First of all I have to say I enjoy talking to you even though I disagree. You sound well educated.
Why thankyou, I also enjoy a good political discussion.
By buying the all available resources
Well I honestly can't see this happening. In which area of the market can one buy all available resources? For example, do you realise how much money it would cost to buy all available oil?
being a good customer to 'forbid' the supplyer from supplying competitors
Well this is only a bad thing if there is only a single supplier. Or are you implying that a single customer could buy out all suppliers at once?
>or by making a huge debt to your supplyer and then ask him to stop selling to your competitor if he wants to be paid back
Well no, that would be coercion, you can't accept a deal and then threaten not to pay. I think you're misinterpreting my stance, I am not arguing that we should have absolutely no market rules, that would be total anarchy. Basic free trade rules can still be enforced without a state.
>The new competitor connot make an investment and open up because the price set by Campany A (his competitor) does not leave him any profit margin
It doesn't leave companyA any profit margin either, you see? It can't run at a loss indefinitely. Investors can still invest if they think they can ride out the period of undercutting - Remember, the monopolistic company is running at the same loss as everyone else. And as I said before the new competition may have even more assets invested in it than companyA's assets, so you can't assume that companyA can survive longer. Furthermore, companyA doesn't want to undercut for too long, because as I said it will weaken it, making it more susceptible to new competition. If an investor follows this logic, he may come to a rational conclusion that investing in competition is the right thing to do.
I fear that we're just going to go in circles on this topic though.
Oh, please, don't start the forrest thing
???
What forest thing? I came up with that analogy on the fly.
>If humans and their SOCIAL needs (like family, friendships, love, harmony and freedom)
All these things affect the economy, though. For example, love creates demand for products that display love (chocolate, roses, etc...)
Without love these things would not be such an integral part of our culture, and thus the economy would take a different form, as human interaction would not be the same. There would be a lower supply of roses, and less people with the occupation of "rose farmer" or whatever they're called.
This is just a trivial example, though. This is not an important part of the discussion.
I find it rather interesting that even though we're looking at the same target(?) we are facing in opposing directions
Yes, I have come to realise this many times. Most anti-capitalists I encounter are quick to label me a conservative that hates poor people. Sometimes they're irrational enough to declare that I'm being paid by big corporations.
We all have the same target, that is improving the standard of living for all people. We just think it should be done in different ways.
>I feel that somehow you're proving my point that anarcho-capitalism is a 'mask' for neo-liberalism
I've never really looked into neo-liberalism at great depth, so I don't know if there are any differences. I question why liberalism would be associated with a total free market, however, as most liberals seem to think corporations are evil things out to destroy the planet.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 1:08
I'm going to repost my comment for readability, as I messed up some quotations. Grumble.
First of all I have to say I enjoy talking to you even though I disagree. You sound well educated.
Why thankyou, I also enjoy a good political discussion.
By buying the all available resources
Well I honestly can't see this happening. In which area of the market can one buy all available resources? For example, do you realise how much money it would cost to buy all available oil?
being a good customer to 'forbid' the supplyer from supplying competitors
Well this is only a bad thing if there is only a single supplier. Or are you implying that a single customer could buy out all suppliers at once?
or by making a huge debt to your supplyer and then ask him to stop selling to your competitor if he wants to be paid back
Well no, that would be coercion, you can't accept a deal and then threaten not to pay. I think you're misinterpreting my stance, I am not arguing that we should have absolutely no market rules, that would be total anarchy. Basic free trade rules can still be enforced without a state.
The new competitor connot make an investment and open up because the price set by Campany A (his competitor) does not leave him any profit margin
It doesn't leave companyA any profit margin either, you see? It can't run at a loss indefinitely. Investors can still invest if they think they can ride out the period of undercutting - Remember, the monopolistic company is running at the same loss as everyone else. And as I said before the new competition may have even more assets invested in it than companyA's assets, so you can't assume that companyA can survive longer. Furthermore, companyA doesn't want to undercut for too long, because as I said it will weaken it, making it more susceptible to new competition. If an investor follows this logic, he may come to a rational conclusion that investing in competition is the right thing to do.
I fear that we're just going to go in circles on this topic though.
Oh, please, don't start the forrest thing
???
What forest thing? I came up with that analogy on the fly.
If humans and their SOCIAL needs (like family, friendships, love, harmony and freedom)
All these things affect the economy, though. For example, love creates demand for products that display love (chocolate, roses, etc...)
Without love these things would not be such an integral part of our culture, and thus the economy would take a different form, as human interaction would not be the same. There would be a lower supply of roses, and less people with the occupation of "rose farmer" or whatever they're called.
This is just a trivial example, though. This is not an important part of the discussion.
I find it rather interesting that even though we're looking at the same target(?) we are facing in opposing directions
Yes, I have come to realise this many times. Most anti-capitalists I encounter are quick to label me a conservative that hates poor people. Sometimes they're irrational enough to declare that I'm being paid by big corporations.
We all have the same target, that is improving the standard of living for all people. We just think it should be done in different ways.
I feel that somehow you're proving my point that anarcho-capitalism is a 'mask' for neo-liberalism
I've never really looked into neo-liberalism at great depth, so I don't know if there are any differences. I question why liberalism would be associated with a total free market, however, as most liberals seem to think corporations are evil things out to destroy the planet.
Name:
Pope.com2011-03-17 2:40
You are all operating through a framework of capitalism to try and detach yourselves from it. The government that is a puppet for capitalist rule shouldn't be compared to a government that is run by a democracy. The United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Our "representatives" are just an agent of mediation poisoned by corporate capitalists. Socialist markets controlled by the people, with wealth distributed evenly, eliminating class barriers and promoting collective advancement. Oops, that makes too much sense
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 2:56
>>42
Except who evenly distributes the wealth in these "social markets"?
>>46
And who calculates the exact amount of every good required? For example, how many cars are you going to make? How many people are going to make those cars? How are you going to do this with the billions of other products that exist on the market? How often are you going to do this, taking into account demand changes constantly? How do you determine if people have reached their fair share of resource usage without prices?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 3:20
It would be a silent revolution, a restructuring of the current political system. That requires a new political entity (i refrain from using the term party) with a progressive framework backed by a majority of the people. The internet, void of censorship and advertising, could be a perfect forum for running a country. With logical organization, you could run this political entity via the web. There needs to be a forum on the internet that can gather public opinion. Opinion that can receive positive or negative feedback (with listed reasoning for such feedback, also subject to feedback).
All the while, the users, with an anonymous alias that recorded their data collectively, would record the statistics of their feedback. With a higher percentage of received feedback, people with good, solid, agreeable opinions would become more visible. With visibility, their reputation could be easily studied by highest rated feedback statistics. That balances corruption.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 3:22
The more reputable users' ideas would be elected to office, and he would run the state according to instant feedback from this forum. Literally run by the people.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 3:25
>>49
You still have not have answered the question. How do you calculate the supply of every single product on the market according to demand without prices?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 3:26
Anonymity with reputable accountability.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 3:26
We don't need 87% of the products on the markets.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 3:32
Every person who would be affected by the redistribution of wealth would have a voice. With influence equal to anyone else's. Also, no one says it has to be an immediate redistribution of wealth. This internet forum would be a source of just judgement, so redistributing the wealth wouldn't be hard.
First action is to destroy advertising's effects. Revealing scandals behind corporations and exploiting those weaknesses can reverse their effects from advertising. Reducing corporate profits is the best way to fight them. You wouldn't even need to legislate a good portion of the distribution if you start with the money in the economy.
>>42
>>Well I honestly can't see this happening. In which area of the market can one buy all available resources? For example, do you realise how much money it would cost to buy all available oil?
>>Well this is only a bad thing if there is only a single supplier. Or are you implying that a single customer could buy out all suppliers at once?
>>It doesn't leave companyA any profit margin either, you see? It can't run at a loss indefinitely. Investors can still invest if they think they can ride out the period of undercutting - Remember, the monopolistic company is running at the same loss as everyone else. And as I said before the new competition may have even more assets invested in it than companyA's assets, so you can't assume that companyA can survive longer. Furthermore, companyA doesn't want to undercut for too long, because as I said it will weaken it, making it more susceptible to new competition. If an investor follows this logic, he may come to a rational conclusion that investing in competition is the right thing to do.
I fear that we're just going to go in circles on this topic though.
All the above are a matter of scale difference between Campany A and its competitor. I'm using extreme examples to point out the underlying mechanisms. Of course there ususaly sn't just one competitor, you can't buy all resources (but the more you buy on a large scale, the more you bring the prices up) and of course there isn't a single supplier. What justifies my examples is purely a matter of scale. The other thing is that when any system is designed, political or non (even computers), it is open to abuse and law breaking. It is very interesting but also important to study the ways it can be 'broken' or hacked in order to continualy improve it.
>>What forest thing? I came up with that analogy on the fly.
You may have but that's a typical reply to hippy soundinding people that i'm sick of. It's like: you are trying to think of ways to improve society and the reply you get when to you criticism of modern society (the forrest thing) is: basically if you don't like our shit go live somewhere else. I could expand on why this is a fucked up reply but as you seem quite intelligent, I don't feel I have to break it down to the last bit.
>>All these things affect the economy, though. For example, love creates demand for products that display love (chocolate, roses, etc...)
I feel like you're studying a bydirectional relationship as if it was unidirectional. First of all the economy is a human created concept. Yes, human needs affect the economy, but to turn it around, the economy REALLY AFFECTS human relationships. People get married to apply for loans or to gain citizenships, become more or less attractive depending on their social status and they act like masters or slaves depending on how property they have. I find your logic cold and biased here. I understand and accept what you say about how the economy is formed and shaped based on human needs but that's hardly the whole of the picture. I'll put it this way: Would you deny that the economy forms and shapes human needs? (--> Advertising)
Although is doesn't initialy seem relevent, have a look at these two experiments, I think they point out some psychological mechanisms that externaly shape our behaviour. Although not directly related to economy, you can exchange prison with poverty. On the second experiment, you can reach useful conclusions if you exchange the <doctor> authority figure with a <boss>.
>>Most anti-capitalists I encounter are quick to label me a conservative that hates poor people. Sometimes they're irrational enough to declare that I'm being paid by big corporations.
We all tend to do this to some extent. I think it is a (bad) part of a digestion mechanism where being paranoid about secret agency's work and the action of agent provocateurs blinds our judgement. I hope you take these things too seriously.
>>I've never really looked into neo-liberalism at great depth, so I don't know if there are any differences. I question why liberalism would be associated with a total free market, however, as most liberals seem to think corporations are evil things out to destroy the planet.
I think you would be surprised by the similarities with anarcho-capitalism and also by the disasters it has caused so far. Have a look , you might find it interesting and i'm realy curious to hear what you think about it (honestly): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 6:08
>>44
In an anarchist society, this would be done by open assemblies. In communism, similarly, it would be done by the party which is prety much the same but with different democratic rules. Of course the above highly depend on the schools of thought of each political theory and the subjective characteristics of the society it is implemented on.
Google zapatism and marinaleda for some living examples.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 6:18
>>53
Yes but no. I've been thinking the same think about the use of the internet for real (direct) democracy and in the past I have supported exactly what you're saying. But I've reached the conclusion that the inernet is definately a perfect tool for the voting part, but the actual democratic discussion should be done in person, wearing full face masks prederably. (The mask thing has nothing to do with rioting or terrorism. It has the purpose of hiding the identity of the speaker so that the people who listen can judge his/her words for what they are, not who speaks them (a defence for ad hominem attacks).) The reason I've come to believe that the conversation should be done in person is that through the internet people are detached from each other, they don't feel each other's pain and agonies and they tend to make colder decissions. Hope this makes sense to you because i'm not a native speaker and i'm not sure how well I've said it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 11:33
>>37
I'm sick of people saying capitalism is built on authoritarian relationships. The boss/ worker relationship is not authoritarian. The reason workers don't have a say in the means of production is because that's not what they're paid to do. A blue-collar worker is contracted to work, not to contribute ideas or dictate how the company is run. A boss simply manages, and he trades money for labor, whether that labor be intellectual or physical. You could argue that workers aren't getting a fair trade for their labor, that's OK. Maybe someone's risk is higher than their reward. What you can't argue is that the worker doesn't have enough power. Of course he doesn't have power, it's not his company, he is simply trading his labor for money or other benefits. Simply working somewhere does not entitle you to make decisions on how the company is run. That's left to the people who actually run the company. If you start you're own business, you hire people to work, not to usurp your position. Ultimately, you were the on e who risked your capital, so you should make the executive decision. It's more authoritarian to claim that doing physical labor somehow entitles you the same benefits as the person who created the ideas and invested in it. Capitalism is strictly contractual. If you wish to start a cooperative company where everyone is involved in the decision making, then fine, that's actually legal in capitalism. You can run your company however you wish. But to take a mutual agreement between employer and worker, and claim the worker should have control even though it wasn't in the original contract, is authoritarian.
>>66
He certainly could. In fact, his ilk is the the scariest kind of person to you because, entrepreneurial spirit willing, they strive to create an honest consentual system built upon those foundations while all you can do is look upon it sputtering in bewilderment.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 23:42
>>66
Wage slavery is irrelevant to my post. I support fair wages for labor, what I do not support is public ownership of the means of production. Again, a employee-employer relationship is contractual and mostly dealing with money, insurance or benefits. What employment does not guarantee is power. No group has the right to take by force another's private property, home or business. The man who starts or runs a business owns it, and thereby makes the most important decisions. The worker works. You can argue he deserves more money for his labor, but you cannot argue he owns his place of employment, since that was never contractually agreed upon.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-18 0:11
This criticism of marxism is good, it means that ethical humanists can move beyond socialism and maybe even anarchism towards a post-socialist intellectual life. Of course many have done so already and they must be aghast at the scarce progress we are making so it's high time we catch up and get the ball rolling to reject marxism in it's entirety. So what have we learned so far?
1: Wages aren't the cause of wage slavery, neither are they significant "force multipliers" in service of exploitation, in order for the conditions of wage slavery to exist the means of production must be collectivized by the state. Blaming wages is like blaming the knife for a murder.
2: Exploitation and corruption is present in both centrally planned and capitalist modes of production, neither extinguish these problems from society, however centrally planned economies are far more corrupt since they have the top down approach of ideologues and tyrants, sticking their fingers into everything as a policy, as opposed to capitalism where the state is only called apon to solve problems where it can, thus precipitating debate concerning whether the state should intervene and closing most loopholes that the plutocracy can use to facilitate the conditions for wage slavery.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-18 1:29
The word "wage-slavery" doesn't make sense.
Ask yourself, if you ask a man to cut your grass for $20, or about $7 an hour. He consents and you pay him. Your grass is cut and the man leaves with $20, both parties happy.
How have you enslaved the man?
It seems by labeling simple economic exchanges of goods for money as slavery diminishes the true meaning of "slavery," which is ownership of another human being. To conflate paying someone a wage with the brutal and reprehensible act of treating a person like cattle is stupid and dishonest.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-18 2:49
>>70
When you can't afford to have children, then you know it's wage slavery.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-18 5:47
>>68
You may support fair wages. So do I and everyone else in the system we live in. But things don't always work like that. There will always be someone who will abuse their position as bosses and will drop wages to the minimum possible. This isn't even hard considering the unemployment. Once people are impoverished, they have even more need for any kind of work ands this in turn makes them easier to abuse all the way back to slavery. The problem with the wage system is that it is not self regulated. In fact, it is self-deregulated. That's the problem. It only works in a perfect social environment with no unemployment.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that workers don't have any negotiation means compared to the employer. In the majority of the jobs, the wage is set and the worket either takes it or leaves. With plenty of unemployed people going for the same jobs, the employer has a massive negotiational advantage over the prospective employee. In order to guarantee a fair deal, the two sides need equal negotiating power. Otherwise the stronger will abuse the weaker and in our case the employer the employee. Of course exceptions do exist when a worker is highly specialized and therefore has less competition and more negotiating power but for the majority of workers this doesn't happen.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-18 6:21
>>69
:1: Wages aren't the cause of wage slavery, neither are they significant "force multipliers" in service of exploitation, in order for the conditions of wage slavery to exist the means of production must be collectivized by the state. Blaming wages is like blaming the knife for a murder.
I really don't understand why you take for granted that wages aren't the cause of wage slavery unless the state controls production. The most extreme cases of wage slavery can be observed where the state has minimal or no interference. Take the gold mining in South Africa for example, or the oil refineries in Nigeria for example. The (corrupt)states have truly minimal interference there.
:2: Exploitation and corruption is present in both centrally planned and capitalist modes of production, neither extinguish these problems from society, however centrally planned economies are far more corrupt since they have the top down approach of ideologues and tyrants, sticking their fingers into everything as a policy, as opposed to capitalism where the state is only called apon to solve problems where it can, thus precipitating debate concerning whether the state should intervene and closing most loopholes that the plutocracy can use to facilitate the conditions for wage slavery.
I tend to agree that centralised systems are more prone to corruption. That's one reason why I like anarchy. But I find the above somehow irrelevant since we're comparing two different forms of stateless systems (anarchism and anarcho-capitalism)
:This criticism of marxism is good, it means that ethical humanists can move beyond socialism and maybe even anarchism towards a post-socialist intellectual life. Of course many have done so already and they must be aghast at the scarce progress we are making so it's high time we catch up and get the ball rolling to reject marxism in it's entirety. So what have we learned so far?
Yes, criticism is always good but you shouldn't start criticizing based on what you want to 'get rid of' because this makes you biased and leads YOU to possibly mistaken conclusions. There's totally wrong philosophy. There are good points literally across the political spectrum. Marx for example has made one of the most thorough analysis of capitalism. It would be stupid to reject it altogether because you don't like some parts of it. As for anarchists, I believe they have studied human oppression more than any other group. Their contribution is exceptionally valuable whether you accept their conclusions or not. As for moving past Marxism and anarchism, I find any kind of progress good but this might be a bit premature (still desirable). Society hasn't matured enough to accept socialism, communism and anarchy (which are supposed to replace each other). Thinking further ahead is good, after all the ideas mentioned above were created 200+ years ago.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-18 7:04
Take the gold mining in South Africa for example, or the oil refineries in Nigeria for example. The (corrupt)states have truly minimal interference there.
The difference between that and this is that your examples are examples of truly corrupt systems that don't consider equity or fairness between employee and management (owners?) in the least. The existing employment market may seem Stygian to you but even it produces an abhor of companies that don't treat their workers fairly or shortchanges them in some way. And not always in the same way as another company in that same "abhor" group. The worker still has the right to look for work he wants or likes to do and refuse work he does not want or like to do.
As for anarchists, I believe they have studied human oppression more than any other group.
That in the same vein may also be a potentially mistaken conclusion. All the veins you mentioned in following would have to follow a system of society betterment where corruption and subjugation has been removed, something that many niches in this generation and generations before mine have tried to bring about without realizing that truly adopting such a system creates the system's own vacuum, one that is easily dwarfed even by a corrupt system that current exists, even a waning one.
Capitalism, I believe, has always had a leg up because it recognizes that human oppression exists, bitterly or not, but, barring sociopolitical ills that can be moved beyond or exchanged for lessened ills, strives to create a system where the oppression continues to decrease, striving to reach a point of balance, rather than assuming one exists. Instead of trying to do away with oppression or transform the concept of human interaction, it tries to foster an environment where these inevitabilities can exist in benign, hobbled forms. Anarchy and socialism as it is today is often sold as a balance if not a form of purity.
>>74
>The difference between that and this is that your examples are examples of truly corrupt systems that don't consider equity or fairness between employee and management (owners?) in the least. The existing employment market may seem Stygian to you but even it produces an abhor of companies that don't treat their workers fairly or shortchanges them in some way. And not always in the same way as another company in that same "abhor" group. The worker still has the right to look for work he wants or likes to do and refuse work he does not want or like to do.
I used examples of extreme corruption to emphasise the mechanism. Most profit driven organizations would use corruption if that will bring them more profit. As corruption is inherent to most if not all systems, the spiralling of corruption and higher profit for a minority at the expense of the majority (there are always more employees than employers). A good example to study the inequality mechanism produced by paid labour would be: If an employee is paid 100, the employer will always make 100+ (otherwise he would fire the employee). After each unit time the employee will get poorer compared to the employer. Considering there are not infinite resources/wealth, this (oversimplified) mechanism has a dead end where the employer has all the money and the employee nothing.
We can use the term wage slavery from the point where the wage doesn't cover the worker's (extended) basic needs and there is a level of unemployment that makes it more worth to compromise with the employers demands than to risk remaining jobless, homeless etc.
From a market perspective, there is no consideration about how this worker will survive. The cold answer is crime or death and crime will always be aimed at the rich. Therefore, in a sense the worker will still get 'work' and 'get paid' but in a much more anti-social and usualy violent way. (The trick for the capitalist is to buy enough protection to turn crime towards those poorer than him and therefore, even if he sacks the employee, he will still pay extra money to 'make up' for the wage he didn't pay.
From a humanist perspective, a viable political system needs to protect its subjects and provide them with stability and prosperity. Therefore it has to come up with a mechanism to pensure that everyone gets a minimum, basic part of the wealth to survive. Take that away and you cause anti-social behaviour.
>Capitalism, I believe, has always had a leg up because it recognizes that human oppression exists, bitterly or not, but, barring sociopolitical ills that can be moved beyond or exchanged for lessened ills, strives to create a system where the oppression continues to decrease, striving to reach a point of balance, rather than assuming one exists.
I believe that, even though the absolute lack of oppresion is animaginable, there is oppression that is produced by the system itself. I see the interaction between the person and the system as biderectional by definition. So that freedom is expressed by the system that will suit itself to human needs and desires the easiest. That's why I orient myself towards social anarchy and zapatizm where individual freedom is seen as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid. Because they supply the policy making mechanisms that allow the individual to decide on policy instead of simply choosing the least bad representative.
So one of my arguements with anarcho-capitalism is that it focuses solely on market, disregards the well being of the people and wants the services that the system currently provides on private hands (including law/judiciary services under friedman).
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-18 11:41
>>74 Anarchy and socialism as it is today is often sold as a balance if not a form of purity.
Depends on what level you look it on. If we're talking about books, then it is served as the solution to the capitalist contradictions and dead ends. If we're talking about the internet and conversations, then I've heard so much shit from socialist/anarchist wannabes (the austerity measusres in greece were taken by a socialist governmant) that if I hadn't read any books I'd be an anti-socialist.
The truth is that we can't be sure about anything. There are no guarantees, only hypotesis' and projections. That's why doupting and being skeptical is so usefull.
>>79
"Wage-Labor and Capital" by Carl Marx (1847) was beginning to trace how the how capitalist economy works, why it was exploitative, and ultimately why it would eventually implode from within.
Twenty years later, "Das Kapital" by Marx again made a more thourough research of capitalism. This is one of the books that must be read (I haven't read it either).
Communism was created in response to Marx's analysis of capitalism and in his document "Critique of the Gotha Programme" he starts to describe the passing phases from capitalism to socialism and then communism.
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programme )
"" The Critique is also notable for elucidating the principle of "To each according to his contribution" as the basis for a "lower phase" of communist society directly following the transition from capitalism, and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the basis for a future "higher phase" of communism society. In describing the lower phase, he says that "the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to it." The Critique of the Gotha Program, published after his death, was one of Marx's last major writings. ""
From there on, during the First International, Bakunin argued with marx about the necessity of the state, resulting to the divide between anarchy and communism. Therefore, anarchy can be thought of as the phase after the higher level of communism.
Under the above timeline, Anarcho-capitalism would be like the long snake in a snakes and ladders board game, taking you back to where you started.