Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchism vs 'Anarcho'-capitalism

Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:19:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to address the reason why socialist anarchists reject anarcho-capitalists.

To begin, I would like to start by saying that Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates the abolition of all forms of (illegitimate) authority (most prominently the state). The state is made up of three components:

1) A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

2) A hierarchical authority that exercises this monopoly.

3) A given area over which this monopoly is enforced.

Anarcho-capitalism and Anarchism both advocate for the abolition of the state for the same reasons. That being that the state can only exist through enforcing it's monopoly onto others.

However, Anarcho-capitalists, instead of applying the same standard to all forms of authority, make the exception for the bourgeois class's right to ownership of capital. To an Anarchist, this is contradictory. In order for capital to remain in the hands of the bourgeois, there must be some formal system that prevents the proletariat from seizing private property in favor of common ownership. Thus, only two things are possible for an Anarcho-capitalist society.

A) The proletariat seizes capitalist private property (land, the means of production, etc.)

or B) A monopoly over the legitimate use of violence is used in order to defend the bourgeois right to property.

In other words, a state in some form must emerge to defend capitalist property. However, this would not be in the form of the 'state' as we know it today. This would be in the form of defense companies. Thus making the reign of capital, a statist apparatus.

To put this in more technical terms:

P1) Anarchism supports the abolition of the state, and it's monopoly.

P2) Anarcho-capitalism also advocates for the abolition of the state, but not capitalist private property or capitalism in general.

P3) Capitalism requires a defense of the bourgeois right to property.

P4) This defense takes the form of a monopoly of force (aka a state).

C1) Capitalism requires some form of state body to survive.

C2) Anarcho-capitalism isn't Anarchist.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:17:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:19:43 PM, Chimera wrote:
I want to address the reason why socialist anarchists reject anarcho-capitalists.

To begin, I would like to start by saying that Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates the abolition of all forms of (illegitimate) authority (most prominently the state). The state is made up of three components:

1) A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

2) A hierarchical authority that exercises this monopoly.

3) A given area over which this monopoly is enforced.

Anarcho-capitalism and Anarchism both advocate for the abolition of the state for the same reasons. That being that the state can only exist through enforcing it's monopoly onto others.

However, Anarcho-capitalists, instead of applying the same standard to all forms of authority, make the exception for the bourgeois class's right to ownership of capital. To an Anarchist, this is contradictory. In order for capital to remain in the hands of the bourgeois, there must be some formal system that prevents the proletariat from seizing private property in favor of common ownership. Thus, only two things are possible for an Anarcho-capitalist society.

A) The proletariat seizes capitalist private property (land, the means of production, etc.)

or B) A monopoly over the legitimate use of violence is used in order to defend the bourgeois right to property.

In other words, a state in some form must emerge to defend capitalist property. However, this would not be in the form of the 'state' as we know it today. This would be in the form of defense companies. Thus making the reign of capital, a statist apparatus.

To put this in more technical terms:

P1) Anarchism supports the abolition of the state, and it's monopoly.

P2) Anarcho-capitalism also advocates for the abolition of the state, but not capitalist private property or capitalism in general.

P3) Capitalism requires a defense of the bourgeois right to property.

P4) This defense takes the form of a monopoly of force (aka a state).

C1) Capitalism requires some form of state body to survive.

C2) Anarcho-capitalism isn't Anarchist.

Very nice. What do you think of the notion that capitalism is effectively unsustainable without state intervention, due to the idea that when a transaction occurs, the effects and risks of the transaction are only calculated for those involved in the transaction? "Externalities" are not accounted for, ruining the system.

"The financial crisis in the Fall of 1998 was the first post-World War II crisis in which
events in emerging market economies seriously threatened the financial stability of
the West, and where the origins of the crisis was clearly to be found in the workings
of liberalised markets and private sector institutions... This was not a problem of sovereign debt, or macroeconomic imbalance, or a foreign exchange crisis. Instead it was the manifestation of the systemic risk created by the market driven decisions of a private firm, and of the behaviour of free financial markets. The potential economy-wide inefficiency of liberalised financial markets was indisputable"
http://www.financialpolicy.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:17:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:19:43 PM, Chimera wrote:
I want to address the reason why socialist anarchists reject anarcho-capitalists.

To begin, I would like to start by saying that Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates the abolition of all forms of (illegitimate) authority (most prominently the state). The state is made up of three components:

1) A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

2) A hierarchical authority that exercises this monopoly.

3) A given area over which this monopoly is enforced.

Anarcho-capitalism and Anarchism both advocate for the abolition of the state for the same reasons. That being that the state can only exist through enforcing it's monopoly onto others.

However, Anarcho-capitalists, instead of applying the same standard to all forms of authority, make the exception for the bourgeois class's right to ownership of capital. To an Anarchist, this is contradictory. In order for capital to remain in the hands of the bourgeois, there must be some formal system that prevents the proletariat from seizing private property in favor of common ownership. Thus, only two things are possible for an Anarcho-capitalist society.

A) The proletariat seizes capitalist private property (land, the means of production, etc.)

or B) A monopoly over the legitimate use of violence is used in order to defend the bourgeois right to property.

In other words, a state in some form must emerge to defend capitalist property. However, this would not be in the form of the 'state' as we know it today. This would be in the form of defense companies. Thus making the reign of capital, a statist apparatus.

To put this in more technical terms:

P1) Anarchism supports the abolition of the state, and it's monopoly.

P2) Anarcho-capitalism also advocates for the abolition of the state, but not capitalist private property or capitalism in general.

P3) Capitalism requires a defense of the bourgeois right to property.

P4) This defense takes the form of a monopoly of force (aka a state).

C1) Capitalism requires some form of state body to survive.

C2) Anarcho-capitalism isn't Anarchist.

Sounds about right.

Anarcho-capitalism is about the most evil system I can think of, including free-market capitalism (saying a lot). I'm generally favorable to all forms of anarchical political movement ideologies (even if not always thrilled by the specific, violent forms that such protests often take), except for this ridiculousness
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:05:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:19:43 PM, Chimera wrote:
P3) Capitalism requires a defense of the bourgeois right to property.

P4) This defense takes the form of a monopoly of force (aka a state).

C1) Capitalism requires some form of state body to survive.

C2) Anarcho-capitalism isn't Anarchist.

Capitalism asserts the defense of each person's right to property, for the very reason that this follows from, and is essential to the definition of, the opposition to hierarchy. If to preserve the right to property, a monopoly of force is required, then that is simply to say that anarchism is altogether impossible, since the absence of hierarchy would simply mean that each person has an absolute property right which is not overcome by anyone else simply by way of their position.

If property is unjustified, then by what right can you decry the "oppression of the proletariat" by the taking of their products of labour? They had no right to those products in the first place; it was not their property, according to the anarcho-communist. Therefore, I hold that an-com is not true communism, since it denies the very concept (property) which makes the idea of authority understandable. If nobody has properties, then society becomes an undifferentiated mass, and so to decry the oppression of any particular group is incoherent.

However, Anarcho-capitalists, instead of applying the same standard to all forms of authority, make the exception for the bourgeois class's right to ownership of capital.

You have not established how the bourgeois' act of owning capital is at all an assertion of authority. If it is authoritarian to remove someone from the products of their labour, then it would be authoritarian to remove the capital from the hands of the bourgeois, if they worked for it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:22:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 9:17:54 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Very nice. What do you think of the notion that capitalism is effectively unsustainable without state intervention, due to the idea that when a transaction occurs, the effects and risks of the transaction are only calculated for those involved in the transaction? "Externalities" are not accounted for, ruining the system.

The idea that the state is better suited to taking account of the positive or negative effects of a transaction than individuals who actually own the things which will be effected by it is totally unjustifiable. The state can only perceive problems in terms on broad general abstractions, and cannot solve them but only move them around. Furthermore, if I am going to be personally effected by the outcome of some transaction, I am definitely going to put far more research and time into changing that, than a government official for whom all that is at stake is, at best, a difference in pay. The very concept of solving a problem at its root, rather than simply throwing money at it, is an "externality" to the government, so to say that it can in any case be beneficial in its intrusion into free enterprise is simply ill-informed.

One thing people consistently fail to take account of is that in capitalism the objects of which 'externalities' are composed are themselves owned by someone, and that person is at all times attempting to look out for their best interest. It is impossible that anyone can attempt to solve a problem while taking absolutely all factors into account, but the best solution to this is the solid and consistent definition of what is who's concern which property provides, rather than the reluctant shortcut solutions of the state, or the fuzzy, vindictive "good-will" of anarchist-communism.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:35:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:17:05 PM, kbub wrote:
Sounds about right.

Anarcho-capitalism is about the most evil system I can think of, including free-market capitalism (saying a lot). I'm generally favorable to all forms of anarchical political movement ideologies (even if not always thrilled by the specific, violent forms that such protests often take), except for this ridiculousness

If a system which is simply the logical extension of property-ownership is what you consider the ultimate evil, then you should have no problem with violence whatsoever, since the people violated presumably have no right to their own bodies or to whatever is required to maintain them.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:39:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:05:47 AM, sdavio wrote:
Capitalism asserts the defense of each person's right to property, for the very reason that this follows from, and is essential to the definition of, the opposition to hierarchy. If to preserve the right to property, a monopoly of force is required, then that is simply to say that anarchism is altogether impossible, since the absence of hierarchy would simply mean that each person has an absolute property right which is not overcome by anyone else simply by way of their position.

Wow, I use the word "simply" way too much. lol
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:28:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:22:55 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/20/2014 9:17:54 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Very nice. What do you think of the notion that capitalism is effectively unsustainable without state intervention, due to the idea that when a transaction occurs, the effects and risks of the transaction are only calculated for those involved in the transaction? "Externalities" are not accounted for, ruining the system.

The idea that the state is better suited to taking account of the positive or negative effects of a transaction than individuals who actually own the things which will be effected by it is totally unjustifiable. The state can only perceive problems in terms on broad general abstractions, and cannot solve them but only move them around. Furthermore, if I am going to be personally effected by the outcome of some transaction, I am definitely going to put far more research and time into changing that, than a government official for whom all that is at stake is, at best, a difference in pay. The very concept of solving a problem at its root, rather than simply throwing money at it, is an "externality" to the government, so to say that it can in any case be beneficial in its intrusion into free enterprise is simply ill-informed.

One thing people consistently fail to take account of is that in capitalism the objects of which 'externalities' are composed are themselves owned by someone, and that person is at all times attempting to look out for their best interest. It is impossible that anyone can attempt to solve a problem while taking absolutely all factors into account, but the best solution to this is the solid and consistent definition of what is who's concern which property provides, rather than the reluctant shortcut solutions of the state, or the fuzzy, vindictive "good-will" of anarchist-communism.

Yes, they are indeed owned by someone, but they are not part of the transaction. That's the point.

As far as I am aware, your free market posturing is not supported by any evidence. 'Developed countries' developed due to government intervention, e.g. the 'East Asian miracle'. The Third World consists of countries who have had neoliberal economic policies forced on them. Haiti was the poorest country in the Western hemisphere even before the earthquake.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:30:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:22:55 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/20/2014 9:17:54 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Very nice. What do you think of the notion that capitalism is effectively unsustainable without state intervention, due to the idea that when a transaction occurs, the effects and risks of the transaction are only calculated for those involved in the transaction? "Externalities" are not accounted for, ruining the system.

The idea that the state is better suited to taking account of the positive or negative effects of a transaction than individuals who actually own the things which will be effected by it is totally unjustifiable. The state can only perceive problems in terms on broad general abstractions, and cannot solve them but only move them around. Furthermore, if I am going to be personally effected by the outcome of some transaction, I am definitely going to put far more research and time into changing that, than a government official for whom all that is at stake is, at best, a difference in pay. The very concept of solving a problem at its root, rather than simply throwing money at it, is an "externality" to the government, so to say that it can in any case be beneficial in its intrusion into free enterprise is simply ill-informed.

One thing people consistently fail to take account of is that in capitalism the objects of which 'externalities' are composed are themselves owned by someone, and that person is at all times attempting to look out for their best interest. It is impossible that anyone can attempt to solve a problem while taking absolutely all factors into account, but the best solution to this is the solid and consistent definition of what is who's concern which property provides, rather than the reluctant shortcut solutions of the state, or the fuzzy, vindictive "good-will" of anarchist-communism.

And you're a goddamn an-cap again? Better get property defined! The fuzziness of anarchism, hah.
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:53:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:28:13 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Yes, they are indeed owned by someone, but they are not part of the transaction. That's the point.

Anyway, I do not even agree with this reductionist view of capitalism in the first place, since the idea that all that is involved in a transaction are the commodities being traded for and self-interest seems to be a Marxist dogma which is itself not supported by evidence; if I buy free-range eggs because I want the chickens to have better lives, then that is an "externality" which is included in the transaction. The only true externalities are those things we are literally unaware of or do not care about, and abolishing capitalism will not change that fact.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:04:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:30:33 AM, Wocambs wrote:
And you're a goddamn an-cap again? Better get property defined! The fuzziness of anarchism, hah.

What? Property is defined. I like this definition: "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing". And the property right is that the owner of those attributes is allowed a socially respected right to continue holding them.

And what are you talking about, haven't I been arguing for property to you for ages now?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:33:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:53:50 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:28:13 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Yes, they are indeed owned by someone, but they are not part of the transaction. That's the point.

Anyway, I do not even agree with this reductionist view of capitalism in the first place, since the idea that all that is involved in a transaction are the commodities being traded for and self-interest seems to be a Marxist dogma which is itself not supported by evidence; if I buy free-range eggs because I want the chickens to have better lives, then that is an "externality" which is included in the transaction. The only true externalities are those things we are literally unaware of or do not care about, and abolishing capitalism will not change that fact.

No, the externality is the effect on the cage industry when you buy those eggs. I think this problem could be avoided because under capitalism things 'fail' because they no longer become profitable and people suffer, but presumably if we were producing things to consume them, then the industry could only 'fail' if it literally could not carry out production anymore.

What? Property is defined. I like this definition: "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing". And the property right is that the owner of those attributes is allowed a socially respected right to continue holding them.

And what are you talking about, haven't I been arguing for property to you for ages now?

As I said, it seems to follow from your definition that it is strictly accurate that everyone owns everything if 'thing' is delineated according to what seems useful rather than what is 'strictly accurate'.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:36:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:35:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:17:05 PM, kbub wrote:
Sounds about right.

Anarcho-capitalism is about the most evil system I can think of, including free-market capitalism (saying a lot). I'm generally favorable to all forms of anarchical political movement ideologies (even if not always thrilled by the specific, violent forms that such protests often take), except for this ridiculousness

If a system which is simply the logical extension of property-ownership is what you consider the ultimate evil, then you should have no problem with violence whatsoever, since the people violated presumably have no right to their own bodies or to whatever is required to maintain them.

Oh gosh, I guess I completely misunderstood you. Anarcho-capitalism is basically the easiest and most effective way for coperations to posses the bodies and minds of their workers. It ultimately gives freedoms precisely to those people who don't need any more freedom--the bourgeoisie--and effectively enslaves the lower class workers to the worst of capitalism. What you are advocating is basically a system that cultivates unadulterated slavery, in my opinion.

