is an oxymoron. Justice can only apply to individuals.
Well, which *is* it -- do individuals have civil rights that will be upheld by (bourgeois) government, or don't they? What should happen to perpetrators who *violate* any such individual's civil rights? Can those who are found guilty by the (bourgeois) government be punished for violating others' civil rights, as with time to be served in jail, for example? (Can we call this 'social justice', or is there another term that you'd prefer to use for this 'civil rights' meaning?)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Socialism says to extend these personal civil rights into the *economic* realm as well, so that each person is seen to have a birthright stake in an appropriate portion of the *material* world, for their needs for life and living, instead of leaving these needs to the whims and vagaries of privately-controlled ownership over the same.
Truth To Power wrote:
Right: socialism refuses to distinguish between the material world that is provided unconditionally by nature and the material world that is produced by others' labor.
Oh, I don't think that this is / would-be the case -- it's just that human labor happens to greatly leverage *machinery* / technology, which means that far more output is now produced per unit of human-labor *input*, meaning that more people can be provided-for, for relatively less human labor work-effort.
Certainly a post-capitalist society could make formal itemized distinctions between people-produced, and nature-available, categories. I happen to have created a set of database fields for a system of formalization, which could be added-to, as for this distinction that you've raised.
ISSUER
AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)
ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)
FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY
FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT
GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')
GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED
FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)
INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)
RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')
TITLE-DESCRIPTION
WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE
TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER
ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT
TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)
ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)
SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME
SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME
AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER
DENOMINATION
QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION
TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION
SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING
SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I *know* that labor is not the only input to production -- I have it in a graphic right here:
[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit
Truth To Power wrote:
Which is wrong.
And how exactly is it 'wrong'? What you're doing here is the equivalent of name-calling, if you're so reluctant to deal with the actual subject-matter underneath.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
But here's the thing, TTP -- all of the 'other inputs' to the process of commodity-production were created only because of the *main* input, labor.
Truth To Power wrote:
False. Land was never created by labor.
Well, here's the thing, though, TTP -- no parcel of land under capitalism is ever taken as-is. Invariably there has been some kind of *alteration* done to it, to make it suitable for regular use, and such alteration has used *human labor* for that tailoring. So that makes the land a labor-produced *commodity*, just like anything falling off a factory assembly line.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
So the landscaped land, the buildings, the equipment / machinery, the tailored raw materials, etc., are available only because they're 'dead labor', or the value that comes from applying human labor to the rough materials directly from nature.
Truth To Power wrote:
Including the vital labor of the entrepreneur/provider of production goods.
Since you're not contending my point there, I'll tentatively take your inaction to be an implicit *acknowledgement* of my point, by you.
*I* don't acknowledge owner or managerial efforts to be 'labor', so you'll have some difficulties in using that term that way, here. Yes, capital is provided by private property ownership, and *equity* capital, in particular, enables material productivity under capitalism, but what the owner does is *not* labor, but rather is a political-social *organization* of *actual* labor, which produces the finished commodity.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You barely even *acknowledge* that labor exists at all,
Truth To Power wrote:
False.
ckaihatsu wrote:
and much less that it contributes anything materially to the productive process that creates commodities (exchange values, and use values) under capitalism.
Truth To Power wrote:
Again, false.
Okay, so I'd like to confirm that you're acknowledging that wage-labor produces commodities / use-values / exchange-values / profits. Please confirm / acknowledge.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
So you're against feudal land rights, and you're for equity capital in modern capitalism. Everyone on this thread knows your position as well as their own kids' names at this point.
Truth To Power wrote:
Also private property in land.
But you've acknowledged that private property in land is *necessary* within capitalism:
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're even *acknowledging* that it's a necessary practice ('capitalism requires landowning').
Truth To Power wrote:
It's only "necessary" because that is how capitalism is DEFINED. HELLO???
---
So your position is *contradictory*, and ill-defined -- you don't *want* land to be private property or a commodity, yet you know that empirically it *has* to be, as a part of capitalism. You, as a libertarian, welcome the use of consensual market exchanges, which are an integral part of capitalism, so you're fine with retaining capitalism, which also needs rentier-type capital (land, etc.) to function.
ckaihatsu wrote:
and you're for equity capital in modern capitalism.
Truth To Power wrote:
But called by its correct name: production goods.
That's fine -- I use the terms 'means of mass industrial production', 'equity capital', and 'production goods' pretty-much interchangeably.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Everyone on this thread knows your position as well as their own kids' names at this point.
Truth To Power wrote:
You just got through proving you don't know anything at all about my position.
Well, I'm *trying* -- since I'm not you, I can't make statements for you. You have to do that yourself. You may want to be less coy and opaque, and be more explicit and forthcoming about where you stand on these issues that we cover in these exchanges.
For this last comment, maybe *detail* what I'm "not-getting" about your position.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
With *this* line, TTP, you're showing yourself to *not* be a 'free market' person, because you're *upholding the state and its regulations*,
Truth To Power wrote:
The free market can't exist without a state to secure liberty, property and contract rights.
Okay, then, your *entire ideology* is contradictory, because 'free markets' means 'no government regulation', while you're also saying that markets can't exist without a state to secure liberty, property, and contract rights.
You're *not* a 'free market' person. You're squarely on the side of private property rights, upheld by the bourgeois state, over any considerations for individual civil rights, if they happen to come into conflict with private property rights. You're basically a nationalist.
Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
in this case to close national borders to a free flow of human labor, and the economic opportunities in the markets on the other side of the border for those laborers.
Truth To Power wrote:
The state is only responsible for the rights of its own citizens, not every other state's.
Yup, you're a nationalist.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Currently there *are* no socialist-type countries in existence.
Truth To Power wrote:
Sure there are: Cuba, North Korea and Laos.
Do the workers (working class) of Cuba, North Korea, and Laos, control the countries of Cuba, North Korea, and Laos, respectively?
If not, and those countries are in fact controlled by *bourgeois-type* government apparatuses / bureaucracies, which are composed of *standing*, specialized administrative roles, then those countries are *not* socialist.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Workers can *only* get jobs through private ownership, so whether it happens to be this-or-that particular employer is of *no importance* to the job-seeker.
Truth To Power wrote:
The conditions that define his bargaining position are.
Yes, but again you're being petty -- my point here is that for those who have no other option in the capitalist markets but to sell their labor power, it makes no difference as to who or what the employer is, because of the material requirement to obtain money / wages, for the sake of fulfilling one's material needs for the necessities of modern life and living.
Just *maneuvering* in the job market requires resources, resources that one may not necessarily have, so one's bargaining position is *lessened*, or even non-existant, without money.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
The whole dynamic is correctly called 'wage slavery' because one cannot avoid having to sell one's labor to an employer if one happens to need wages / income, to buy the necessities for one's life and living.
Truth To Power wrote:
It could not be called wage slavery if people had their liberty rights to use land to earn their own living.
Okay, so what are you suggesting, exactly? How could land, in general, be used to better-benefit people, compared to the way things are now?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I think it's more accurate to term you a ruling-class ideologue at this point.
Truth To Power wrote:
And you claim to know my position??
Yeah, you're a nationalist. And you defend present-day bourgeois-nationalist policies, as regarding immigration policy, for example.