Monopolies in a stateless society

I'm a Libertarian myself and I do love the Philosophy of Freedom...but even I know that you cannot just let people run rampant...sadly, we have an animal side and it has a way of popping out unless there is some social structure to keep it in check.

I'd love to believe that corporations would play fair, do the right thing and not poison and pollute the environment just because it is the right thing to do...but we all know...that ain't gonna happen. If a company can save a dollar by dumping toxins in your back yard instead of disposing of them properly...they will.

I would love to believe that one day our evolution will take us to true anarchism in it's purest form...self governance...where we all know what is right and what is wrong and we choose to do right.

We haven't evolved that far yet and I swear...some of our behavior would indicate we are going in the opposite direction...

Ok, so the problem with this is assuming the business market would be the same in an anarcho-capitalist society as it is today. I guarantee you major corporations would fall, because without government most of them cannot stand. It all comes down to a personal checks and balances so to speak. I mean, how often do police actually prevent crime? Their primary job is cleaning up afterwards. However if someone were to break into my home and were met with a shotgun...no burglary, they either leave or take some lead to the chest. Likewise, relying on a government to patrol business is ineffective, however allowing the citizens in a given society to either support or deny their business solves the problem. If your business is not welcome in said community your business willin much the same way leave or die.


To be honest a minarchist state seems more reasonable and far more realistic though.

reply to post by hayek11


Even if you go by your definition of free market nearly everything ANOK said still stands.

reply to post by Merriman Weir

So a political movement driven by the desire to own the means of production and take them out of the hands of a capitalist elite is "lazy"?

Yep it's called theft! But first things first lets address the way you try and label things to skew the the argument. What you call capitalist elite are in reality politically connected corporate fascist/socialist NOT capitalist.

The vast majority of businesses were started from the ground up by individuals who sacrificed their time labor and money to build those businesses and your so called political movement seeks to steal the fruits of those labors from those people by pointing to the elite politically connected socialist/fascists falsely labeling that capitalism and using the force of the state to impose some vague undefined equality which in reality is just theft and redistribution of the spoils.

You claim it is the means of production but you and Anok both ignored my example of Bill Gates who started his business in his garage. Where was the means of production when he started? I am sure you classify him as some elite capitalist but he had no more access to the means of production then you do right now. The vast majority of businesses you commies would lump in with the label elitist were started in the same manner.

Why don't you commies start this glorious business model you claim is better and show us how its done? People have started multi million dollar businesses out of their homes and garages to this day whats your excuse? It certainly is not a lack of means of production as Bill Gates and thousands of others have proven.

It is only a few at the top who use government force to unfairly monopolize markets and eliminate their competition. Your movement only seeks to be in their place and have the power they have through the state monopoly on force it has nothing to do with helping the people as you claim.

It's the same ole song and dance with a new dress and different color lipstick made by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and the like... Power to the people, worker owned means of production, new freedom... Blah blah...

reply to post by ANOK

There is no more of a lazy thief than a capitalist who earns their living from the labour of others.

Again with the false labels game...Sigh. Capitalist earn their living by their own labors. It is the socialists who seek to earn their living by the labors of others for they believe that if someone works harder and smarter then they do he does not deserve anymore compensation then they do. And the state must steal it from him and redistribute it equally to those who did not earn it.

Why did you ignore my example of Bill Gates? Is he not an evil capitalist in your eyes? He started in his garage with no more means of production then you have right now.

By your illogic because his product was successful and sold millions and he needed to hire workers to expand the business he is an evil capitalist who unfairly profits from others labors. But it was his labors that created the product built the business and expanded it in the first place. Those he employs do so voluntarily and they did not start that business so if Bill Gates had not started it and sacrificed his time intellect and labors to get it off the ground it would not exist and they would not work there. If they don't like it the can work somewhere else or they can seek to start a business in their garage just like Bill Gates did. There is nothing unfair about that. Each worker agreed to help him for an agreed upon amount of compensation if they thought it was not enough or unfair they are free to start their own business.

What you are saying is Bill Gates is NOT entitled to do what he pleases with the fruits of his labors because he is successful. If you stole the business from him and gave it to the workers who voluntarily agreed to work there it would be bankrupt within a year or two because none them initiated it and sacrificed their time and labor to create it like he did and do not have the vision and drive he did when he started it or they would have created there own business just as he did. Now he is enjoying the fruits of his labors that is called hard work paying off not some wannabe commies stealing the fruits of others labors in the name of the workers and claiming they are freeing them and the means of production by unnatural redistribution.

Most larger companies have some form of profit sharing to compensate the workers for their contributions etc. You have never really defined "the means of production". You would Claim Bill Gates has an unfair advantage over someone trying to start a similar business today. That is not true Gates started from scratch and developed his means of production to the level it is today so he earned his position in that field. He didn't steal it like the commies here propose should be done.

How about the Scentsy Gal? She started that business at her kitchen table now it is a mutli million dollar business. So is she an evil capitalist exploiting the workers and where were the means of production when she was working off the kitchen table? I can site thousands of examples and all of it done despite the politically connected Elite socialist/fascist and their overthrow of the government and turned it into a fascist/socialist/corporatist state people are still seizing the reins and creating wealth and jobs despite the encroaching commies.

No one is stopping you commies from starting an employee owned company model you claim is better. If Bill Gates and the Scentsy creator can start multi billion dollar businesses from their garage and kitchen table what is your excuse? In fact there are several of them in this country and my wife works for one of the best ones in the country. I have asked Anok this question several times and he has pretty much dodged it every time. Why? I can only conclude he wants something for nothing hence he seeks to use the state to force redistribution to get what he wants instead of earning it by his own labors. At the very least he could seek employment at an employee owned company but he seeks to try and use the power of the state by political means instead.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
I'm a Libertarian myself and I do love the Philosophy of Freedom...but even I know that you cannot just let people run rampant...sadly, we have an animal side and it has a way of popping out unless there is some social structure to keep it in check.

I'd love to believe that corporations would play fair, do the right thing and not poison and pollute the environment just because it is the right thing to do...but we all know...that ain't gonna happen. If a company can save a dollar by dumping toxins in your back yard instead of disposing of them properly...they will.

I would love to believe that one day our evolution will take us to true anarchism in it's purest form...self governance...where we all know what is right and what is wrong and we choose to do right.

We haven't evolved that far yet and I swear...some of our behavior would indicate we are going in the opposite direction...

edit on 12/1/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/1/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

Its simple it all would be dealt with through private property rights. if some company was polluting the environment the local people would get together and take care of it Shut these people down and arrest them if necessarily. No need for some federal bureaucracy to go and be bought off like Monsanto does. People delegating their responsibility to protect themselves from harm is the problem not the answer.

There would not be corporations either that is just government protection from being liable for your actions.

reply to post by hawkiye


And what is going to stop the corporation from hiring their own private security force and gunning down all the opposition? They did that in the 1800's when workers were trying to unionize.

People will murder you over money, in a heart beat.

I guess you're ignoring the problem of corporate tyranny.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Again with the false labels game...Sigh. Capitalist earn their living by their own labors. It is the socialists who seek to earn their living by the labors of others for they believe that if someone works harder and smarter then they do he does not deserve anymore compensation then they do. And the state must steal it from him and redistribute it equally to those who did not earn it.

Capitalists are private owners of the means of production. They hire labour and pay them wages. The worker has to produce more than they are paid for, in order for the capitalist to make profit. So yes capitalists do earn from the labour of others, about 40% of their income, 60% comes from capital gains (money earned from the investment of money earned from labour)

Why did you ignore my example of Bill Gates? Is he not an evil capitalist in your eyes? He started in his garage with no more means of production then you have right now.

Bill Gates could have easily started a worker owned company. But what Bill did is a rarity. Most capitalists property is handed down from their family. It's a myth that capitalists worked harder than anyone else to get where they are.

I have NEVER said capitalists are evil, you're the one who seems to be full of hate. The majority of capitalists believe what they're doing is good. It's the small minority at the very top that have the power to influence government, and use it's military to expand their capitalist interests, that is the problem. The oil companies, the pharmaceutical industry etc. It's the system of capitalism that allows a small minority to economically dominate the rest of us, including small business owners.

By your illogic because his product was successful and sold millions and he needed to hire workers to expand the business he is an evil capitalist who unfairly profits from others labors. But it was his labors that created the product built the business and expanded it in the first place. Those he employs do so voluntarily and they did not start that business so if Bill Gates had not started it and sacrificed his time intellect and labors to get it off the ground it would not exist and they would not work there. If they don't like it the can work somewhere else or they can seek to start a business in their garage just like Bill Gates did. There is nothing unfair about that. Each worker agreed to help him for an agreed upon amount of compensation if they thought it was not enough or unfair they are free to start their own business.

But people only need to work for Bill Gates because of capitalism. They did not volunteer to work for him, jobs are a scarce resource, there is not much choice. Under socialism they wouldn't have to work for anybody.

What you are saying is Bill Gates is NOT entitled to do what he pleases with the fruits of his labors because he is successful. If you stole the business from him and gave it to the workers who voluntarily agreed to work there it would be bankrupt within a year or two because none them initiated it and sacrificed their time and labor to create it like he did and do not have the vision and drive he did when he started it or they would have created there own business just as he did. Now he is enjoying the fruits of his labors that is called hard work paying off not some wannabe commies stealing the fruits of others labors in the name of the workers and claiming they are freeing them and the means of production by unnatural redistribution.

I'm saying Bill could not do what he does on his own. If it wasn't for labour he wouldn't be wealthy. The workers do as much to create his wealth as he did himself. No one deserves to be that much more wealthy than others because they started the company. It's that huge disparity in wealth that causes most of our social problems.
It's what allows capitalists to economically dominate in politics and society.

Most larger companies have some form of profit sharing to compensate the workers for their contributions etc. You have never really defined "the means of production". You would Claim Bill Gates has an unfair advantage over someone trying to start a similar business today. That is not true Gates started from scratch

You must be a Bill Gates fan boy? You probably live with the dream that you might become a Bill Gates?

The means of production is land, factories, farms, machinery, raw materials, everything used in production. I can't believe you're just admitting you don't know what that means?

So when I say capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', you don't know what that means?

To understand the nature of capitalism, and socialism, you have to understand what the means of production means. As all economic systems are based on the ownership of the means to produce....

Capitalism, private ownership.
Socialism/communism, common workers ownership.
Nationalism, state ownership on behalf of the people.
State-capitalism, private ownership by government members (USSR, China etc.)

reply to post by hawkiye


Free-market and capitalism are not synonyms.

Free markets have been around for ever, capitalism is a recent development due to the 'inclosure laws'. Capitalism is based on surplus value, what the worker produces above what they are paid. Before the inclosure laws no one had surplus value to invest. It took the movement of the 'commoners' from the land to towns, and factories, to start the creation of surplus value, and thus the land owners became the capitalist class, and the commoners the working class.

An economic system based on private (economic) property is only free-market for the owners of economic property. But you can't call capitalism truly free-market when it excludes the majority of people.

If you think we can all became capitalists then you are delusional. Capitalism cannot exist without labour. Capitalists will always be a minority exploiting the majority. Bill Gates could not have became rich without labour.
His product alone did not make him wealthy, exploiting labour did. His product was not a necessity for survival, we didn't need it, the desire to own it is artificially created. He created a product that allowed him to exploit labour, and consumers, for his personal financial gain. I wouldn't call that evil, but I wouldn't call it righteous either.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir


The definition doesn't miss anything, This guy isn't the problem by anyone's definition. You're offering a straw man here. Who the hell is against small shopkeepers who don't employ any staff? Seriously, what a bizarre argument you're offering here.

However, does he make all the things he sells? Where do they come from? What about his shop-fittings? How are they produced? How is the shop powered?

Let's pull back the curtain, and then we'll talk.

I'm not trying to offer a straw man, just trying to flesh out your entire position. So we've established that a small sole proprietor with no employees could keep his business. Indeed that's an easy example for socialism because it is, by definition, worker-owned. My real question is at what point would he run afoul of socialist views on proper business organization? 10 employees? 50? 100? 1000? Would every employee brought into the fold need to essentially join him as partial owner to fit within the socialist definition of justice? How would ownership shares be divided? Imagine he, let's call him Chuck, hired two more people: an assistant manager who worked as much as Chuck and me who worked a few hours on the weekend. Should we all be owners of the company? Should any of us? If we should, do we each get 1/3 stake or is it divided in some other manner? What if a fourth man, did not want or was unable to work, but wanted to provide 'capital" for an expansion in exchange for a share? Should he get one? How much?

It may seem like I'm bringing up red herrings and straw men, but in economics it's simply not good enough to say "Oh well it would be fair if everyone was equally rich and had plenty of income, so let's just make that our economy." Economic systems are much more detail dependent because details create incentives that ripple out into huge effects throughout the system. Prescriptions for dividing ownership shares and disincentivizing or incentivizing cash investments would have massive effects on the development, sustainability, and ultimate success of any economic model. It's pointless to engage in ivory tower discussions of what would be fair and just if it cannot be developed into a workable system for the real world.

As for pulling back the curtain, I'd love to. No modern business controls the entirety of the production process. Every business, from the most powerful to the least, buys raw materials (including labor and ideas as well as physical materials) and equipment (which were themselves produced from ideas, labor, and raw materials). The means of production is highly decentralized. Read "I, Pencil" for a further demonstration of the point. The profit motive is why we have sufficient providers reacting to market demand for very specialized niche needs in capital goods (differentiated from consumer goods i.e. a grape press is a capital good and a bottle of wine is the consumer good but it could be a capital good first in a store or restaurant). A robust profit motive and related incentives are absolutely vital in connecting demand with supply. By reducing profit motives for capitalists (i.e. if you take the risk to enter this area of demand, you could fail and lose your investment, or succeed and lose your investment to your employees who also get wages), socialism would make it difficult to innovate.

reply to post by ANOK

Capitalists are private owners of the means of production. They hire labour and pay them wages. The worker has to produce more than they are paid for, in order for the capitalist to make profit. So yes capitalists do earn from the labour of others, about 40% of their income, 60% comes from capital gains (money earned from the investment of money earned from labour) 

And how did they get that means of production? By working for it sacrificing their time and labor for it to create their product or service. Of course your numbers are BS but that is not surprising. The workers they hire do not have to work for them they can start their own business if they do not agree with the wage they are paid. They do not deserve to be compensated at the same rate as the initiator of the successful business who sacrificed his time labor intellect and capital and created the business and jobs. Successful businesses have never been started any other way even worker owned businesses.

Bill Gates could have easily started a worker owned company. But what Bill did is a rarity. Most capitalists property is handed down from their family. It's a myth that capitalists worked harder than anyone else to get where they are.

Yes he could of but he was free to start any type company he chose and people were free to work for him or not. And his business does have an employee stock and profit sharing program so in a sense it is employee owned too. What Gates did is not a rarity it is the norm and most capitalist property was not handed down to family that is the rarity. The backbone of the economy is small businesses they employ 70% of the labor force.

As for the it being a myth that the creator of the business worked harder then then anyone else to get where they are it is obvious you have never started your own business or even read about someone who did and what it took for them to get it off the ground. Also all labor is not equal do you think a napkin folder should be compensated the same as an engineer? Who put in more effort to learn their craft? Who do you think should have more incentive/compensation to learn and perform their craft competently and accurately, and which craft do you think is more important to do accurately?...

The real myth here is that some magical force will create some fantasy utopian worker owned paradise if you just get rid of all the hard working people who had the drive ambition and work ethic to create sacrifice and take the risk to start a successful business. Can you show one example of such a mythical country or business? Even the worker owned businesses were started similarly as I describe.

It's the small minority at the very top that have the power to influence government, and use it's military to expand their capitalist interests, that is the problem. The oil companies, the pharmaceutical industry etc. It's the system of capitalism that allows a small minority to economically dominate the rest of us, including small business owners.

No that small minority at the top are not capitalist they are the corporatist/socialist/fascist it is their subversion of the free market through government monopolized force that has allowed them to dominate others unfairly.

Despite their unfair monopolization you still have the opportunity to create your worker owned business as so many others have out of their homes garages and kitchens what is stopping you? If you build it (and it is successful) they will come...

However your movement is using those elite at the top gaming the system to try and redefine capitalism and free markets as an evil system that keeps the people down when history is littered with the death destruction and poverty socialism has caused.

But people only need to work for Bill Gates because of capitalism. They did not volunteer to work for him, jobs are a scarce resource, there is not much choice. Under socialism they wouldn't have to work for anybody. 

People can work for whom ever they want or start their own business. They only need to work for others if they do not have the drive ambition and work ethic to work for themselves. Of course they volunteered to work for him no one is forcing them the idea they that did not is just ridiculous. Jobs are not scarce at all there are million of jobs looking for help more then people who want to work. The problem is not business owners who create jobs the problem is the fiat monetary system inflating the currency and devaluing it so that the jobs available cannot pay enough for the needs of the workers to be met. Those jobs would not exist without business owners creating them. The elite politically connected banksters at the top that monopolize the currency through government force are the problem not true free market capitalism.

Under socialism they wouldn't have to work for anybody. 

Sorry but this is about one of the most laughable but sad things I have ever read. Its amazing someone actually believes this tripe. So do tell us just how would the wealth that provides the living for these people be created? And where is the example of this ever working period?

If you say they would all be working for themselves why aren't they doing it now nothing is stopping them? The creator of Sentsy started in her kitchen so the means of production argument is just a false construct as Sentsy and tens of thousands have proven you wrong as they provide 70% of the jobs for workers.

So what is your movements excuse for not doing the same with your supposed better model? The bottom line is if what you said were actually true it would already be happening many of those workers would have created the companies needed to do it. It hasn't happened because not everyone has the drive ambition and wherewithal to do it and no socialist program can give them what is takes as history has proven. It's not capitalism keeping them down it's themselves...

I'm saying Bill could not do what he does on his own. If it wasn't for labor he wouldn't be wealthy. The workers do as much to create his wealth as he did himself. No one deserves to be that much more wealthy than others because they started the company. It's that huge disparity in wealth that causes most of our social problems. 
It's what allows capitalists to economically dominate in politics and society. 

If it wasn't for Bill Gates none of that labor would have those jobs. He had the drive ambition vision and took action to create the company and develop it and expand it to provide those jobs none of those workers had it or they would be running their own companies. He offered them compensation and they accepted. They sold their labor to him for an agreed upon fee it was not free they did so voluntarily and were free not to do it no one forced them to sell their labor to him. He was not oppressing anyone when working out of his garage forcing them to work for him or starve your argument in this regard is just ridiculous.

You must be a Bill Gates fan boy? You probably live with the dream that you might become a Bill Gates?

You have no idea what my personal feelings about Bill Gates are and it is not even germane to the discussion he is simply just a well known example it doesn't matter either way what ones personal feelings are on him. Statements like this are just a poor attempt at avoiding meaningful discussion and to try and bias the reader in your favor based on emotional triggers.

The means of production is land, factories, farms, machinery, raw materials, everything used in production. I can't believe you're just admitting you don't know what that means?

I did not say I do not know what it means only that you did not define what "you" mean when you use it. So once again lets take the Sensty creator; where were the means of production when she started her company from her kitchen table? If the means of production are being withheld from the people as you claim how is it she and tens of thousands of others have managed to start and run successful businesses from small to large just like she is? You do not even realize this fact totally destroys your argument and consigns it to the scrap heap where it belongs...

Capitalism cannot exist without labor.

Most labor cannot exist without an initiator to create a need for labor. Labor and consumers are only exploited when force and or deception is involved. Gates and millions of businesses across the country only hire labor who sell their labor to them of their own free will. Anyone is free to start their own business just as millions have if they are not happy with whats available in the job market. Is it tough? Of course it is that is why many chose to work for others instead of takin the risk and making the sacrifice themselves to build their own business. The lie that capitalism is holding them down is just an excuse for the lazy to appease their lack of ambition drive vision and non action and try and bring force to bear to steal from others that which they refuse to put in the time effort and sacrifice for!

Originally posted by Trustfund
reply to post by hawkiye

 

And what is going to stop the corporation from hiring their own private security force and gunning down all the opposition? They did that in the 1800's when workers were trying to unionize.

People will murder you over money, in a heart beat.

I guess you're ignoring the problem of corporate tyranny.

Other corporations who hire a security force to protect against such threats and small businesses who band together and hire protection against such threats. Corporate tyranny mainly happens at the top with the few politically connected corps. Lets not forget corporations would not exist as they are only government created constructs to limit liability so corporations are not liable for harming people.

Having said that the vast majority of companies just want a level playing field without government intervention protecting politically connected cronies and subverting markets and competition unfairly.

Those fascist corporations got to the top not on merit but by government intervention in the first place they would not exist without government protection they would have went out of business years ago unless they provided a good product or service consumers wanted. Consumers regulate the markets better then anything else as they vote with their wallets and feet. Government intervention limits choices subverting this natural regulation allowing corps to put out inferior and even harmful products and services since their competition is unnaturally eliminated by government BS regulation.

reply to post by Openeye


get rid of government and the rich corporations become lords ex soldiers without a country become knights and we all become serfs who become fodder when the lords war for supremecy.

Most labor cannot exist without an initiator to create a need for labor. Labor and consumers are only exploited when force and or deception is involved. Gates and millions of businesses across the country only hire labor who sell their labor to them of their own free will. Anyone is free to start their own business just as millions have if they are not happy with whats available in the job market. Is it tough? Of course it is that is why many chose to work for others instead of takin the risk and making the sacrifice themselves to build their own business. The lie that capitalism is holding them down is just an excuse for the lazy to appease their lack of ambition drive vision and non action and try and bring force to bear to steal from others that which they refuse to put in the time effort and sacrifice for

reply to post by hawkiye


Many people are lazy and there are many people who do not aspire to have their own business but live life. Those people are forced into a system that they do not want and they have little power to change it. Try to go off the grid and live off the land and you will more than likely be arrested for living on government owned property or private property. You are funneled into a system that is rigged by government and corporations. So you are not free you are forced into labor. you need currency to live and have a home. You are free to get the home you choose with your wages. You are compelled to continue working or lose your home and your lively hood.
Even if you manage to pay off yoru land with your labor you are forced to continue working for your task master because if you do not pay your taxes you get kicked off your land. You are forced to work you are forced to conform. try to get a job without a permanent residence or anything else for that matter. you are forced to comply there is no free will it is an illusion.

Starting a business is not easy and it takes work that is true. It annoys me howright away it is said that people are lazy and blah blah blah. How many businesses do not fail simply because it just does not work??

Also how much red tape has been put in place since way back when because certain companies would exploit certain business practices and that red tape was put in place due to their transgressions. It makes it harder for new people to get into business because of red tape that was not there before. it is a monopoly and it is rigged for the ones who got ahead of the game first.

yes there are a lot of whiners and criers who use this as an excuse but it simply is not an excuse. I am successful to the point where i do not have to work but i can still see that this system is fubar. .

reply to post by votan


It's not about being lazy. What would happen if everyone had their own business? You would have a lot of problems trying to produce anything more than for yourself.

It's impossible for everyone to be a business owner in a capitalist economy, because it needs labour to produce 'surplus value'.

surplus value

Definition

Difference between a worker's wages (exchange value) and the value of goods and services he or she produces (use value). Since use value is (or should be) always higher than the exchange value, workers produce a positive surplus value through their labor.

Business Dictionary

It's not laziness but simply lack of opportunity, funds, and overwhelming competition.

The capitalist owner cannot survive without labour, but labour can thrive without the capitalist owner.

The only way everyone can be an equal part in the creation of wealth is through worker ownership.

At a basic – but critical – level, worker ownership creates and sustains jobs, production, and services, and offers possibilities for long-term employment stability and living wages. Whether their inception was driven by desperation or values, they open possibilities for employment with dignity, transformed social relationships, self-management, democratic governance, and equitable power and income. Most are implicitly, if not explicitly, based on the values of solidarity, respect, commitment, shared participation, and community.

Nurturing Just Alternatives

"Business" should be about community needs, not making profit for a minority.

You've all been lied to. Adam Smith was not a capitalist, for example, when he talked of free-markets he didn't mean capitalism. Capitalism didn't exist as a term yet when he wrote 'The Wealth of Nations'. The change from feudalism to capitalism was just about starting. Socialism didn't exist yet either. If socialism had existed he would have been one for sure...

"Though the manufacturer [worker] has his wages advanced to him by his master [capitalist], he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit [surplus value], in the improved value of the subject upon which his labor is bestowed." Adam Smith; The Wealth of Nations

That is Smith talking about 'surplus value', and the problem of owner/worker, 90 years before Marx. Capitalism was still in it's early days, and the industrial revolution yet to happen. The conflict of worker/owner has never changed since capitalisms beginnings.

In sociology, conflict theory states that society or an organization functions so that each individual participant and its groups struggle to maximize their benefits, which inevitably contributes to social change such as political changes and revolutions. The theory is mostly applied to explain conflict between social classes, proletariat versus bourgeoisie; and in ideologies, such as capitalism versus socialism.

Conflict Theory

Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.

Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; *used in whatever ways they choose.*

Capitalism

*This is what they mean when they say "free country". Not your personal freedom, but the freedom for economic private property owners to exploit labour.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

Yep it's called theft! But first things first lets address the way you try and label things to skew the the argument. What you call capitalist elite are in reality politically connected corporate fascist/socialist NOT capitalist.

What? Your argument makes no sense. I ask you is it 'lazy' and you say it's called 'theft'? Lazy =/= theft and neither terms are applicable here. Are you thinking that mobs of men in boiler suits and oily spanners are going to march on some kind of 'Mr Burns' figure and hijack the factory and throw his body out of the window? Snatch golden toys out of the hands of the spoiled children of an elite? If you're thinking along any of these lines, then you're thinking too literally. There are other ways of doing this: nationalisation with recompense and, get this, you might like this one, new firms that are run on less unequal and divisive line.

Corporate socialism doesn't make sense as a concept. Yes, it's a phrase that's used a lot, but only in a 'them thieving commies are taking my tax dollars and giving it someone else!' sense, even when those tax dollars are being given to private equity firms and the like. Even a cursory knowledge of socialism (as not described by Fox &c) demonstrates that none of this is socialism. 'Privatising profits and socialising the losses' and similar themes aren't actually socialism: more an indicator of the way the American right has hijacked the definition of the word for their own ends. Redistribution of wealth upwards (as opposed to outwards) isn't socialist no matter what kind of prefix you want to place in front of it.

Again, socialist movements have traditionally been supported by people working very long hours in very physical environments, for next to nothing. It's #ing shameful that you call them lazy for wanting to end this kind of inequality.

The vast majority of businesses were started from the ground up by individuals who sacrificed their time labor and money to build those businesses

'Mom and pop stores' and the like aren't the issue here, and the vast majority of start-ups have been this type of set-up. It's the nature of your capitalism that there's only a few 'big dogs' at the top.

and your so called political movement seeks to steal the fruits of those labors from those people by pointing to the elite politically connected socialist/fascists falsely labeling that capitalism and using the force of the state to impose some vague undefined equality which in reality is just theft and redistribution of the spoils.

Falsely labelling capitalism? Christ, you couldn't make it up, hypocrite much? "So called"? Jesus wept.

You claim it is the means of production but you and Anok both ignored my example of Bill Gates who started his business in his garage. Where was the means of production when he started? I am sure you classify him as some elite capitalist but he had no more access to the means of production then you do right now. The vast majority of businesses you commies would lump in with the label elitist were started in the same manner.

Actually, despite the monopolising monolith that is Microsoft, if I was going to choose a poster boy for capitalist super-evil, it wouldn't be Gates, if only because of what he's actually doing with all that obscene, mind-boggling wealth.

Why don't you commies start this glorious business model you claim is better and show us how its done? People have started multi million dollar businesses out of their homes and garages to this day whats your excuse? It certainly is not a lack of means of production as Bill Gates and thousands of others have proven.

Commies? Oh, it's that false labelling thing again. Who says I am a communist? I mean, aside from you? Watch out! I'm hiding under your bed - McCarthy said so!

Could Bill Gates happen again in the computer industry? No. The current crop of Bill Gates figures won't let it happen. They'll buy the company out before they let it happen. In fact, you can apply that to most, if not all, sectors, whether it's computing and technology or mass-produced food. Sadly, that says a lot about your argument.

It is only a few at the top who use government force to unfairly monopolize markets and eliminate their competition. Your movement only seeks to be in their place and have the power they have through the state monopoly on force it has nothing to do with helping the people as you claim.

If you look at the work of people like (local heroes) the Rochdale Pioneers, the Co-operative movement &c, then you'll see that state monopolies don't have to even enter into the debate. Also, I find it weird that you seem to have no beef with capitalist monopolies but seem furious as to the idea of state monopolies.

Originally posted by hayek11


I'm not trying to offer a straw man, just trying to flesh out your entire position. So we've established that a small sole proprietor with no employees could keep his business. Indeed that's an easy example for socialism because it is, by definition, worker-owned.

Well, to be fair, it was the example you offered and one I thought was not an issue at all.

My real question is at what point would he run afoul of socialist views on proper business organization? 10 employees? 50? 100? 1000? Would every employee brought into the fold need to essentially join him as partial owner to fit within the socialist definition of justice? How would ownership shares be divided? Imagine he, let's call him Chuck, hired two more people: an assistant manager who worked as much as Chuck and me who worked a few hours on the weekend. Should we all be owners of the company? Should any of us? If we should, do we each get 1/3 stake or is it divided in some other manner? What if a fourth man, did not want or was unable to work, but wanted to provide 'capital" for an expansion in exchange for a share? Should he get one? How much?

