Topic: Libertarian my ass! - page 6. (Read 9520 times)

Of course not. They're using Foxconn because it's cheaper than manufacturing it in America. That's the best thing about capitalism. As Adam Smith put it,
Nope, just there for the cheap labor. Of course, the cheap labor is available due to the impoverishing of the people by the Chinese State.

And yes, we've wandered a bit afield. But it's your thread, and if you're willing, I'd like to continue showing you how American Libertarianism is just as much about personal freedom as is your traditional European anarchism.

Are you telling me that Apple is using Foxconn because they are better than Americans doing what they do, that cheap labor is out of the equation, and that in fact Apple is actively working in order to raise the wealth of Foxconn's employees? Would they work with Foxconn if workers wages were equal in China and in the US?


So Apple is not there because of cheap labour, but as a service to the poor Chinese ruined by state communism?

Anyhow: I think we moved way off topic my friend.

Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that.

Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average.

I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member.

OK, this is something I can work with. Let's simplify and clarify it a bit more.


Better. I don't think even Marx would disagree so far.

Now, what is capital? It's not just money. As I see it, there are three broad categories: time, matter, and space, with money being a convenient way of exchanging, and quantifying the value of, units of capital. As such, money is not capital, but rather, an abstraction of capital.

Now, that in order to avoid starvation you need to accumulate capital is a patently obvious fact of nature. Your body needs additional fuel to continue functioning. As it happens, there are numerous ways to go about doing this. Everybody has a rather large (but indeterminate) stock of at least one type of capital: time. It's this capital that we trade for all other capital, either directly, or indirectly. The best part is, it's granted to us more or less equally. We all also have been granted a limited amount of matter. This matter is a bit of a mixed blessing, as while it allows us to accumulate other matter, as well as space, it requires additional matter, lest we run out of time. Likewise, this matter has been granted more or less equally to all.

So, we all have a limited, but indeterminate amount of time, and we all have more or less the same amount of matter, at least to start. Some of us have been lucky, and we were granted additional matter, or perhaps space, or perhaps a large amount of abstract capital. One of the most important facts to remember about capitalism, however, is that poorly managed capital goes away. One could have a fortune in abstract capital, and massive amounts of space and matter, but if one does not apply ones' self to the proper "care and feeding" of this capital, one will eventually eat through it - quite literally, in many cases.

So we could change the first statement to read:

I'm still fairly certain Marx would agree.

Another thing to remember is that you don't get to set the rules on what other people do with their capital. This includes their time. If someone is working at my factory, it is because it is more profitable for them to trade their time to me for abstract capital - which they can then use to trade for the matter to keep their matter going - than it would be for them to expend that time directly producing the matter to keep their matter going. If it were not, that's what they would be doing. So, greedy capitalist that I am, I want to keep them working in my factory. To do so, I not only have to compete with their directly expending the time to produce their own food, but also other workplaces which would like to buy their time. If they are particularly good at what they do, they might be able to get quite good rates for that time, and if I don't give them enough, they will most certainly go elsewhere. Thus, by working for me, they get a better life than they could get sustenance farming, and at least as good a life as they could get anywhere else.

At least, under pure, non-state, capitalism. Adding in the force of the state allows me to pay politicians to pass laws which limit the ability of my competitors to compete, restrict the number of competitors, and prevent my employees from striking out on their own.

Well, I've been trying to explain it in a very prolific way. I will try to make it very simple:

If you don't want to starve, you need tomake money

Make money = accumulate capital

More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules)

Now I will recommend you to read "The Capital", by Karl Marx, where he explains why more capital = more power in thousands of pages. I assume you did not read it, or you would understand "our definition" of capitalism. Then you can take a shit on it, but I'm afraid that even Wikipedia will agree that the modern definition of capitalism was set by Marx in his work.

Ah. And do you think that that factory was magically granted to the owner? Perhaps some king ordered the peasants to build it, and then gifted the finished product to him? No, he worked his way up to being able to purchase a factory.


I do. I've highlighted it for you. A factory owner is not the only consumer of labor - even in a relatively small area. If you don't agree, work elsewhere, or go into business for your self, and produce whatever you want. If people want it, you may even end up with a factory of your own. Read up on the history of Apple, (and Microsoft, come to that) to see what I mean.

About being a capitalist: when working at a factory, deciding how to organize the work (how many hours, what to do with production, etc.) and owning the factory is very different, both from a philosophical and a practical point of view.

About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free

Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?

I think both of you share a definition of "capitalism" that I find hard to grasp. If one or both of you could explain it, I'd be very appreciative.

Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position.

Yes, I'd say that the history of how private property was established definitely color the respective views. In Europe, and much of the rest of the world, private property was established by conquest and land grant - as you said, by force. Here in the states, while conquest was still used, it was to a much lesser extent, and rather than feudal land grants, most private land was gained through homesteading. We never had the serfs and nobles dynamic which is still fucking with Europeans' heads.

Thank you Myrkul - I will reply to your comments later on. Please allow me to throw my personal opinion on why capitalism have been approach so differently in Europe and the US:

When Proudhon analyzed private property in the XIX Century (What is the private property?) he concluded that wealth have been concentrated in the same few hands for centuries. He demonstrated empirically that hundreds of years ago, private property of means of production was established by force, and since then nothing changed much. Obviously this gave arguments to the prolific anarchist terrorism we have had in Europe, because anarchists thought that if private property was established by force, it could be possible to revert this situation by force only.

This lead to a time where the majority of European population was anti-capitalist, but it was crushed by the pro-capitalist minority, which was wealthier and thus more powerful.

In the US the majority of population have never been anti-capitalist: just a few generations ago you started from scratch, and you have had a wide spread of wealth since then. As I said earlier, we could say that US is founded on private property, which is quite a different situation compared to Europe.

Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery

So you are a capitalist!

As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind?

You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used.

If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that.

Well, let's look at some of the ways monopolies gain power, shall we?

As an example, we'll take Microsoft. Arguably, this is the best example of a monopoly since Standard Oil (which we'll get to in a bit).

How did they do it?
They cut a deal with computer manufacturers to include their operating system on their computers.

What was the result?
A near monopoly - over 90% market share, at peak (better than Standard Oil, actually). Their major competitors in the PC OS market gave up.

How did the market react?
Apple stepped up their game, and made a better product, marketed to the high-end consumer. Linux stepped in to become the major competitor for the low-end consumer. Firefox outcompeted IE by providing better stability, and extensibility. Chrome focused on speed, as well as extensibility.

What was the result?
Well, seeing as I'm currently writing this on Firefox, on a Linux-run laptop, you tell me. Microsoft has some pretty tough competition, and they've really had to work to keep their market share. Even games won't save them, since a lot of companies are putting out Mac and Linux ports, and they were a late entry into the console market - where they're doing pretty good, having learned the lessons Windows had to teach them. Their phone offering is still pretty crappy, though. (don't get me started on the Zune)

Our next example, is Standard Oil.

What did they do?
Ruthlessly bought out competition, innovated around problems (when the rail lines started charging too much, he built pipes), and generally outcompeted all the other oil companies.

What was the result?
Again, a near monopoly. At the peak, Standard oil had 88% of the (oil refinery) market. No mean feat, even in those days. In addition, they drove the price of refined oil down from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897. You'll forgive me if I don't see a problem with that.

How did the market react?
By 1911, their share of the oil refining business had been reduced to 64%, by increased competition. Whenever Standard Oil hesitated in taking an action into a new field, competitors sprang up in the new area, as was the case with discovery of the inferior grade Lima oil which would require new processing techniques.

What was the result?
After the anti-trust suit, the company was split up, into several different oil companies, most of which are still around today. Tarrifs and patents protect these companies from foreign and domestic competition. Arguably, this is the best outcome for Standard, if not for the consumers.

now if we can also get rid of the false dichotomy public vs private, we're almost there. 

I'm not confusing anything - I'm just stating the fact that for anarchists private ownership of means of production = monopolies = the richest rules, which is in opposition to US "libertarians" views.

For US libertarians the State is fucking up with the market making it imperfect

For traditional anarchists the modern State is only a tool for capital to grow and concentrate, thus is a product of capitalism itself

As I mentioned before, Bakunin even accused lenin's interpretation of communism of being just a state based form of capitalism

Please understand that the core of anarchism has never been "no state" - the core is the liberation of the individuals. For an anarchist, if you have to accept the wage offered by someone wealthier than you, you are not free. Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work. Not the state, not your boss: YOU. If you do not, you won't be free. As I explained earlier, anarchism was born as an answer to the advance of capitalist free market theories, as communism did in parallel when The Capital was written by Karl Marx.

You're confusing state capitalism - corporatism or fascism - with capitalism. To put it in perspective, it would comparing anarchosyndicalism to the Soviet state.

Some definitions:

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.
Communism: Common ownership of the means of production.
State capitalism: Ownership of the majority of the means of production by state-protected corporations.
State communism: De-facto ownership of the means of production by the oligarchy put in place to manage it.
Anarcho-capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted trade of same, as well as the product.
Anarcho-syndicalism: Common ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted use of same, as well as the product.

Sound about right?

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

Myrkul: I thank you for your interesting information about Medieval Iceland. I didn't know much about it, but I have to say that I always superficially thought that Medieval Age is in general a good analogy for a no-state capitalist system (but this is not a positive analogy at all IMO).

I'll take this chance to remark another difference between the anarchism and the US "libertarians" views: in this case, focusing on monopolies

1) For an US libertarian, monopolies are an imperfection of the market, driven by non-market forces: state and lobbies. Without a State there would be no lobbies and the market would adjust itself, as an invisible hand would self-regulate the market and balance competition, reaching an always-fair market that would allow equal opportunities to market players.

2) For an anarchist, monopolies are the natural outcome of capitalism. The only goal in a capitalist system is capital growth/accumulation, and this goal has to be achieved by all means. The natural way to strengthen your position in capitalism is to wipe out the competition, thus creating a monopoly - and this is fairly easily achieved if your holdings are big enough... And there goes the invisible hand straight up your arse. In fewer words, state and lobbies are just a tool capitalists are currently using to achieve their goals.

I personally tend to agree with 2), based on my own analysis of both classic works and reality surrounding us.

I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist.

Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists.
Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes).

Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powers

In capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself.