Again, I would like to know why you think its wrong. I agree in a lot of things with socialists, specially mutualists, but I really dont get this obsession with demonizing wages.
Topic: In Defense of Private Property (in the Marxist sense) (Read 5551 times)
Again, I would like to know why you think its wrong. I agree in a lot of things with socialists, specially mutualists, but I really dont get this obsession with demonizing wages.
What's wrong with the factory owner owning the product of the factory is that then he has the power to set wages and prices, the employees do not have equal power to do so. This creates an inequality of power, which means that it is no longer an anarchist situation. The owner is a government.
Kiba already explained perfectly why its not true that the factory owner sets wages. If it were true most employeers in the USA would pay only minimum wage. The reality is that only 4% pay minimum wage.
Now, it is true that government regulations hurt the workers position when negotiating a wage and allows the factory owner to pay less for labor. But this is not a problem of the free market, its a problem of state capitalism or corporate socialism (Ill let you choose the label).
Again, I would like to know why you think its wrong. I agree in a lot of things with socialists, specially mutualists, but I really dont get this obsession with demonizing wages.
Quote
Anarcho-communism has also existed, in Ukraine and Spain, in both cases it was destroyed by a military attack, not subverted from within as happened in the American West.
The anarcho-communist communities did not live enough to see what would have happened. How do you interpret that they not were able to organize and defend themselves? Also its important to notice that some of this communities became extremely morally repressive even banning alcohol. In some few cases they even became murderers.
Also, all societies that are capable of lasting die from within. Its human nature. People get used to the institutions that gave them prosperity and take them from granted. Then they start neglecting this institutions assuming the prosperity will last. Its nothing extrange, it happens to all systems because its human nature.
Btw, I dont think the American West as a whole is an example of anarchy. Some regions and some zones in particular were, but not all, although there is no doubt there were freer than today.
What's wrong with the factory owner owning the product of the factory is that then he has the power to set wages and prices, the employees do not have equal power to do so. This creates an inequality of power, which means that it is no longer an anarchist situation. The owner is a government.
The factory owner is subjected to competition from outside. Laborers are subjected to labor competition. Supply and demand determine the negoitating power of factory owners and laborers.
IF the factory owner is desperate for labor, he may then spent an exorbitant amount of money to acquire said labor. In this case, laborers seem to be in a position of power.
However, if the situation is reversed, the factory owner is now in position seem to be in a position of power.
BUT, this is what factory worker and the factory owner agreed to. Libertarian ethical theory said this mutually agreed agreement cannot be interfered with no matter how unbalanced the power relation is.
Indeed, you may have seen me out there just BEGGING for jobs. The power of employers are great.
It means this.
if a factory is used to produce boots under capitalism the boots belong to the owner of the factory, under socialism they belong to the workers who used the factory to produce the boots.
if a factory is used to produce boots under capitalism the boots belong to the owner of the factory, under socialism they belong to the workers who used the factory to produce the boots.
Lets accept your defintions of capitalism and socialism. Why is any of those arrangements bad? (I am guessing you think one of those two arrangements is bad)
Quote
Ownership of the factory is a convenient legal fiction, it's a form of capital and isn't really sustainable without force.
This is not true. There are examples in history. You can argue its good or bad, but you can not say its impossible.
Also, you can not say they did not lasted. Every human society changes for worse and for better. The fact of the matter is that it is possible. And you can not say the prove is that they did not lasted specially when you propose a system that has never existed.
So please, explain to me what is wrong with any of those arrangements.
What's wrong with the factory owner owning the product of the factory is that then he has the power to set wages and prices, the employees do not have equal power to do so. This creates an inequality of power, which means that it is no longer an anarchist situation. The owner is a government.
Anarcho-communism has also existed, in Ukraine and Spain, in both cases it was destroyed by a military attack, not subverted from within as happened in the American West.
It means this.
if a factory is used to produce boots under capitalism the boots belong to the owner of the factory, under socialism they belong to the workers who used the factory to produce the boots.
if a factory is used to produce boots under capitalism the boots belong to the owner of the factory, under socialism they belong to the workers who used the factory to produce the boots.
Lets accept your defintions of capitalism and socialism. Why is any of those arrangements bad? (I am guessing you think one of those two arrangements is bad)
Quote
Ownership of the factory is a convenient legal fiction, it's a form of capital and isn't really sustainable without force.
This is not true. There are examples in history. You can argue its good or bad, but you can not say its impossible.
Also, you can not say they did not lasted. Every human society changes for worse and for better. The fact of the matter is that it is possible. And you can not say the prove is that they did not lasted specially when you propose a system that has never existed.
So please, explain to me what is wrong with any of those arrangements.
In the case of The Icelandic Commonwealth, it was the church that eventually destabilized the system. Gullible people were to blame 
Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.
Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.
Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.
Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.
I expect the Somalians will devolve back into Tyrrany, I hope they will evolve to true Anarchy, I sincerely doubt that they will manage to maintain their frontier sort of society for long at all.
All signs point toward things getting better for them, so I wouldn't be so sure about any sort of 'devolution to Tyranny', as the populous is dead set against it happening.
From a practical standpoint all I get for the rent is maintenance, which I could get more cheaply elsewhere.
Huh? No, not all you get for the rent is maintenance. What you get is a building to live in. You don't believe that houses appear just like that out of thin air, do you? The owner had to build it or buy it - it's an investment of time or money - and also a risk - he may get the money back eventually but he can't be sure - there are natural disasters etc. You on the other hand thanks to his investment don't have to spend large amount of time and money, nor risk that much - so if you prefer to pay a smaller price monthly, you rent it.
In the case of The Icelandic Commonwealth, it was the church that eventually destabilized the system. Gullible people were to blame
Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.
Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.
Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.
Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.
I expect the Somalians will devolve back into Tyrrany, I hope they will evolve to true Anarchy, I sincerely doubt that they will manage to maintain their frontier sort of society for long at all.
In the case of The Icelandic Commonwealth, it was the church that eventually destabilized the system. Gullible people were to blame
Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.
Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.
Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.
Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.
If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.
We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining.
Seriously you guys, if you read some of the links I posted it shows that non-governmental, non-monopolistic third party private property enforcement agencies work quite well in practice.
Really? Why aren't they still around then?
and charging an absurd premium for current work
Why absurd? If it's absurd on a free market a competition with lower prices should appear.
If there are people willing to pay that much for it, it's not absurd.
That was my point, if Kiba "owns" the house and expects rent, in return for which he maintains the house, and I choose to pay someone else less to maintain it, he is still going to feel he is owed rent.
From a practical standpoint all I get for the rent is maintenance, which I could get more cheaply elsewhere.
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.
If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.
We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining.
Seriously you guys, if you read some of the links I posted it shows that non-governmental, non-monopolistic third party private property enforcement agencies work quite well in practice.
and charging an absurd premium for current work
Why absurd? If it's absurd on a free market a competition with lower prices should appear.
If there are people willing to pay that much for it, it's not absurd.
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.
If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.
We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining.
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.
If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles.
We need to get back to the basic and discuss ethical philosophy.
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.
In the case of the landlord and the tenant both are acting ethically by their own standards. The landlord feels that he has a right to collect rent because he put up the capital to provide he house, the tenant feels he has no obligation to pay rent, because the land lord is simply seeking to extract value from past work and charging an absurd premium for current work (the maintenance, which would be much cheaper from a third party) both would be defending what they felt they have a right to if a conflict occured.
We need to get back to the basic and discuss ethical philosophy.
Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative
wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists?Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)
You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves.
Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too.
Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative
wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists?Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)
You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves.
Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too.
I assume some factories were taken during the revolution that led to an Anarchist society.
And you just made it into a who has more guns contest. I assure you, the people with the most guns don't respect property. You can see that by the way the government has been behaving currently. They strongly believe all the property to be the
irs.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative
wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists?Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)
You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves.
Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too.
I assume some factories were taken during the revolution that led to an Anarchist society.
And you just made it into a who has more guns contest. I assure you, the people with the most guns don't respect property. You can see that by the way the government has been behaving currently. They strongly believe all the property to be theirs.
Says you.
Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)
Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course)
So property right have no meaning in your world?
Jump to: