Pete Eyre

kamui · December 6, 2010, 10:09pm

historically, societies without state have existed.
they were neither socialist nor capitalist.
they were primitive and tribal.

ie : they were extremely small and traditionnal.

the main problem is not the economic system. it’s the size of the political unit and its “organicity”.

for this very reason, extreme federalists and radical localists, who are more often labeled as conservatives, are closer to anarchy than most anarchists or libertarians.

there is more anarchy in an Amish village or in Mea Shearim than in the most left-winged european university.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 6, 2010, 10:14pm

[quote]florelius wrote:
The upperclass is the people who owns the means of production. Throug this possesion they have more than average control over society and they are more than average wealthy ( capitalist/burgeois ). The lower classes are the people who dont own any means of production and therefor must sell theire labor to make ends meet ( proletariat ).
[/quote]
Everyone owns at least one means of production so long as they are free to associate with employers in the market place.

In a capitalist society it is even possible for the poor to become part owners of particular means of production through stock ownership.

In a capitalist society no one person or small group of persons can own all the means of production. However, under a socialist framework it is the political class that “own” everything.

So long as every one is free to work to their best abilities the means of production will exchange hands to its best use in the market. I don’t think the solution to society’s problems will be solved by destroying property rights.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 6, 2010, 10:26pm

[quote]kamui wrote:
historically, societies without state have existed.
they were neither socialist nor capitalist.
they were primitive and tribal.

ie : they were extremely small and traditionnal.

the main problem is not the economic system. it’s the size of the political unit and its “organicity”.

for this very reason, extreme federalists and radical localists, who are more often labeled as conservatives, are closer to anarchy than most anarchists or libertarians.

there is more anarchy in an Amish village or in Mea Shearim than in the most left-winged european university.
[/quote]

I think the distinction of capitalism versus socialism with regard to primitive society is unnecessary for your argument. Socialism only means anything if there is a state to direct the use of property. Capitalism only serves as a distinction to socialism for the existence of property rights.

To the extent that primitive societies could direct their own use of labor it does not matter what it is called. What matters is that no monopoly of authority existed to tell them what to hunt or sow, for example.

florelius · December 6, 2010, 10:29pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The upperclass is the people who owns the means of production. Throug this possesion they have more than average control over society and they are more than average wealthy ( capitalist/burgeois ). The lower classes are the people who dont own any means of production and therefor must sell theire labor to make ends meet ( proletariat ).
[/quote]
Everyone owns at least one means of production so long as they are free to associate with employers in the market place.

In a capitalist society it is even possible for the poor to become part owners of particular means of production through stock ownership.

In a capitalist society no one person or small group of persons can own all the means of production. However, under a socialist framework it is the political class that “own” everything.

So long as every one is free to work to their best abilities the means of production will exchange hands to its best use in the market. I don’t think the solution to society’s problems will be solved by destroying property rights.[/quote]

In the real world we live in, most material property is on the hands of the few. This puts them in a extreme powerfull position. an example where if me, you, kamui and ten soldiers where stranded on a island. I where able to make better friends with the soldiers than you guys where. One day I claimed the property rights of the all the fruits on the island( let say there where not much to eat except fruit ). You and kamui protested offcourse, but then the soldiers come to my aid. The soldiers did make a treath of torture if you did not respect my property rights of the fruits and that you had to pay me in services to have access to the fruits of the island. Is this right? This is have the capitalist society works. The soldiers are the state, I am the capitalists and you are the workers.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 6, 2010, 10:53pm

[quote]florelius wrote:
In the real world we live in, most material property is on the hands of the few. This puts them in a extreme powerfull position.[/quote]

If you look at the nation state as an owner then you are correct.

But really what you are suggesting is impossible and even if it were it does not matter. So long as the properties’ uses are given to the most valued ends, as directed by the market, then wealth will be exchanged in the fairest manner possible.

florelius · December 6, 2010, 11:01pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
In the real world we live in, most material property is on the hands of the few. This puts them in a extreme powerfull position.[/quote]

If you look at the nation state as an owner then you are correct.

But really what you are suggesting is impossible and even if it were it does not matter. So long as the properties’ uses are given to the most valued ends, as directed by the market, then wealth will be exchanged in the fairest manner possible.[/quote]

no it can be fairest possible because they who produce or give service dont own the product of theire labor, a parasit class does.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 6, 2010, 11:08pm

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
In the real world we live in, most material property is on the hands of the few. This puts them in a extreme powerfull position.[/quote]

If you look at the nation state as an owner then you are correct.

But really what you are suggesting is impossible and even if it were it does not matter. So long as the properties’ uses are given to the most valued ends, as directed by the market, then wealth will be exchanged in the fairest manner possible.[/quote]

no it can be fairest possible because they who produce or give service dont own the product of theire labor, a parasit class does. [/quote]

Everyone except politicians and bureaucrats work. Which parasites are you referring to?

florelius · December 6, 2010, 11:22pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
In the real world we live in, most material property is on the hands of the few. This puts them in a extreme powerfull position.[/quote]

If you look at the nation state as an owner then you are correct.

But really what you are suggesting is impossible and even if it were it does not matter. So long as the properties’ uses are given to the most valued ends, as directed by the market, then wealth will be exchanged in the fairest manner possible.[/quote]

no it can be fairest possible because they who produce or give service dont own the product of theire labor, a parasit class does. [/quote]

Everyone except politicians and bureaucrats work. Which parasites are you referring to?[/quote]

you know whom I talk about, the capitalists offcourse.

DoubleDuce · December 6, 2010, 11:23pm

The only thing more relative than left vs right is the notion of for change vs against change. By that standard US communists and “tea-partiers” are both progressives, because they both want to change the current state (pun intended) of things. Relative terms like this are useless rhetoric.

The better way to categorize is authoritarian vs libertarian. The problem with that characterization is that most parties and people (at least here in the US) are conflicting polar opposites between social and fiscal issues. I find most people to by hypocritical because of this. Everyone here wants government intervention and wants the government to stay out of their business depending on the specific issue at hand.

Dems want government interference in fiscal policy but miraculously think that it doesn’t have the right to step into social issues. Reps want the government out of their wallet and businesses (though much less so until very recently), but miraculously think it has a right to dictate social issues.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 6, 2010, 11:46pm

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
no it can be fairest possible because they who produce or give service dont own the product of theire labor, a parasit class does. [/quote]

Everyone except politicians and bureaucrats work. Which parasites are you referring to?[/quote]

you know whom I talk about, the capitalists offcourse.[/quote]

But capitalists employ tons of capital in the pursuit of future wealth. How is that parasitism given the amount of work and reinvestment it takes to accomplish?

Brother_Chris · December 6, 2010, 11:47pm

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Go far enough back in time and modern-day “left” and “right” apply less. Some people who called themselves “socialists” (e.g. Tucker) were actually strongly against a planned economy and didn’t like the USSR when it appeared. Emma Goldman was pretty hard on the progressives of her day (and rightly so, in my opinion.)[/quote]

Actually, Left and Right referred to which side of the 18th century French court people sat on. Napoleon swept that away, so that by 1812 the terms had a distinctly archaic ring.

By the later 19th century, using the term right wing conjured up the image of a very geriatric noble tottering along in knee breeches and being genuinely confused that people didn’t seem to want kings anymore. This is when the terms Left and Right in their modern sense started to be used – long after they ceased to apply to anyone, and became ways to dismiss other groups. (Closest thing we might have in the US is some old guy tooling along in a zoot suit who is completely out of touch and wonders when things like the Civil Rights movement happened.)

Finally – and this is a major peeve of mine – the terms were used mostly in Europe but were imported to the US where they had even less applicability. Left and Right are almost utterly meaningless anymore, but probably the greatest single political coup in recent memory has been having the Democrats use them and actually convince the Republicans they are “right wing”. Nope. Republicans are classical liberals and when I was living in Europe I had to almost consistently explain this to everyone. Very annoying it was too.

– jj[/quote]

weird you had to explain to europeans that the republicans are liberalists. When I hear conservative I hear liberalist. When an american says liberal a european says socialliberalist. to sum up this rant: european rightwing consist of liberalist and conservativist partys, the difference between them are small.

about the left and right wing paradigm: It started out describing royalists and aristocracy( right ) and rebublicans and commoners ( left ), but since the republicans( not to mistaken with the party today ) did win and altered the political system and the industrial revolution altered the economical system, the labels lost theire original meening. When the new class paradigm of proletarians vs capitalists replaced the old of aristocray vs commoners, the left and right got new meaning. the right today describes those who want to conserve the capitalist system. the left describes those who want to change it. Thats why the right also can be described as conservative and the left can be described as progressive or radical. The democratic party in us is not a leftwing party, they are rightwing. The same can be said about the norwegian labour party. a party is left or rightwing based on have it acts an which class it support.
[/quote]

So, out of the two parties in America, Republicans are progressives…[/quote]

no they are conservatives because they want to preserv the establishment and they dont act like a interrest party for the lowerclasses. This is the same for the democratic pary. The closest you get to a progressive party with some popularity in america are ralph naders green party. In norway its the red electorial alliance. [/quote]

But they donate more money to the lower classes and poor.[/quote]

charity is a act of good, but it doesnt solve the problem.

A true progressive wants to free the lowerclasses from theire class. The only true progressive goal is to abolish the classstate, any other action just serves as to buy off the proletariat so they dont revolt. So my point is that welfarecapitalism( I guess that is a good term for the system in western europa and Usa ) is conservative in nature, becuase it exist to conserve the power of the capitalist class. To back this up with some real world evidence, we can look at the weimar republic. Bismarck buildt the first modern welfare state and the reason was to prevent a proletarian revolt.

ps. If the lower classes want change they cant except someone to to it forethem, they must do it themself. So a true leftwing party would be representet by the workingclass themself.[/quote]

That’s what Libertarians want a classless nonstate.[/quote]

just to clarify, are you saying that libertarians and anarchocapitalists are the same?
and do you say you want a society where your labour are your rightfully property aka no explotation of labor by capital? [/quote]

anarchocaps are libsertarians, but not all libertarians are anarchocaps.

What do you mean by exploitation of labor by capital?
[/quote]

explotation of labor by capital is a marxist term. It means that everything the worker produce in terms of value in money that is above his pay is taken from him by the capitalist. The capitalist is able to do this because the states understanding of property grants him that and if the worker trys to claim what he have produced, the state will stop him with guns if necessary.
you might say that he agreed on this terms in the first place, but the problem for the workers as a collective is that they dont posses any material value and that a small group of people does and theire property are protected by the state. The only solution to this is if the workers rebel and abolish the state and the paradigm of the capitalist unerstanding of property. Whant happens next have argued between all sorts of socialists since bakunin and marx had theire argue that splitted the first international.

[/quote]

Well, if we’re going to use strange perspectives, I’ll use a strange perspective. The laborer is renting the capitalist equipment and pays him in product and profit from selling that product for the laborer. The laborer gets to keep a small part of the profit that he earns, as he doesn’t own the capital, or the input that produces the output product.

And don’t tell me that laborer’s don’t possess material value, they have their time and whatever they own. I worked on a construction crew as a private contractor. I get paid for the use of my truck, and as well use for anything else that is non-standard.

The man that introduced me to company owns a blade (basically a big straight razor that moves dirt) himself and gets paid $45,000 more than the other workers because of the blade.

As well, when I started my “landscaping” company in high school I “hired” a few people to help me. They brought their own lawn mowers (well their dad’s) and other landscaping tools, and I paid them high wages because I didn’t have to cover the cost of the equipment.

Brother_Chris · December 6, 2010, 11:49pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The upperclass is the people who owns the means of production. Throug this possesion they have more than average control over society and they are more than average wealthy ( capitalist/burgeois ). The lower classes are the people who dont own any means of production and therefor must sell theire labor to make ends meet ( proletariat ).
[/quote]
Everyone owns at least one means of production so long as they are free to associate with employers in the market place.

In a capitalist society it is even possible for the poor to become part owners of particular means of production through stock ownership.

In a capitalist society no one person or small group of persons can own all the means of production. However, under a socialist framework it is the political class that “own” everything.

So long as every one is free to work to their best abilities the means of production will exchange hands to its best use in the market. I don’t think the solution to society’s problems will be solved by destroying property rights.[/quote]

Sure a small group of persons can own all the means to production, they are called owners…I crack myself up.

Brother_Chris · December 6, 2010, 11:53pm

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
In the real world we live in, most material property is on the hands of the few. This puts them in a extreme powerfull position.[/quote]

If you look at the nation state as an owner then you are correct.

But really what you are suggesting is impossible and even if it were it does not matter. So long as the properties’ uses are given to the most valued ends, as directed by the market, then wealth will be exchanged in the fairest manner possible.[/quote]

no it can be fairest possible because they who produce or give service dont own the product of theire labor, a parasit class does. [/quote]

Everyone except politicians and bureaucrats work. Which parasites are you referring to?[/quote]

you know whom I talk about, the capitalists offcourse.[/quote]

In your analogy, that’s not a capitalist, that is the state. That is why you continue to argue, because you disagree with our definitions. If I work and get paid my wages, then buy a truck and start a landscaping company then hire others, how is it that they should be paid my entire profit, when they used my equipment. That is the premium for using my equipment, is that I get the profit.

jj_dude · December 12, 2010, 5:17pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Well, if we’re going to use strange perspectives, I’ll use a strange perspective. The laborer is renting the capitalist equipment and pays him in product and profit from selling that product for the laborer. The laborer gets to keep a small part of the profit that he earns, as he doesn’t own the capital, or the input that produces the output product.

And don’t tell me that laborer’s don’t possess material value, they have their time and whatever they own. I worked on a construction crew as a private contractor. I get paid for the use of my truck, and as well use for anything else that is non-standard.

The man that introduced me to company owns a blade (basically a big straight razor that moves dirt) himself and gets paid $45,000 more than the other workers because of the blade.

As well, when I started my “landscaping” company in high school I “hired” a few people to help me. They brought their own lawn mowers (well their dad’s) and other landscaping tools, and I paid them high wages because I didn’t have to cover the cost of the equipment. [/quote]

Oh dear. You seem to have had a collision with reality. Not to worry, you can pick yourself up and carry on like nothing happened…

Who are the “capitalists?” (I actually refuse to use the word since it is basically meaningless. The Nazis popularized it to refer to Jews and most descriptions of “capitalists” even to this day are just standard Jewish stereotypes – think of Star Trek’s Ferengi in this light, they walked straight out of a Nazi propaganda film. Just pointing out the enormously long half-life of this idea and how natural it has become for everyman.) They provide the organization and expertise to run businesses – something most laborers cannot reasonably do. This is their added value: they can run a business that employs many people and gives more job security than the hand-to-mouth work the employees do otherwise. People that resent having to go find a job are often completely incapable of running their own business in any capacity. For them, the only service any business provides is employment for them and as good little consumers cannot fathom why it is so hard to give them a job and overpay them for it. Running a business successfully actually takes real talent and hard work.

As for inequalities, not just yes, but Hell yes. Look, I work as a research scientist for a living. I’m expensive. If I have a good idea (and I’ve had a few at least) it will still take years of me working out the details before something useful comes of it. Of course, I don’t work alone, so you need an entire group of us. A case study. One person was in the Medieval Studies Department and had a grant of several thousand dollars to help organize an old archive. Her idea was simple: put it online. She came to our group with a proposal for work and was appalled to find that it would take a year and cost nearly 1 millioin to do. (A lot of the cost would be developing newer technologies for retrieving/scanning parchment manuscripts, OCR said manuscripts (need a fleet of paleographers), context sensitive text searches in Latin or Middle High English and other goodies.) This is a very simple example. She had no idea what went into creating a high-end piece of software, but was thinking precisely like a consumer. She would have been our only customer so she would bear the brunt of the cost. If we were making a game, then yes, we could make up the margin on volume (so sell a 10,000 copies at $100 a pop). The level of her scandal – and she was very mad indeed – was a direct measure of her ignorance of basic economics. Yup, she walked right out of the Humanities and it showed.

To support research as well as more mundane new product development requires a great deal of money that is in effect surplus. Likewise with expanding a business (quick, how much money do you need to start a new company? Lots and lots since it won’t make anything for the several months you are gearing up for actual production.) In short, the fact that wealth accumulates unequally allows organizations to invest in improvement. The Marxist Fallacy is simple-minded miscounting: The idea is that the difference between what the price of an item is and what the worker is paid is simple theft on the part of the owner. This does not take into account organizing a distribution system, transporting goods (possibly perishable), safety, product promotion or the efforts of dozens if not hundreds of other indirectly involved individuals. The worker is important, but destroying the middlemen destroys a functioning economy, as the Communists found out the hard way.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

Brother_Chris · December 12, 2010, 7:45pm