To say that item 'A' is 'private property' without making clear what is the origin of item 'A' makes no sense to me. If private property merely means control, then thieves 'own' what they steal ?
That's precisely my criticism of the vague and ethically neutral definitions being used in this thread. By themselves, they provide no insight into the question of justice in aquisition/appropriation. Used in a purely utilitarian sense, they can be construed to defend whatever anyone or the state calls "private property". It could signify a thief, the mafia, fuedal arrangements, government contracted buisiness ventures or the government itself for all one knows. Virtually anything.
Saying capitalism is parasitic because of the state is like saying standing water is a parasite because of malaria. Isn't it?
Sure, water isn't always good and capital ownership isn't always good. But why say either are bad? It makes no sense to me. We need water and capital. The third world doesn't know about free markets and healthy agriculture (thanks to Rachel Carson). But that is simply ignorance. It says nothing about who or what is a parasite.
Niccolò: Please, just answer the question. Will there be any interventions by the state on the open market?
Please, just answer the question.
Will there be any interventions by the state on the open market?
Well, if you consider the State to being equal to capitalism then there would be no intervention by the State on your open market.
But how should I know, this is your imaginary construct that I'm trying to determine how would work in actual practice.
For all I know these worker collectives are a fungible replacement to the State and you have just redefined a term to suit your agenda again.
Why don't you answer the question, without private ownership of the means of production how could entrepreneurial activity occur?
Oh, and BP, there's an actual point? I have already pointed out, quite eloquently I might add, that capitalism != free market and that capitalism != corporatism.
And then it justs goes round and round about the 'majority opinion' on the meanings of this term and the pragmatic need to abandon it because Marx did or didn't understand the difference between the free market and mercantilism or some such silliness.
Yes, 'capitalism' doesn't in any way imply how the 'capital' was acquired and is an imprecise term when viewed through this determinate factor. Perhaps they should start calling themselves the anarco-not-acquired-through-theft-coercion-or-fraud -private-owners-of-the-capital-necessary -to-produce-goods-and-services-free-marketeers?
Did I miss any of your objections?
Now that I think about it socialism doesn't differentiate between moral and immoral property acquisition by the 'people' either. I guess you can infer that common ownership doesn't deprive the former private owner of exclusive control over the property he technically still owns in common with the rest of the society.
Juan:Niccolo, My point is that marx was arguing 'theoretically' against libertarianism. Trying to deny that, is a bit naive in my opinion. If you think that praising marx will help you convert left-leaning people to libertarianism, fine. But the claim that marx was only criticizing mercantilism (which you say he called 'capitalism'), is false. BrainPolice: Is it just me, or is the point being deliberately missed over and over again? Well, with respect to classifying monarchy as a system based on 'private property', I think that your criticism is being missed... To say that item 'A' is 'private property' without making clear what is the origin of item 'A' makes no sense to me. If private property merely means control, then thieves 'own' what they steal ?
BrainPolice: Is it just me, or is the point being deliberately missed over and over again?
What? Do you even know who Marx was or what his philosophy entailed? Marx was what you call a historical materialist - meaning that he only paid attention to society as was and not the theoretical backgrounds or opinions that may accompany or contrast against it. If Marx called his society capitalist, then he was talking about his society, period. There is no other quote that will contradict the way the man thought. After all, it doesn't exactly matter what the man argued if this point is taken into consideration. As he only regarded societies in orders from primitive, to feudal, to capitalist with whatever that society being, being the definition of the emblem-word for that society.
Besides, the quote you brought up merely talked about what Marx perceived to be a defense of wages, not his theoretical current as a whole.
Also, yes, Marx was criticizing capitalism - though for the wrong reasons - and since he coined the term, I'll take his word for what it means over yours...
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Anonymous Coward:
No. You don't get it. I don't give a *** about what your objections are to the answer I will hear.
Answer the Goddamn question with a yes or no.
Anonymous Coward:Why don't you answer the question, without private ownership of the means of production how could entrepreneurial activity occur?
Entrepreneurial activity could not occur.
But no where was it said that private ownership of the means of production would not occur; indeed, the opposite was implied that all of the means of production - including labour - would be owned in absolute freedom on the market.
P.S. I specifically separated this question to show you how to answer a question.
Niccolo: What? Do you even know who Marx was or what his philosophy entailed?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: Niccolo: What? Do you even know who Marx was or what his philosophy entailed? Of course I know. His philosophy 'entailed' total slavery and he realized that libertarians were his worst enemies ? Do you deny such a basic fact ??
No. I don't think you know what it entails.
But to prove me wrong, why don't you tell me exactly what dialectical materialism is?
Niccolò: Answer the Goddamn question with a yes or no. Will there be any interventions by the state on the open market?
Ok, with a qualifier.
On a free market, no.
But I'm not saying that open market == free market so we don't have to go through the whole word definition song and dance again. Nor am I saying that the State is the only one that can intervene in the consensual activities of two market actors.
You don't see the absurdity of having the 'state' qualifier in a discussion between two people who would probably never try to justify the actions of 'the state'?
How you can have a free market without private property is beyond me though.
Now, you answer my Goddamn question.
How can you have entrepreneurship without the private ownership of the means of production?
Then we can get to the other questions about how wages would work under collective ownership.
Niccolo: No. I don't think you know what it entails.
Anonymous Coward: no.
no.
Then yes, you can sell your labour on the market for whatever you and the person contracting your labour believe it is worth, however, I do not see the wage system as an entirely efficient mode of production, so I assume it will go away with the introduction of a free market in favor of private contracting with much more dynamic earnings. Though of course, nostalgics will still want the novelty of getting lower payments by wage as opposed to higher payments by contrat.
Your question was already answered before you could ask me specifically to do it. You should read everything.
Juan:Out of curiosity...Do you consider yourself a marxist ? Anyways, I'm sure you are familiar with this ?...
No, I do not consider myself a Marxist. Though I find it rather interesting that you would, instead of just saying, "no, I don't understand," pass the question off with a quote from Bakunin.
Juan: It is interesting how even some left wing anarchists recognize the basic identity between marxism and conservatism...an idea which seems to be lost on some other people.
I happen to agree with Bakunin on a good portion of what he says. After all, I consider myself and others like me to be of the leftist of all leftists.
They own the capitalized value of all tax receipts and whatever holdings they may have.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
(unless you consider monarchies, fascisms, chattel slaveries and so on to be free societies and practises that is, and I certainly don't and would that hope you don't either).
I don't. Like I said, I use the technical definition I offered earlier. Even in the case of very minimal monarchies, the provision of law and order is still not that of a free market, but one where the consumer is compelled to consume and cannot seek alternatives.
Niccolò:Then yes, you can sell your labour on the market for whatever you and the person contracting your labour believe it is worth, however, I do not see the wage system as an entirely efficient mode of production, so I assume it will go away with the introduction of a free market in favor of private contracting with much more dynamic earnings. Though of course, nostalgics will still want the novelty of getting lower payments by wage as opposed to higher payments by contrat.
Ah, yes, I see now.
Where's the slavery bit come in again?
Niccolo: No, I do not consider myself a Marxist. Though I find it rather interesting that you would
instead of just saying, "no, I don't understand," pass the question off with a quote from Bakunin.
Niccolò:As he only regarded societies in orders from primitive, to feudal, to capitalist with whatever that society being, being the definition of the emblem-word for that society.
Niccolò:No, Marx was conflating laissez-faire with the state of the economy in the 19th century. Much like many other state-socialists conflate laissez-faire with the state of the economy in the 21st century.
So what you're saying here is Marx coined the "emblem-word" capitalism to refer to laissez-faire and he considered laissez-faire to mean not the 'free market' but the state of the system in the 19th century?
Woo Hoo, case closed...now I can head off to the bar and drink in celebration.
One question though, as an alledged man of learning why would he classify societies according to his own pejorative terms instead of meaning them as value neutral labels?
Talk about a presupposition fallacy...no wonder you're so fond of yes or no questions.
*boinks the corporate bolsheviks* *squirt squirt squirt*
*boinks the right-wing marxists* *squirt squirt squirt*
Where to start????
The article is wrong in its conception. Capitalism is not parasitic, the state is. There is no company or individual or group of individuals supplying a good who can sustain perpetual economic profits (Or accounting profits for that matter) without the state. In the USA, Rockefeller had controlled up to 98% of the petrol market and had that eaten away by competitors until he owned less than 60% at the breakup of Standard Oil. AT&T, IBM and now Microsoft managed to live on their government provided monopolies called copyrights and patents(AT&T lived on blatant government privilege). Without these copyrights and patents they would have fallen in market share and power and profitability long before they did.
The state uses violence to steal wealth from the owners of that wealth and uses it to enact its twin towers of wealth destruction: Warfare and Welfare. Without violence the state would cease to exist but businesses of some sort manage to prosper. In every semi-capitalistic society I have ever seen, so called capitalists, I use the more correct term fascists, use the violence of the state to enact barriers to prevent competitors from entering their markets.
As for stock holders and/or non-participating owners. This again is a creating of the state. The corporation is simply a way for investors pool money where they are protected from the full liability of the investments they own. For example, the stock holders of Dow-Corning could only be liable for their amount of their investment not the full liability of the *** implants. Similarly, investors of airlines are only liable for the amount they invested and not the amount the airline loaned. Without this protection the corporation may not cease to exist, but it will change dramatically. There are also asinine things like corporate income taxes, capital gains taxes and dividend taxes that force corporations to behave the way they do, these have dramatic effects on the amount of debt corporations hold and how they distribute their earnings to share holders. The other area the parasitic state affects this is through asinine regulations like insider trading laws, anti-trust, environmental regulations, etc.
As for stock holders not wanting long term gains and only being interested in short term gains: This is a gross generalization. There are lots of investors interested in the long term, the most famous is Warren Buffet. On of lessor notoriety is myself. In fact I have both short term investments and long term investments. Again, taxes imposed by the parasitic state and regulations affect this as well.
This is simply not true, Billot. Copyrights are a fundamental "must" in a fully-functioning Capitalistic society. Microsoft does not use the state to prevent competition, but rather they own a product who is, currently, superior to the rest.
There is a different between "parasitical" state interference, like government monopolies (used in some countries, especially in the form of government-owned public utilities, telecommunications and such), high taxes, tarrifs, duties and the like, between "good" state interference, like copyright protection, law enforcement authorities and monetary authorities.
Ofcourse, to maintain "good" state interference, like law enforcement authorities, there is need in taxes and the like, which can be considered a "necessary evil". Some would consider other things, for example enviromental regulations (ofcourse, not extremely tight ineffective regulations, but rather something logical), as "necessary evil".
Altough you can note, however, that not only state regulations, but the lack of thereof, can cause monopolies. An example I could think about right now is trade unions. Trade unions are the rare case of a non-state caused market disorder, as they form a cartel on labour. There were private cartels, but usually they existed with the support of the government, or in past decades where protectionism was considered the best method. If the state dosen't forbid the trade union existence, then there will be a market disorder. Some also consider the trade unions as a "necessary evil".
- Ariel L. David
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap