sc94597 said:
1. Rather than write a whole novel, I will link an influential text which describes quite a bit about the means by which the state systematically enables exploitation where it would've been stampered out in its absence. It also happens to be a text which explains the differences and similarities between state-socialism and libertarian socialism. It was written by the 19th century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker. It's not too long. State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree and wherein they differ. Sure, exploitation can happen in the absence of the state in local contexts, such as your bully example, but the more an individual attempts to exploit others the more likely others will react in kind. The state allows people to exploit others with no fear of a reaction in kind. 2. For a starter the four class monopolies: money, land, tariffs, and patents are created and reinforced by the state to benefit the bargaining power of capital over labor. Adam Smith also describes how the state helped reinforce inequalities in bargaining power in his day. From his Wealth of Nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
3. Do you have evidence of an inherent superiority in managing a business, with all else equal? I can accept that some people might have a better education, or they might enjoy finding new ways of making a business more efficient, but I don't think people are inherently born to manage others. That is pretty contrary to enlightenment principles, is it not? Actually, how does one define " better at setting up and running businesses" . Is it not conditional to the intended goal of the business? Furthermore, even if it is true that some individuals are better at "setting up and running businesses" is it necessarily true that said persons can manage and run a business better than multiple people with multiple inputs of knowledge? It seems to me as if the economic calculation problem which is used to criticize central-planning can also be used to criticize large hierarchical corporations. No individual can calculate what many individuals can, because no individual has enough inputs, and hence it is ideal to have planning as decentralized as possible with respect to minimized transaction costs. 4. Dictionary definitions for complex political concepts are pretty crappy. I am sure you'd agree, for example, that the dictionary definition of feminism "people who believe in the equality of men and women" lacks nuance and context. The way socialists used (and use the word capitalist) referred to a specific group of persons. 5. In a sense you are correct, we are all complicit to exploitation under capitalism and participate in the system. But it's very much like saying that a person who receives a stolen good is complicit to robbery. Are they the robber? Ultimately we don't have much of a choice but to work within capitalism. It's a social structure which no individual can really escape without social change. That is the entire point of socialism as an idea, that capitalism isn't voluntary and if we were given the choice we probably wouldn't be able to exploit others without feeling the consequences (costs) of exploitation. 6. Well you know, except for the state, with its laws and regulations which if I refuse to comply with will mean I'd have a gun to my head. 7. The difference between Steve Jobs and his investors is that his investors had the capital whereas he had the idea. Why did he have to go to investors though? Why was he employed? Why couldn't he had just used his ideas and savviness with a bunch of like-minded persons and create an Apple without investors? Because he didn't have access to the requisite capital. Steve Jobs was dependent on investors (owners of capital) to effectuate his ideas. The investors then profited off of Steve Jobs' talents without doing the work that Jobs did. In a socialist system Jobs would be able to innovate without selling himself to capitalists. 8. The market demand still exists. The productive capital still exists. The natural resources still exist. The labor-force still exists. The only thing that doesn't exist is the capitalist. If I have the capital and peers to work it with me what use do I have for the capitalist though? 9. Because profits (in the strict sense of producing more value than what was inputted) can still exist without exploitation (albeit with lower margins), and therefore businesses will still exist. Your entire premise was to equivocate value production/wealth creation and exploitation, when the two aren't one in the same. 10. Those on top are much more elastic to changes and therefore can avoid costs. Furthermore, since they disproportionately control the state, they can exploit the rest of society to unstable levels if they know that the state is going to collapse anyway. This is what happened when colonies collapsed, the colonizers used the colonial governments to exploit the local population and then fled when SHTF.
|
"Sure, exploitation can happen in the absence of the state in local contexts, such as your bully example, but the more an individual attempts to exploit others the more likely others will react in kind."
really? you've never seen people support a bully?
your whole argument here is flawed because exploitation happens across all levels in a society
"The state allows people to exploit others with no fear of a reaction in kind. "
and that is why we have law and police
but i think you're getting a bit ridiculous if you imply that a business owner giving someone a job is worthy of being attacked because he doesn't give that employee all of his profits and i think that's where you're going with this
since people are as we have discussed different in a multitude of ways... dome people tend to be more capable of defending themselves than others
how do you address the limitations women for example have with this idea?
i think we can agree that women are generally weaker than men and are more susceptible to harm from men.. that problem is address by having the state... what would propose as a substitute?
are you for gun control btw?
"Do you have evidence of an inherent superiority in managing a business, with all else equal?"
....um are you being serious right now?
do you accept that people have varying levels of intelligence, drive, creativity etc etc etc?.. if you do... why ask such a ridiculous question?
"I can accept that some people might have a better education, or they might enjoy finding new ways of making a business more efficient, but I don't think people are inherently born to manage others."
some people are better at leading than other people... do you agree with that?
"for example, that the dictionary definition of feminism "people who believe in the equality of men and women" lacks nuance and context. "
no i don't think so i do sincerely think they believe that and that's why its a nonsensical ideology
and to be frank i'm seeing some connections to what you are posting right now
"In a sense you are correct, we are all complicit to exploitation under capitalism and participate in the system. But it's very much like saying that a person who receives a stolen good is complicit to robbery. Are they the robber? "
look... you yourself stated that the problem with capitalism is that its the use of capital to obtain labour
the point is that you yourself exchange capital for labour
how does store owner or mason or whatever you bought up before get their tools or shelves or whatever? though the use of capital in exchange for labour
"Ultimately we don't have much of a choice but to work within capitalism. "
that's a lie, if you truly wanted to you could go live in the woods off the land
you wouldn't be the first and you wouldn't be the last either
no one is forcing anyone to live within civilisation
people willingly participate and provide their labour in exchange for the comforts that civilisation provides such as electricity, running water etc etc etc
"would be more beneficial to workers than our current one. In other-words, the state shouldn't redistribute anything."
so how would you get your water and electricity?
"I'll start with the big subsidy, does the proprietor pay for his own police force and property protection of every factory, apartment complex, hospital, or any other institution he or she owns or does the state through taxation?"
the state... and everyone benefits... which is why the state exists to begin with....
"There are also direct subsidies (the state directly gives money), bailouts, regulatory capture to prevent competition, and a multitude of other state privileges which capitalists enjoy. "
situations like bailouts like what happened in 2008 i would agree should never occur
"The difference between Steve Jobs and his investors is that his investors had the capital whereas he had the idea. "
you're evading my question
" so... the only difference between steve jobs and you is that he has money?"
" Why couldn't he had just used his ideas and savviness with a bunch of like-minded persons and create an Apple without investors?"
uh he did? apple started with him creating things in his garage
" The market demand still exists."
new ideas create new demand for what is produced by those ideas... you're taking the kart and putting it all down the road from the horse
" Your entire premise was to equivocate value production/wealth creation and exploitation, when the two aren't one in the same."
i didn't say that... so why are you saying that i said that?
furthermore you think that someone voluntarily working for someone is automatically being exploited and to be frank to me that's batshit insane