There's different models for this and historically, non-state models have approached it differently. That's not a cop out, but rather the truth. It's not all state-owned tractor production, tovarishch. For example, the credit side of mutualism would eradicate the need for Chuck to have the initial role of owning the business &c. and you could just divide the hours up evenly between the three of you. The fourth man, the investor, would not be necessary in this scenario.

As for pulling back the curtain, I'd love to. No modern business controls the entirety of the production process. Every business, from the most powerful to the least, buys raw materials (including labor and ideas as well as physical materials) and equipment (which were themselves produced from ideas, labor, and raw materials). The means of production is highly decentralized.

I meant in the sense of you offering the example of the mom and pop store owner when he wasn't, but the things he sold, were likely to be part of the problem. Whilst they might look decentralised, monopolies within each individual sector will 'centralise' of a sort.

Read "I, Pencil" for a further demonstration of the point. The profit motive is why we have sufficient providers reacting to market demand for very specialized niche needs in capital goods (differentiated from consumer goods i.e. a grape press is a capital good and a bottle of wine is the consumer good but it could be a capital good first in a store or restaurant). A robust profit motive and related incentives are absolutely vital in connecting demand with supply. By reducing profit motives for capitalists (i.e. if you take the risk to enter this area of demand, you could fail and lose your investment, or succeed and lose your investment to your employees who also get wages), socialism would make it difficult to innovate.

There's other forces at work. I'm not advocating a CCCP-era nightmare - which wasn't socialist or even communist, but still different from the model you describe above - but Russia had no problem with space race innovation. If I set up a whole new crazy lefty socialist utopia tomorrow, from scratch, I'm still going to be facing the same problems as other places: making the most of out less and less resources and energy, people are still going to get sick and require medicines and treatment and so on.

Originally posted by ANOK

The means of production is land, factories, farms, machinery, raw materials, everything used in production. I can't believe you're just admitting you don't know what that means?

So when I say capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', you don't know what that means?

I'm obviously not supporting his argument, and I'm saying this as someone from a different country with a different history, education and televised media, but I can believe he's "admitting" this. I'd even go as far as pointing out that it's not necessarily his fault. In Britain, we have the likes of the Daily Mail and an ostensibly right wing press, but we don't have anything like Fox news in the way it exists in America. Whilst all our talk format radio stations are right of centre, they're nothing like right wing talk shows that exist in American. Whilst we've had our fear of communism (and black-listing &c), we had nothing like Joseph McCarthy.

I really can't imagine what it's like to have such an ingrained, Pavlovian response to alternative economic/social/political theories, to the extent that anything other than the #ed-up system that currently exists is so easily portrayed as 'unAmerican' and even 'anti-American'.

reply to post by ANOK


I didn't say people are lazy the poster before pretty much insinuated that. You pretty much just said too many chiefs not enough indians which is fine. Ihave no dog in that fight.

Not everyone is meant to have a business.

Some people are frankly lazy and do not want to work or have a business. Some do not want a business and others do but fail. then there are those that succeed.

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by ANOK

 

I didn't say people are lazy the poster before pretty much insinuated that. You pretty much just said too many chiefs not enough indians which is fine. Ihave no dog in that fight.

Not everyone is meant to have a business.

Some people are frankly lazy and do not want to work or have a business. Some do not want a business and others do but fail. then there are those that succeed.

Unfortunately, we're constantly sold the idea that we can all succeed if we just work hard enough. 'Lazy' appears on many threads like this. There was a thread about WalMart employees here last week where someone was claiming that anyone could be a manager in WalMart and earn better wages if they really wanted to. The reality is that simply because of managerial pyramids, only a few people can ever be managers as there's always a larger sub-management workforce below a smaller numbers of managers.

The words 'American Dream' runs through the heart of America like a stick of Blackpool rock. It's a barefaced lie. There's millions of Americans who are honest, decent people who work every waking hour. Why aren't they all successful? It's because 'hard work' is not the dominant factor.

Also, people tend to forget that all 'success' as it's generally measured in capitalism, is due to the 'failure' of other people. For a firm to rise to the top of the capitalist ladder, it means they've generally taken out as much competition as is possible/legal. That means other hard working people will have 'failed' and not necessarily through faults of their own.

reply to post by Openeye


I wouldn't worry about companies. The situation you've described is exactly what a government is! Assuming companies could continue to be profitable by instigating violent force, you'd be free to subscribe to protection collectively from any threat from a state or company in a highly competitive defence market.