Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feudalism vs Capitalism vs Socialism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:50:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I intend to point out a hypocrisy often exemplified by proponents of free-market capitalism in their critique of a Socialist restructuring of society.

Socialists make the case that capitalist business models are authoritarian in nature. Freemarket-Capitalists don't seem to understand what they are talking about. As they see it, the difference between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is very simply the difference between physical coercion or not. To the Socialist, it's because the capitalist runs the business and the worker does not.

Now, a genuine Freemarketeer has no problem with socialism. Most know that here. As long as we're talking about socialism in the sense most it's proponents use it, which is just "collective ownership of the means of production". Indeed, many co-ops operate in the free market today. They've even proven to a more successful business model, as the average co-op lasts longer than the average individually owned business. They are also easier to start, as the co-owners pool their wealth. It is a wonder, then, that it isn't the dominant business model. Many theorists suggest that, if a precedent were set for it, it would naturally become the dominant business model in a truly free market.

However, the Freemarket-Capitalists have a huge problem with Socialist revolution, where the workers decide to kick their bosses out and take control of industry without establishing it themselves.

Indeed, in a real free market, the worker, being unsatisfied with working for someone else, could quite and do things their own way because they have enough leverage. But a Socialist will pose that, at many points in history, production was been coerced into the control of a select few people. This is historically true. The Capitalist class has used it's influence to control government in it's favor. The Freemarketeer acknowledges that this is wrong and should be corrected. However, once those select few have long since died and their property inherited freely by someone new, a rift appears. The Socialist sees that the oligopoly ,arisen out of coercion, still remains, whether it be in "innocent" hands or not. The oligopoly even grows larger as they freely trade among themselves, as they have more leverage in the market. But the Freemarket-Capitalist sees no problem, for the inheritors are not the violators. So when the Socialist attempts to rectify things back to the balance of how a free market would have had it in the first place, the Freemarketeer cries "coercion!" and puts a stop to it.

This is where the hypocrisy arises. The same people will glorify the transformation from a Feudalistic society into a Capitalist one. After all, it was acquired through force, of course. But what then? It certainly wasn't force all the way through. At least not by propertarian standards that recognize the legitimacy of using force to protect your property which you acquired freely. Many centuries went by. The monarch owns all and simply passes the property down their family line, as do the nobles who "rent" the property from the monarch and the serfs who "rent" the property from them. It's a free-market for the most part. Free by the standards of the Freemarket-Capitalist. But how free by the standards of the Socialist? None at all. For as things are being traded freely, there is still a huge amount of leverage shifted towards a select few. It turns out, if we look back in time, people were making the same familiar arguments that this is the way things were "meant to be", that it was the "natural order". Eventually the people decided that was bullshit and revolted. Feudalism gave way to Capitalism. And all for the sake of equality, not for voluntary exchange.

When the Freemarket-Capitalist acknowledges this, it creates a paradox. How do we correct it? Let things go on in their unbalanced way, so long as we maximize voluntary exchange?--essentially just ignore it? Do we, perhaps, give in to welfare as a form of slowly correcting it? That seems to be the way society has chosen, whether they are aware or not. Or do we do the unspeakable and actually let a revolution put things back to a "fresh start", regardless of the fact that it requires coercion? There are even more options, still. We could abolish inheritance. We could abolish the family unit. But what Freemarketeer could accept such things?

Most likely, they will just opt for the first choice and ignore that the issue exists, because that's most convenient.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:11:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh hey, I did forget about a mass general strike. That would work too. Would have worked on Feudalism too.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 8:24:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I essentially agree with most of this. It certainly seems paradoxial to point out historical atrocities and illegitimate power usurpations (feudalism, monarchy, etc.) while defending the consequences brought on by it (modern markets). On how best to correct it though, I certainly have no Earthly idea. Perhaps worker usurpation of the means of production? That could work, at least then we'd know the new owners at least worked the means as opposed to usurping it from some legitimate owner. I know Rothbard originally defended that as a means to privatize State industries (while he was with the New Left, not when he committed heresey and started buddying with the paleos) before pussying out later in life.

That being said, I think it draws back as well to Smith's original conception of how markets formed and the historical discontinuities in his narrative. He conceived of property as essentially forming legitimately and capitalist enterpreuners arising through thrift or skill. Carson, Marx, et al. kinda showed him to be wrong though with things like censureship and the like being predominant historically. It's not as if we *are* operating on a more or less libertarian natural law which is only slightly revoked by Statism. The entire operation seems to be wrong.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would actually agree with the premise here. My main problem with such ideas arises when their proponents focus on destroying the private plutocracy by giving the government increased power over the market, naively believing that the government will help the 'little people'. Unfortunately it never quite works that way, because the government faces immense incentives to help those who have the capacity to reward them tit-for-tat, and none to reward those who cannot. I also believe that a 'workers revolution' would ultimately fail against overwhelming government force, the application of which can be legally justified in a pinch by the fact that most of the workers are far in debt. I still think that the best course of action is to dismantle the government machinery which nurtures and protects the corporate plutocracy to a point where competition can completely destroy it. Unfortunately that may involve convincing large swathes of America to read something politically substantial and decidedly cerebral; a task which is just as daunting as full-out revolution at this point.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:06:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And as for inheritance, Thomas Paine actually advocated heavily taxing and redistributing it. His 'Agrarian Justice' is a good read the subject. He makes the argument that previous generations have denied current ones their natural right to an existence in the state of nature and are thereby obligated to offer new citizens recompense, which would be drawn from their assorted spoils.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:09:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mutual Companies are a derivation of the "worker controlled means of production" and puts control in the hands of the customer.

It's a very workable compromise for companies that need economies of scale, typically structured within the corporate structure.

Mutual companies enjoy the legal protections of the corporation, but function more like a co-op, overall. Quarterly profit doesn't dominate their business decision making philosophy, so they can focus on long-term viability as opposed to making decisions which artificially raise stock prices long enough for the soon-to-be outgoing CEO to cash in on stock options, or whatever other dumb-@ss thing makes short-term sense to the long-term detriment of a company.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:20:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Finding a lot of these claims dubious. The idea that worker communes work better then for-profit companies seems incredibly dubious and unlikely. I know Roylatham has provided examples of its failure of them with an airplane company. Working communal in communist nations were also failures. The idea that the wealthy obtain their wealth through inheritance. It isn't too difficult to find examples to contradict this. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg didn't inherient their wealth fro their families. They created their own businesses. They had to acquire their funding through venture capitalists. They didn't just use their own.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:26:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
if you start a workers communal, the original people have to put their own money into it. This is fine of course, but the question becomes once you start becoming profitable and expanding, what do you do. Do you have the new workers have to put a portion of their wealth into the system in order to gain access to it? Do they have to put more in because the risk is less then what was before? Do all workers have to put their wealth in to work? Even if wealth is started out at equal distribution, there's no reason to believe it would continue that way, and there would be people left with no job because they'd have no money.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:37:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:20:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Finding a lot of these claims dubious. The idea that worker communes work better then for-profit companies seems incredibly dubious and unlikely. I know Roylatham has provided examples of its failure of them with an airplane company. Working communal in communist nations were also failures. The idea that the wealthy obtain their wealth through inheritance. It isn't too difficult to find examples to contradict this. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg didn't inherient their wealth fro their families. They created their own businesses. They had to acquire their funding through venture capitalists. They didn't just use their own.

You're kidding, right? Gates's father is (was) a partner at the most prestigious law firm in the city (Preston, Thorgrimson, Scheidler, GATES and Ellis), and Gates grew up in the most exclusive gated community in the city, located on its most expensive private country club (Broadmore costs more than Sehalee, and Sehalee hosts an NEC World Cup PGA event event every other year and an LPGA event on the off years).

He's not some rags to riches story, and the seed money came from his family.

He also didn't create anything, but simply re-purposed and repackaged things, and he crushed a lot of competition that would have produced better, more innovative products than he did.

Zuckerberg just flat stole his sh!t from others.

Wow...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:20:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Finding a lot of these claims dubious. The idea that worker communes work better then for-profit companies seems incredibly dubious and unlikely. I know Roylatham has provided examples of its failure of them with an airplane company.

Evidence isn't conclusive one way or another as I've found when looking into the matter. But I would never argue that worker communes would work better than for-profits. I wouldn't know. All I would argue is that they have the potential to work on close to the same scale.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. There's a difference between force and coercion. You are equating revolution with unjustified monopolies on force. The force used by the Founding Fathers should never be equated to the initiatory coercion of the British tyranny.

Yet, you are suggesting it's ok to use force to steal the wealth of people who earned it to give to the rest. As if it's justified revolution. How would you distribute the money to each individual based on what they deserve? You can't, besides, Socialists want distribution of wealth evenly.

2. The worker didn't take the risk on investment and entrepreneurship or come up with the business ideas. If the worker did, then due compensation should be given.

3. I see no problem with a hierarchical model so long as it's not a hierarchy of authority. For example, nobody says that a football team with a coach is tyrannical unfairness, it is accepted as an efficient model to have a successful football team. Same with the workplace.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:55:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:50:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

2. The worker didn't take the risk on investment and entrepreneurship or come up with the business ideas. If the worker did, then due compensation should be given.

He was arguing historically. Historically speaking, owners of capital to a good extent came to it by unjustified means. Capitalism didn't arise by Smith's conception of the thrifty putting off present goods to invest in future ones (though I don't intend to deny that some people actually did that), but by the entrenchment of private interests at the bequest of government policy or by the remnants of the feudal system.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:58:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:55:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:50:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. The worker didn't take the risk on investment and entrepreneurship or come up with the business ideas. If the worker did, then due compensation should be given.

He was arguing historically. Historically speaking, owners of capital to a good extent came to it by unjustified means. Capitalism didn't arise by Smith's conception of the thrifty putting off present goods to invest in future ones (though I don't intend to deny that some people actually did that), but by the entrenchment of private interests at the bequest of government policy or by the remnants of the feudal system.

So inheritance and crony capitalism? I'm in agreement there. But that's not free market laissez faire.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:11:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:58:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:55:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:50:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. The worker didn't take the risk on investment and entrepreneurship or come up with the business ideas. If the worker did, then due compensation should be given.

He was arguing historically. Historically speaking, owners of capital to a good extent came to it by unjustified means. Capitalism didn't arise by Smith's conception of the thrifty putting off present goods to invest in future ones (though I don't intend to deny that some people actually did that), but by the entrenchment of private interests at the bequest of government policy or by the remnants of the feudal system.

So inheritance and crony capitalism? I'm in agreement there. But that's not free market laissez faire.

FREEDO's post was about where to go from the current crony-esque state of affairs given that most of what we call capitalism has stemmed from historical oppression and exploitation. Free marketers generally shrug off the problem which was, as I take it, the main line of criticism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:19:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:20:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The idea that worker communes work better then for-profit companies seems incredibly dubious and unlikely.

I didn't state this. I stated that for-profit co-ops tend work better than the traditional business model. But feel free to attack that. There's lots of discussion to be had on the subject.

The idea that the wealthy obtain their wealth through inheritance. It isn't too difficult to find examples to contradict this. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg didn't inherient their wealth fro their families. They created their own businesses. They had to acquire their funding through venture capitalists. They didn't just use their own.

Both Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg went to Harvard before they become bigshots. Not exactly a rags to riches story. Yes, there's a starting point in wealth which makes social mobility more of a reality and there's even a few who slip through the cracks to reach very high. But there's a definitive case that the poorer you are, they less likely you are to become richer. It's a viscous cycle that keeps people down. America has one of the worst social mobility rates among industrialized nations. Can you name one billionare who grew up in poverty? Just one? I haven't actually looked. But I would be impressed.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:25:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:50:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. There's a difference between force and coercion. You are equating revolution with unjustified monopolies on force. The force used by the Founding Fathers should never be equated to the initiatory coercion of the British tyranny.

Yet, you are suggesting it's ok to use force to steal the wealth of people who earned it to give to the rest. As if it's justified revolution. How would you distribute the money to each individual based on what they deserve? You can't, besides, Socialists want distribution of wealth evenly.

2. The worker didn't take the risk on investment and entrepreneurship or come up with the business ideas. If the worker did, then due compensation should be given.

3. I see no problem with a hierarchical model so long as it's not a hierarchy of authority. For example, nobody says that a football team with a coach is tyrannical unfairness, it is accepted as an efficient model to have a successful football team. Same with the workplace.

I don't think you understand my post very well. I didn't equate force with initiatory force. I thought I actually depicted the difference between the two. And my post should not be interpreted as an argument for Socialist revolution. I'm presenting what I think is an issue in free-market theories that is often neglected. Regardless of whether Socialist revolution is justified based on the NAP, the issue still exists. My post brings this up. You can call it the Libertarian Paradox; that sounds catchy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:45:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's an extremely simplified version of the problem.

Person A and person B each own 50% of the land. This is the natural state of the economy.

Person A takes all of person B's land, thus making them pay rent to have land.

Person A freely gives person A2(the inheritor) all the land. Person B2 is not left in the same predicament and person B.

The issue is: What is the more Libertarian thing to do?

1. Abide by the NAP and leave things as they are?
2. Revolt and redistribute things to their natural state, even though it requires coercing innocent parties.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:49:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 1:50:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I intend to point out a hypocrisy often exemplified by proponents of free-market capitalism in their critique of a Socialist restructuring of society.

Socialists make the case that capitalist business models are authoritarian in nature. Freemarket-Capitalists don't seem to understand what they are talking about. As they see it, the difference between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is very simply the difference between physical coercion or not. To the Socialist, it's because the capitalist runs the business and the worker does not.

Now, a genuine Freemarketeer has no problem with socialism. Most know that here. As long as we're talking about socialism in the sense most it's proponents use it, which is just "collective ownership of the means of production". Indeed, many co-ops operate in the free market today. They've even proven to a more successful business model, as the average co-op lasts longer than the average individually owned business. They are also easier to start, as the co-owners pool their wealth. It is a wonder, then, that it isn't the dominant business model. Many theorists suggest that, if a precedent were set for it, it would naturally become the dominant business model in a truly free market.

This is not socialist. This is capitalist. People are given shares of a corporation or co-op commensurate with their invested capital.

Utilizing your logic, you would say that most of corporate America is a socialist institution, because the shares are in some way, somehow, owned by everyone, instead of a private or public head. There is something clearly wrong with your definitions here.

IMHO there's something wrong with how you're defining socialism. Collective ownership means there's nothing that denotes ownership by any individual - it is assumed to be held in common. There are no individual shares, no claims of any sort in such a system.

However, the Freemarket-Capitalists have a huge problem with Socialist revolution, where the workers decide to kick their bosses out and take control of industry without establishing it themselves.

Indeed, in a real free market, the worker, being unsatisfied with working for someone else, could quite and do things their own way because they have enough leverage. But a Socialist will pose that, at many points in history, production was been coerced into the control of a select few people. This is historically true. The Capitalist class has used it's influence to control government in it's favor. The Freemarketeer acknowledges that this is wrong and should be corrected. However, once those select few have long since died and their property inherited freely by someone new, a rift appears. The Socialist sees that the oligopoly ,arisen out of coercion, still remains, whether it be in "innocent" hands or not. The oligopoly even grows larger as they freely trade among themselves, as they have more leverage in the market. But the Freemarket-Capitalist sees no problem, for the inheritors are not the violators. So when the Socialist attempts to rectify things back to the balance of how a free market would have had it in the first place, the Freemarketeer cries "coercion!" and puts a stop to it.

This is where the hypocrisy arises. The same people will glorify the transformation from a Feudalistic society into a Capitalist one. After all, it was acquired through force, of course. But what then? It certainly wasn't force all the way through. At least not by propertarian standards that recognize the legitimacy of using force to protect your property which you acquired freely. Many centuries went by. The monarch owns all and simply passes the property down their family line, as do the nobles who "rent" the property from the monarch and the serfs who "rent" the property from them. It's a free-market for the most part. Free by the standards of the Freemarket-Capitalist. But how free by the standards of the Socialist? None at all. For as things are being traded freely, there is still a huge amount of leverage shifted towards a select few. It turns out, if we look back in time, people were making the same familiar arguments that this is the way things were "meant to be", that it was the "natural order". Eventually the people decided that was bullshit and revolted. Feudalism gave way to Capitalism. And all for the sake of equality, not for voluntary exchange.

When the Freemarket-Capitalist acknowledges this, it creates a paradox. How do we correct it? Let things go on in their unbalanced way, so long as we maximize voluntary exchange?--essentially just ignore it? Do we, perhaps, give in to welfare as a form of slowly correcting it? That seems to be the way society has chosen, whether they are aware or not. Or do we do the unspeakable and actually let a revolution put things back to a "fresh start", regardless of the fact that it requires coercion? There are even more options, still. We could abolish inheritance. We could abolish the family unit. But what Freemarketeer could accept such things?

Most likely, they will just opt for the first choice and ignore that the issue exists, because that's most convenient.

IMHO we transitioned from feudalism to capitalism because capital became more mobile. Wealth became less about the land you owned and more about the desired productivity one was able to create. The industrial revolution thereby advanced the need for wealth to become more fungible, and not just defined by land ownership. Factories and entities that controlled them became as valuable, if not more so, than farmland. Our financial institutions evolved to accommodate for this development.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:49:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:45:53 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:20:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Finding a lot of these claims dubious. The idea that worker communes work better then for-profit companies seems incredibly dubious and unlikely. I know Roylatham has provided examples of its failure of them with an airplane company.

Evidence isn't conclusive one way or another as I've found when looking into the matter. But I would never argue that worker communes would work better than for-profits. I wouldn't know. All I would argue is that they have the potential to work on close to the same scale.

I got the sense from Freedo's post that worker communals could work if only the captialist class would allow them to flourish. I don't think capitalism is hindering their growth.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:53:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:49:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

IMHO we transitioned from feudalism to capitalism because capital became more mobile. Wealth became less about the land you owned and more about the desired productivity one was able to create. The industrial revolution thereby advanced the need for wealth to become more fungible, and not just defined by land ownership. Factories and entities that controlled them became as valuable, if not more so, than farmland. Our financial institutions evolved to accommodate for this development.

We are capitalist because Europe is oriented in a generally East/West nature, which allowed for the cultivation and transport of livestock, which is not possible in Africa/Asia because they are oriented North/South and moving livestock on those continents means temperature change and livestock death.

That was the portability which lead to the need for metallurgy and THEN capital became portable.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:54:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry...meant Africa/South America.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:54:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:49:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I got the sense from Freedo's post that worker communals could work if only the captialist class would allow them to flourish. I don't think capitalism is hindering their growth.

Not right.

However, I'd be more careful with my labels. For me, Capitalism is only one kind of market out of many. If I had meant to describe something that abolished markets, I would have used the word Communism, not Socialism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:55:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:49:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:45:53 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:20:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Finding a lot of these claims dubious. The idea that worker communes work better then for-profit companies seems incredibly dubious and unlikely. I know Roylatham has provided examples of its failure of them with an airplane company.

Evidence isn't conclusive one way or another as I've found when looking into the matter. But I would never argue that worker communes would work better than for-profits. I wouldn't know. All I would argue is that they have the potential to work on close to the same scale.

I got the sense from Freedo's post that worker communals could work if only the captialist class would allow them to flourish. I don't think capitalism is hindering their growth.

Me either. I just think worker co-ops on the market would be a pleasant alternative and something I could get behind as an organizing principle.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:26:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
SP is completely on the same page with me.

Lol you would dig Kevin Carson. He's been saying dis shlt for a while.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:58:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:19:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:20:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The idea that worker communes work better then for-profit companies seems incredibly dubious and unlikely.

I didn't state this. I stated that for-profit co-ops tend work better than the traditional business model. But feel free to attack that. There's lots of discussion to be had on the subject.

Curious what you'd say the differences between the two are.


The idea that the wealthy obtain their wealth through inheritance. It isn't too difficult to find examples to contradict this. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg didn't inherient their wealth fro their families. They created their own businesses. They had to acquire their funding through venture capitalists. They didn't just use their own.

Both Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg went to Harvard before they become bigshots. Not exactly a rags to riches story. Yes, there's a starting point in wealth which makes social mobility more of a reality and there's even a few who slip through the cracks to reach very high.

Yes, I agree that they came from upper-middle class. Bill Gates background was higher class then Zuckerberg. However, they weren't out-of-site rich, especially not Zuckerberg. They certainly gained more wealth then their parents.

But there's a definitive case that the poorer you are, they less likely you are to become richer. It's a viscous cycle that keeps people down. America has one of the worst social mobility rates among industrialized nations. Can you name one billionare who grew up in poverty? Just one? I haven't actually looked. But I would be impressed.

Oprah Winfrey

Social mobility does exist, although I'd also say there's a reverse correlation. People from rich familes become rich because of their genetics and not just the wealth their families have. Those with great wealth, tend to have genes that make them wealthy, and pass these genes over.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:03:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:49:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is not socialist. This is capitalist. People are given shares of a corporation or co-op commensurate with their invested capital.

Utilizing your logic, you would say that most of corporate America is a socialist institution, because the shares are in some way, somehow, owned by everyone, instead of a private or public head. There is something clearly wrong with your definitions here.

IMHO there's something wrong with how you're defining socialism. Collective ownership means there's nothing that denotes ownership by any individual - it is assumed to be held in common. There are no individual shares, no claims of any sort in such a system.

Yes, a corporation, owned by it's share holders, is technically owned collectively. But it still keeps classism intact by keeping the workers under the control of someone else.

So, perhaps you're right that I wasn't clear enough. Worker or consumer ownership of the means of production shall be my definition.

IMHO we transitioned from feudalism to capitalism because capital became more mobile. Wealth became less about the land you owned and more about the desired productivity one was able to create. The industrial revolution thereby advanced the need for wealth to become more fungible, and not just defined by land ownership. Factories and entities that controlled them became as valuable, if not more so, than farmland. Our financial institutions evolved to accommodate for this development.

That's a good position. To clarify, are you saying that industrialism eliminated feudalism? Could you explain this more and back it up historically?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:03:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:45:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Here's an extremely simplified version of the problem.

Person A and person B each own 50% of the land. This is the natural state of the economy.

Person A takes all of person B's land, thus making them pay rent to have land.

Person A freely gives person A2(the inheritor) all the land. Person B2 is not left in the same predicament and person B.

The issue is: What is the more Libertarian thing to do?

1. Abide by the NAP and leave things as they are?
2. Revolt and redistribute things to their natural state, even though it requires coercing innocent parties.

Ah, so this is a critique of the NAP as an absolute rule. Yes, I can certainly agree with that. I think that regular, non-catastrophic disruption of the social order is definitely essential for any long-standing republican form of government to maintain a spirit of liberty. The blood of patriots and tyrants, etc. etc. People think that revolutionary action needs to spell the end of government, but the Roman Republic is a good example of a government which survived for a very long time whilst immersed in class turmoil. A large reason for their success was that they involved class in the framework of the government, which encouraged conflict. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I think that our setup was a bit naive and that the lower classes have been shut out of the legislative process as a result. Yes, they can vote, but the two-party system deprives them of any real choice. Historically, this sort of thing usually means a buildup of resentment leading to a bloodbath.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:03:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:53:32 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:49:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

IMHO we transitioned from feudalism to capitalism because capital became more mobile. Wealth became less about the land you owned and more about the desired productivity one was able to create. The industrial revolution thereby advanced the need for wealth to become more fungible, and not just defined by land ownership. Factories and entities that controlled them became as valuable, if not more so, than farmland. Our financial institutions evolved to accommodate for this development.

We are capitalist because Europe is oriented in a generally East/West nature, which allowed for the cultivation and transport of livestock, which is not possible in Africa/Asia because they are oriented North/South and moving livestock on those continents means temperature change and livestock death.

That was the portability which lead to the need for metallurgy and THEN capital became portable.

You are describing a pastoral society.

Capitalism evolved from the West because of the fragmented nature of the feudal system. This allowed for city states to gain more relative control and autonomy over their own circumstances than similar entities in the centralized "oriental despots" of the East. This control and autonomy slowly but surely prioritized trade over land ownership. Along with the technological advances inherent in the industrial revolution, people no longer required rural subsistence to survive. Therefore, we became more capitalistic, i.e. prioritizing mobile capital over land ownership.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?