Capitalism "exposed" as parasitical !

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?

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 ?

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...

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.

Will there be any interventions by the state on the open market?

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?

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.

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

(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.

-Jon

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.