Your Views

Francisck · Dec 11, 2009

How does capitalism use force at all.....

Am I FORCING you to purchase the products / services I sell or produce?

Let me ask you a question just because 51% of people in a small town think that 1 person should give all his wealth to the town and if he refuses he should be thrown in prison, is that not force? democracy can still be forceful.

Dirk · Dec 11, 2009

Francisck said:
I'd like to know what you mean by anti-state socialist.

A socialist that opposes the existence of the state.

How do you play to achieve socialism other than by force?

Socialism isn't something to be "achieved". There is no such thing as utopia. It is an idea, a principle that involves social equality and worker ownership of the means of production.

if you are planning on giving 1 entity the "right" to use force against others aren't they "the state"

I plan on nothing of the sort. I disagee with authority. It threatens liberty and equality.

Francisck said:
How does capitalism use force at all.....

Am I FORCING you to purchase the products / services I sell or produce?

No, but you force your hapless minions to work thanklessly to serve profiteering bourgeois masters.

Let me ask you a question just because 51% of people in a small town think that 1 person should give all his wealth to the town and if he refuses he should be thrown in prison, is that not force? democracy can still be forceful.

I support the abolition of prisons and the punishment system.

I also support individual liberty and free federation. The entire point is that nobody is obliged to do anything. Oh, not to mention my opposition to legislation and authority in general.

myp · Dec 11, 2009

Dirk said:
No, but you force your hapless minions to work thanklessly to serve profiteering bourgeois masters.

Let me just chime in on this point by saying that in a free market, no one forces anyone to do anything including work. In fact, workers would have a lot of power in setting working conditions as it would just be driven by supply and demand. If a worker is willing to work for very little and for very long hours, then, even if you don't like it, he should be allowed to do so. Most people probably wouldn't want to work like that though, so their demands would be higher and in the end an equilibrium would be reached between what the companies are willing to give and the working conditions people work in. Also, there is always the opportunity to quit and go somewhere else or even open up one's own business if one is unhappy. There is no force involved- simply free choice and freedom.

Dirk · Dec 11, 2009

myp said:
Let me just chime in on this point by saying that in a free market, no one forces anyone to do anything including work.

They work, they do as they're told or they're fired. Simple as. This is the economic basis of their individual livelihoods, we talk about here.

In fact, workers would have a lot of power in setting working conditions as it would just be driven by supply and demand. If a worker is willing to work for very little and for very long hours, then, even if you don't like it, he should be allowed to do so.

The problem then is that if a few workers are willing to work for peanuts, they undercut other workers with families to feed, medical requirements or even to support a lifestyle with some opportunity.

Most people probably wouldn't want to work like that though, so their demands would be higher and in the end an equilibrium would be reached between what the companies are willing to give and the working conditions people work in.

Business is a hierarchy. It is also a tyranny. Orders go down, not up. As in fascism. Workers have little say in the matter.

This is why trade unions exist. For workers to organise.

Also, there is always the opportunity to quit and go somewhere else or even open up one's own business if one is unhappy. There is no force involved- simply free choice and freedom.

Nice in theory, often impractical.

Also, i'm sure you haven't forgotten that capitalism requires a pool of potential labour. By which i mean unemployed people.

myp · Dec 12, 2009

People who work for "peanuts" could take your job, but how many of those people do you think there are and once the average worker demands more, how many people will still want "peanuts"? You are assuming that there are tons of people out there who will just work for small amounts and be treated harshly and be fine with it. I, on the other hand, believe that most people would be willing to fight for fair conditions, especially in the day and age of information we currently live in.

As for your belief that the workforce would be too fluid/temporary:
Not necessarily- training costs do play a part in this and most of the time older workers are more productive. Once again this too relies on cost-benefit ratios and economics.

Dirk said:
Also, i'm sure you haven't forgotten that capitalism requires a pool of potential labour. By which i mean unemployed people.

How do you figure? If the demand for labor is there, people will be hired. There is no need for unemployment.

Dirk · Dec 12, 2009

myp said:
People who work for "peanuts" could take your job, but how many of those people do you think there are and once the average worker demands more, how many people will still want "peanuts"? You are assuming that there are tons of people out there who will just work for small amounts and be treated harshly and be fine with it. I, on the other hand, believe that most people would be willing to fight for fair conditions, especially in the day and age of information we currently live in.

I imagine so. At least, i should hope so.

The problem is, my friend, we live in a world of individuals. Some workers will be able to work for a lot less than others. Often for the reasons i mentioned and others i didn't. So for one person, it'll be a decent wage, and for others, it'll be devastating. We're not all the same (thank goodness).

Frankly, i'd like to see the end of the wage system.

As for your belief that the workforce would be too fluid/temporary:
Not necessarily- training costs do play a part in this and most of the time older workers are more productive. Once again this too relies on cost-benefit ratios and economics.

I think for some industries, you're right, certainly. But in others, i can see it being the case that a good portion of the workforce would be temporary. As you subtly say, whatever will get the most profit.

How do you figure? If the demand for labor is there, people will be hired. There is no need for unemployment.

If workers rebel, a business would need a pool of readily available labour to pull from. Either to hire as replacements, or as scabs. And wouldn't it be convenient if they were desperate for a little spending money? Wait a minute, unemployed people! They might even work for less! Then the bosses can pocket even more of the profit!

Also, i would hope you're not too enamoured with free market theory that you don't realise it's more convenient for the bosses that workers compete when selling their labour, rather than businesses competing in offering labour?

They're people, not products.

myp · Dec 12, 2009

Dirk said:
I imagine so. At least, i should hope so.

The problem is, my friend, we live in a world of individuals. Some workers will be able to work for a lot less than others. Often for the reasons i mentioned and others i didn't. So for one person, it'll be a decent wage, and for others, it'll be devastating. We're not all the same (thank goodness).

Frankly, i'd like to see the end of the wage system.

Businesses would still hire workers up to the level where each addition is more productive. Even if a few workers are working for peanuts, businesses are likely not to meet their max productivity and would still look to hire more. This is where those who demand more than the peanut guys (but probably less than those who demand even more) get hired.

Dirk said:
I think for some industries, you're right, certainly. But in others, i can see it being the case that a good portion of the workforce would be temporary. As you subtly say, whatever will get the most profit.

If it really becomes that much of a problem, than the workers in more fluid labor markets could simply demand contracts that disallow layoffs without cause. Also, unions are legal under a free market system- they simply wouldn't be favored by any government or "higher authority" power.

Dirk said:
If workers rebel, a business would need a pool of readily available labour to pull from. Either to hire as replacements, or as scabs. And wouldn't it be convenient if they were desperate for a little spending money? Wait a minute, unemployed people! They might even work for less! Then the bosses can pocket even more of the profit!

If they are willing to work, then what's wrong? The system is driven by consent, not force. Again, I think the biggest underlying belief in your argument is that you think people won't stand up for themselves. Maybe when they have been put in a shell by the state for so long they might not, but eventually people will stand up for what they believe in.

Dirk said:
Also, i would hope you're not too enamoured with free market theory that you don't realise it's more convenient for the bosses that workers compete when selling their labour, rather than businesses competing in offering labour?

I can turn that right around and say I hope you can see that the workers could simply refuse to work and then businesses would have to compete for their labor. Look at markets where there is a labor shortage and this becomes apparent. Again, it is all supply and demand, which at the end of the day is driven by consent and free will, not force or restrictions.

Sure people would compete whether it is on the business side in a labor shortage or on the worker side in a labor surplus, but competition is a part of life and a part of human nature. There is nothing wrong with it- it is Darwinism and it is hard coded into all of us. Without competition, humanity (or any species for that matter) would cease to exist.

el canadiano · Dec 12, 2009

Yesterday, I realized how conservative I really was, after going to a school dance.

Anyways, I'm pretty much a centrist. I do not take democracy for granted, and I also don't believe in loyalism. I believe you should be open-minded when picking your vote.

Dirk · Dec 13, 2009

myp said:
Without competition, humanity (or any species for that matter) would cease to exist.

:giggle:

Cooperation and free federation between individuals is a far better basis for civilised society.

myp · Dec 13, 2009

Dirk said:
:giggle:

Cooperation and free federation between individuals is a far better basis for civilised society.

While cooperation is fine, in the end it usually only happen either through coercion by a third party such as government or if both beings believe it benefits them. The only time when it might happen without benefit is in philanthropy, but it can be argued that even then the donor receives something.

There are limited resources on Earth. Without competition we would not be able to survive. Even if we have your sort of anarchism in the world, there will still be competition whether or not you like it because even if people have an equal share of resources, some resources will always be of better quality than others (not to mention we will probably never get to an equal share of resources anyway, with or without the state, it is virtually impossible to achieve.)

Dirk · Dec 15, 2009

myp said:
While cooperation is fine, in the end it usually only happen either through coercion by a third party such as government

Not so. It happens in worker-managed cooperatives all around the world.

if both beings believe it benefits them.

Well, the point is it does. Working together is far more productive than outdoing one another.

The only time when it might happen without benefit is in philanthropy, but it can be argued that even then the donor receives something.

I dislike the idea of people bing dependent on the generosity of others. People want their individual independence.

There are limited resources on Earth. Without competition we would not be able to survive. Even if we have your sort of anarchism in the world, there will still be competition whether or not you like it because even if people have an equal share of resources, some resources will always be of better quality than others (not to mention we will probably never get to an equal share of resources anyway, with or without the state, it is virtually impossible to achieve.)

It's not an equal share of resources we strive for. We merely want liberty and roughly equal opportunity to attain resources. While it's impractical in many individual situations, in natural terms, we can at least remove social barriers, like authority and the class system.

myp · Dec 16, 2009

Dirk said:
Not so. It happens in worker-managed cooperatives all around the world.
...
Well, the point is it does. Working together is far more productive than outdoing one another.

It is arguable as to whether working together is more/less productive as the industrial revolutions and current market growth in Westernized nations is largely due to a relatively capitalist structure.

Either way, if co-ops are more productive or even if the people simply want to do them so they have more power, they can simply make one in a free market- no one is going to stop them. In fact, co-ops do currently exist in many "capitalist" nations including the United States. If co-ops are really that great for people and they really want to do them they can in a free market.

You are saying that all businesses should be co-ops right? But, in that case how will that come to be? It is either through the free will of the people or through coercion- the former which can be done in free markets and the latter which requires coercion. I know you are against state coercion, so how do you see a co-op dominated market coming to be?

Dirk said:
I dislike the idea of people bing dependent on the generosity of others. People want their individual independence.

As do I, but this was simply to counter the argument that the unfortunate will all just starve, etc. And again, free market capitalism values individual independence over any other theory as it is a lack of coercion and collectivism that drives it.

Dirk said:
It's not an equal share of resources we strive for. We merely want liberty and roughly equal opportunity to attain resources. While it's impractical in many individual situations, in natural terms, we can at least remove social barriers, like authority and the class system.

That is a very libertarian argument in political philosophy realms (as opposed to egalitarianism) and I completely agree. Removing regulations and reducing government (or in your preference getting rid of it) means more equal opportunity. But, you can't have it both ways. If the people flock to corporations from free will you have to accept it or you are going against exactly what you said here.

Dirk · Dec 16, 2009

myp said:
You are saying that all businesses should be co-ops right? But, in that case how will that come to be? It is either through the free will of the people or through coercion - the former which can be done in free markets and the latter which requires coercion. I know you are against state coercion, so how do you see a co-op dominated market coming to be?

Well, co-ops would be the best system. The libertarian socialist ideal means workers deposing their bourgeois bosses. The idea is usually to have a system of industrial democracy and worker management.

The problem with free market capitalism is that co-ops will have to exist within it. That phrase can be mistaken. I actually oppose the state part of free market capitalism. I think they should be on a workplace by workplace basis.

You see examples of this in, say, Argentina, where the workers took over their workplace and operated outside the capitalist system of private ownership. Officially, they still were owned by the boss. In practice, it was worker owned and managed.

If you look at examples like Mondragon in Spain or the Co-op in Britain, you can see what i mean. I hope. They are more organisations owned "officially" by their workers. In practice, there is a group of managers in authority. It would be far more direct if it were workplace by workplace and decision-making perhaps by consensus. It's similar to countries. Countries have a state that do things on behalf of the people. There is a much smaller, if any, democratic deficit if things were done community by community.

That is a very libertarian argument in political philosophy realms (as opposed to egalitarianism) and I completely agree. Removing regulations and reducing government (or in your preference getting rid of it) means more equal opportunity.

As you may expect. I am a libertarian.

myp · Dec 16, 2009

Dirk said:
Well, co-ops would be the best system. The libertarian socialist ideal means workers deposing their bourgeois bosses. The idea is usually to have a system of industrial democracy and worker management.

I understand what you are saying, but let me ask you something: what if some workers don't want to be a part of a co-op? What if they prefer the security of working for a corporation that is led by more business-oriented people instead of by a bunch of workers, some who may not have the leadership or business minds to run a successful company?

And before you say no one like that exists- there certainly are many people who'd rather trust say a Harvard-grad CEO than a group of people with different educations, even if one of those people includes themselves.

Dirk said:
The problem with free market capitalism is that co-ops will have to exist within it.

That is the problem with it? That it is open to the style of market you like? Wow, I would describe that as the beauty of capitalism- that it is open to all forms of business so long as there is demand.

Dirk said:
That phrase can be mistaken. I actually oppose the state part of free market capitalism.

By state do you mean a political state or the "Bourgeosis"? Free markets do not require a political state if you meant that.

Dirk said:
You see examples of this in, say, Argentina, where the workers took over their workplace and operated outside the capitalist system of private ownership. Officially, they still were owned by the boss. In practice, it was worker owned and managed.

A co-op does not necessarily have to be officially owned by "the boss." In reality, it just depends on the contractual structure of the entity and could very well be owned by hundreds of people equally.

Dirk said:
If you look at examples like Mondragon in Spain or the Co-op in Britain, you can see what i mean. I hope. They are more organisations owned "officially" by their workers. In practice, there is a group of managers in authority. It would be far more direct if it were workplace by workplace and decision-making perhaps by consensus. It's similar to countries. Countries have a state that do things on behalf of the people. There is a much smaller, if any, democratic deficit if things were done community by community.

Not really sure where you are going with this, but in free markets, you would also have a more local approach to things as microeconomics would really drive the big moves. With smaller government, you would also have more local organizations.

As for worker consensus driving decisions- again that can be accomplished in a free market- the workers just have to make sure they get it into contract. It would be like a board of directors.

Dirk · Dec 17, 2009

myp said:
I understand what you are saying, but let me ask you something: what if some workers don't want to be a part of a co-op? What if they prefer the security of working for a corporation that is led by more business-oriented people instead of by a bunch of workers, some who may not have the leadership or business minds to run a successful company?

Fine. Then they don't have to be a part of that element of the revolution. It's up to the individual. The entire point of anarchism is to remove coercion from the individual. So long as it is entirely voluntary, it is within anarchist tradition.

And before you say no one like that exists- there certainly are many people who'd rather trust say a Harvard-grad CEO than a group of people with different educations, even if one of those people includes themselves.

I'm sure there are... some people... like that.

That is the problem with it? That it is open to the style of market you like? Wow, I would describe that as the beauty of capitalism- that it is open to all forms of business so long as there is demand.

After you read that statement, you found, i'm sure, that i answered that in the next paragraph.

By state do you mean a political state or the "Bourgeosis"? Free markets do not require a political state if you meant that.

The capitalist structure of society requires private property. That can be achieved by voluntary consent or by coercion. It is currently achieved by coercion. Voluntary consent requires that the working individual is happy. That is my main aim - for people to be happy. I'm a working person, so i have a vested interest. That's what turned me toward libertarian socialism.

A co-op does not necessarily have to be officially owned by "the boss." In reality, it just depends on the contractual structure of the entity and could very well be owned by hundreds of people equally.

Indeed. The fact that a boss officially owned it was unrelated to the point i was making. It was the fact that the workers became their on masters, and rejected their absent bourgeois former employers.

Not really sure where you are going with this, but in free markets, you would also have a more local approach to things as microeconomics would really drive the big moves. With smaller government, you would also have more local organizations.

With no Government, society would organise around the community. Presuming on the removal of the bourgeoisie from their ruling positions, the workplaces would become dependent on the community to survive. As such, most, if not all, workers would be residents of that locale. So the community and workplace are the two organising centres of society.

The point i was making, however, was almost entirely unrelated. I merely said that workplace-by-workplace organisation - since workers have a natural right, i believe, to the goods they produce - was a better and more democratic organisation than one based on private property, coercion and hierarchy.

I digress, it seems like i'm sketching utopia again. Other people and other communities have the freedom to organise themselves any way they like.

jfla · Dec 18, 2009

Dirk said:
How would you identify your political views?

Some additional questions:

1. Liberty or Security?

2. Nationalism or Internationalism?

3. Hawk or Dove?

Liberty cannot last long if the people claiming it have no security. Liberty serves no purpose when you are starving or under attack. Neither can liberty be absolute. Liberty can be maximized for all only when it is regulated for all. The last time two individuals claimed unfettered liberty was just before Cain killed Abel.

Nationalist hawk to the extent that I would rather fight my country's enemies in their country on my terms rather than in my county on theirs, and there are certain countries in the world that are my country's natural allies (Great Britain and Israel) and must be defended as such.

jfla · Dec 18, 2009

Dirk said:
Conservatism:
*A few dodgy right-wing views
*State Capitalism
*Nationalism

What do you mean by state capitalism? That sounds more like National Socialist Germany or the People's Republic of China.

Dirk · Dec 18, 2009

jfla said:
What do you mean by state capitalism? That sounds more like National Socialist Germany or the People's Republic of China.

State capitalism is intervention in the economy on the side of business. Trademarks often include regressive tax, fiscal support for failing businesses, and corporate welfare.

An extreme form of state capitalism was implemented in the Soviet Union. And you are quite right to cite Nazi Germany and the PRC (though until the '60s/'70s, it was mostly an agrarian pre-industrial base).

myp · Dec 18, 2009

Dirk said:
Fine. Then they don't have to be a part of that element of the revolution. It's up to the individual. The entire point of anarchism is to remove coercion from the individual. So long as it is entirely voluntary, it is within anarchist tradition.

Ok, so since you agree that voluntariness is the key, the only real difference we have is in whether or not people would still want to work for corporations. We both want the ability to choose, so if we ever get to the point, we will just see what humans choose- only co-ops or a mixture of co-ops and corporations

Dirk said:
The capitalist structure of society requires private property. That can be achieved by voluntary consent or by coercion. It is currently achieved by coercion. Voluntary consent requires that the working individual is happy. That is my main aim - for people to be happy. I'm a working person, so i have a vested interest. That's what turned me toward libertarian socialism.

Happiness is the utilitarian principle- something that I too believe in. The more we debate, the more I realize we want the same things, we just have different ideas on how to achieve it.

As for private property- how does the current system achieve it through coercion?

Dirk said:
It was the fact that the workers became their on masters, and rejected their absent bourgeois former employers.

And if that is what workers realized is optimal for them, that is what they would do in the free market. Just because some did it, does not mean everyone would- really the same point we just circled above.

Dirk said:
With no Government, society would organise around the community. Presuming on the removal of the bourgeoisie from their ruling positions, the workplaces would become dependent on the community to survive. As such, most, if not all, workers would be residents of that locale. So the community and workplace are the two organising centres of society.

And in a free market, the demand of the people would drive what happens in the community. If they want to remove the bourgeoisie and all own co-ops, so be it. It is the will of the people that guides what happens.

Dirk said:
The point i was making, however, was almost entirely unrelated. I merely said that workplace-by-workplace organisation - since workers have a natural right, i believe, to the goods they produce - was a better and more democratic organisation than one based on private property, coercion and hierarchy.

Free market capitalism is different than the crony capitalism we witness today. Again, the will of the people would be what happens. I do not believe the workers necessarily have a direct right to what they produce if they are getting compensated in other means such as money because that is just like buying what they produce for the money. But again, if they all wanted to own part of the products they made, they could start co-ops or their own corporations.

I think we both want very similar things, we just have different ideas on how to get there. I also think our main disagreement (at least on this particular topic) is on whether or not capitalism is coercion, with me believing its not and you believing it is. But, in the end anarchy is a 100% free market (which, on a side note, I am not for, since I believe in the harm principle- but that's another topic too

), so I think we are just getting lost in monikers here.

Dirk · Dec 18, 2009

myp said:
I think we both want very similar things, we just have different ideas on how to get there. I also think our main disagreement (at least on this particular topic) is on whether or not capitalism is coercion, with me believing its not and you believing it is. But, in the end anarchy is a 100% free market (which, on a side note, I am not for, since I believe in the harm principle- but that's another topic too ), so I think we are just getting lost in monikers here.

I think you're right. I keep coming back to the opinion that we have similar, if not equivalent, aims with different perspectives and emphases. Oh, and of course that i'm a little more extreme, since i believe any government is bad government.

I disagree with all authority - that is why i oppose bosses and a hierarchical structure in business (which is a literally fascist principle). I oppose the same in society in general (so, no state).

I'm a passionate libertarian. From my perspective, that extends to the workplace. I believe in the individual, and i support cooperation and free federation between individuals to achieve a common goal.

Finally, i oppose ownership of land. I agree with Rousseau that the fruits of the Earth belong to everyone, and the Earth itself belongs to no-one. Though Rousseau was a bit of a dippo - social contract indeed! Ha! But i believe this principle to be the key to attaining relative equality and fairness. I feel that every individual has an inherent natural right to keep what they produced. For example, if someone builds a house, it is theirs to sell.

Your Views

What political views do you hold?

Centrism

Liberal

Conservative

Left Libertarian

Right Libertarian

Authoritarian Left

Authoritarian Right

Centre-Left

Centre-Right

Other/Abstain

Francisck

Dirk

myp

Dirk

myp

Dirk

myp

el canadiano

Dirk

myp

Dirk

myp

Dirk

myp

Dirk

jfla

jfla

Dirk

myp

Dirk

Similar threads