I think people do have the right to their bodies, and to their autonomy. That's what upsets me so much about Anarcho-capitalism, is that it ensures that workers have neither. It's cooperate surfdom, in such a way that the surfs will never be able to revolt, because the coperations (and not even the highest individuals like CEOs) would have utter power--politically, socially, and economically. They will afford their workers the bare minimum of resources necessary to be productive. And there's no laws keeping the cooperations from performing inhumane acts. I can't think of any other description besides pure evil.
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:13:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:36:40 AM, kbub wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:35:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:17:05 PM, kbub wrote:
Sounds about right.

Anarcho-capitalism is about the most evil system I can think of, including free-market capitalism (saying a lot). I'm generally favorable to all forms of anarchical political movement ideologies (even if not always thrilled by the specific, violent forms that such protests often take), except for this ridiculousness

If a system which is simply the logical extension of property-ownership is what you consider the ultimate evil, then you should have no problem with violence whatsoever, since the people violated presumably have no right to their own bodies or to whatever is required to maintain them.

Oh gosh, I guess I completely misunderstood you. Anarcho-capitalism is basically the easiest and most effective way for coperations to posses the bodies and minds of their workers.

Self-ownership is one of the most fundamental premisses that it is built upon. Further, the 'bourgeois' would by the same logic you are using be under the control of the workers as well as the customers, since they would always be subject to competition, and the workers can always leave and work somewhere better, since there would be no monopolies.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:18:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:13:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:36:40 AM, kbub wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:35:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:17:05 PM, kbub wrote:
Sounds about right.

Anarcho-capitalism is about the most evil system I can think of, including free-market capitalism (saying a lot). I'm generally favorable to all forms of anarchical political movement ideologies (even if not always thrilled by the specific, violent forms that such protests often take), except for this ridiculousness

If a system which is simply the logical extension of property-ownership is what you consider the ultimate evil, then you should have no problem with violence whatsoever, since the people violated presumably have no right to their own bodies or to whatever is required to maintain them.

Oh gosh, I guess I completely misunderstood you. Anarcho-capitalism is basically the easiest and most effective way for coperations to posses the bodies and minds of their workers.

Self-ownership is one of the most fundamental premisses that it is built upon. Further, the 'bourgeois' would by the same logic you are using be under the control of the workers as well as the customers, since they would always be subject to competition, and the workers can always leave and work somewhere better, since there would be no monopolies.

People will be able to leave their jobs under your system, but that does not mean they'll be able to work somewhere better. This is the illusion of freedom and autonomy, not actual freedom and autonomy. It is unadulterated exploitation.
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:19:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:33:08 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:53:50 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:28:13 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Yes, they are indeed owned by someone, but they are not part of the transaction. That's the point.

Anyway, I do not even agree with this reductionist view of capitalism in the first place, since the idea that all that is involved in a transaction are the commodities being traded for and self-interest seems to be a Marxist dogma which is itself not supported by evidence; if I buy free-range eggs because I want the chickens to have better lives, then that is an "externality" which is included in the transaction. The only true externalities are those things we are literally unaware of or do not care about, and abolishing capitalism will not change that fact.

No, the externality is the effect on the cage industry when you buy those eggs.

This is like saying we should keep slavery because otherwise the slave-masters would lose their position. That kind of externality is called creative destruction, and it is a good thing.

I think this problem could be avoided because under capitalism things 'fail' because they no longer become profitable and people suffer, but presumably if we were producing things to consume them, then the industry could only 'fail' if it literally could not carry out production anymore.

I couldn't make sense of this paragraph, sorry.

What? Property is defined. I like this definition: "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing". And the property right is that the owner of those attributes is allowed a socially respected right to continue holding them.

And what are you talking about, haven't I been arguing for property to you for ages now?

As I said, it seems to follow from your definition that it is strictly accurate that everyone owns everything if 'thing' is delineated according to what seems useful rather than what is 'strictly accurate'.

Being as accurate as possible is, according to my argument, the most useful thing.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:21:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:18:34 AM, kbub wrote:
People will be able to leave their jobs under your system, but that does not mean they'll be able to work somewhere better. This is the illusion of freedom and autonomy, not actual freedom and autonomy. It is unadulterated exploitation.

If there is no monopoly, then there are multiple employers competing for staff. Even if there is a natural monopoly (that is, there is only one employer because nobody else wants to be one, for whatever reason,) then there is a market incentive for someone to join the market and compete.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:29:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:21:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:18:34 AM, kbub wrote:
People will be able to leave their jobs under your system, but that does not mean they'll be able to work somewhere better. This is the illusion of freedom and autonomy, not actual freedom and autonomy. It is unadulterated exploitation.

If there is no monopoly, then there are multiple employers competing for staff. Even if there is a natural monopoly (that is, there is only one employer because nobody else wants to be one, for whatever reason,) then there is a market incentive for someone to join the market and compete.

And, if the person looking for a job is not specialized to one industry (if it is a low-level job like McDonald's, for instance,) then the employer is in competition not only with other employers in that industry, but also employers in every industry hiring at that skill level, so it's pretty much unthinkable that monopolies or lack of demand could be relevant there. This would mean that the concept of someone being unskilled and wanting to work but not being able to get any job whatsoever would basically not exist. This phenomenon is only made possible by minimum wages and regulations.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:14:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:19:01 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:33:08 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:53:50 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:28:13 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Yes, they are indeed owned by someone, but they are not part of the transaction. That's the point.

Anyway, I do not even agree with this reductionist view of capitalism in the first place, since the idea that all that is involved in a transaction are the commodities being traded for and self-interest seems to be a Marxist dogma which is itself not supported by evidence; if I buy free-range eggs because I want the chickens to have better lives, then that is an "externality" which is included in the transaction. The only true externalities are those things we are literally unaware of or do not care about, and abolishing capitalism will not change that fact.

No, the externality is the effect on the cage industry when you buy those eggs.

This is like saying we should keep slavery because otherwise the slave-masters would lose their position. That kind of externality is called creative destruction, and it is a good thing.

I was giving an example of what an externality actually is, not advocating anything. One obvious externality which rarely seems to be accounted for is damage to the environment, unless of course you're pouring bleach into the river that passes by David Cameron's summer home in Devon.

I think this problem could be avoided because under capitalism things 'fail' because they no longer become profitable and people suffer, but presumably if we were producing things to consume them, then the industry could only 'fail' if it literally could not carry out production anymore.

I couldn't make sense of this paragraph, sorry.

Under capitalism, 'failure' is unrelated to production. Capitalism also incentivises you to ignore externalities, because it doesn't profit you to worry about what happens to other people.

What? Property is defined. I like this definition: "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing". And the property right is that the owner of those attributes is allowed a socially respected right to continue holding them.

And what are you talking about, haven't I been arguing for property to you for ages now?

As I said, it seems to follow from your definition that it is strictly accurate that everyone owns everything if 'thing' is delineated according to what seems useful rather than what is 'strictly accurate'.

Being as accurate as possible is, according to my argument, the most useful thing.

"an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing"

I don't really see how this is a principle for appropriation. If I chopped off your arm, you'd still presumably be sdavio, so really you're proposing a thick definition of 'sdavio', but I don't know where you're getting the thickness from, i.e. why your arm, your house, and the universe you inhabit is an "essential or distinctive" attribute of you.

the 'bourgeois' would by the same logic you are using be under the control of the workers as well as the customers, since they would always be subject to competition, and the workers can always leave and work somewhere better, since there would be no monopolies.

According to this logic, kings, emperors and dictators are under the control of their people, because they rely on the obedience of their people. You may as well argue: 'What is wrong with dictatorship? If the dictator did not follow the will of the people, they would simply ignore his stupidity and put someone else in his place'.

'What is wrong with the economic elite? If they do not satisfy the needs of the people, they will go bankrupt'

And, if the person looking for a job is not specialized to one industry (if it is a low-level job like McDonald's, for instance,) then the employer is in competition not only with other employers in that industry, but also employers in every industry hiring at that skill level, so it's pretty much unthinkable that monopolies or lack of demand could be relevant there. This would mean that the concept of someone being unskilled and wanting to work but not being able to get any job whatsoever would basically not exist. This phenomenon is only made possible by minimum wages and regulations.

'Unregulated capitalism' is essentially 'unregulated exploitation'. You rely on the workers to challenge power and for the corporations to do nothing to defend their power.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:29:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:21:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:18:34 AM, kbub wrote:
People will be able to leave their jobs under your system, but that does not mean they'll be able to work somewhere better. This is the illusion of freedom and autonomy, not actual freedom and autonomy. It is unadulterated exploitation.

If there is no monopoly, then there are multiple employers competing for staff. Even if there is a natural monopoly (that is, there is only one employer because nobody else wants to be one, for whatever reason,) then there is a market incentive for someone to join the market and compete.

Within capitalism, the value of the worker is relative. Even if everyone were educated suddenly to a PhD level, poverty wouldn't change. People are only able to be valued in the workplace (read: only able to escape poverty) if they are valuable _over_ someone else. Regardless of objective skill.

The market incentive you are talking about incentives companies to lower the wages they offer their lowest workers as much as possible. This is because they are forced to make their products as cheap as possible in order to compete in the marketplace. Hence, if one company offers their workers $10 and other pays the same workers only $8, although surely more people would apply for a job at company #1, company #1 would offer products that are priced higher, and would therefore be run out of business by company #2. You seem to assume that companies are incentivized to pay their workers well; however, that is untrue. They are incentivized to sell their products as cheaply as possible, which pressures the worst. Companies in a "free" market are primarily competing for consumers, not for employees. (100 applicants does not make a company hiring 4 people much better than a company with 20 applicants.)

Unrestrained capitalism would create an enormous impoverished class that are able to make only enough money to be able to continue to work, and not enough to quit their jobs. But even if they can quit their jobs, their is no reason for other companies to pay more for their low-skilled labor than their original company. Hence, they are pushed into a cycle of forced labor and endless poverty.
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 11:29:17 AM, kbub wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:21:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:18:34 AM, kbub wrote:
People will be able to leave their jobs under your system, but that does not mean they'll be able to work somewhere better. This is the illusion of freedom and autonomy, not actual freedom and autonomy. It is unadulterated exploitation.

If there is no monopoly, then there are multiple employers competing for staff. Even if there is a natural monopoly (that is, there is only one employer because nobody else wants to be one, for whatever reason,) then there is a market incentive for someone to join the market and compete.

Within capitalism, the value of the worker is relative. Even if everyone were educated suddenly to a PhD level, poverty wouldn't change. People are only able to be valued in the workplace (read: only able to escape poverty) if they are valuable _over_ someone else. Regardless of objective skill.

Not sure what you're saying here. Of course, the payment would fit the amount of value the person provides; someone who is very skilled will make more money than a less skilled person.

The market incentive you are talking about incentives companies to lower the wages they offer their lowest workers as much as possible. This is because they are forced to make their products as cheap as possible in order to compete in the marketplace. Hence, if one company offers their workers $10 and other pays the same workers only $8, although surely more people would apply for a job at company #1, company #1 would offer products that are priced higher, and would therefore be run out of business by company #2. You seem to assume that companies are incentivized to pay their workers well; however, that is untrue. They are incentivized to sell their products as cheaply as possible, which pressures the worst. Companies in a "free" market are primarily competing for consumers, not for employees. (100 applicants does not make a company hiring 4 people much better than a company with 20 applicants.)

A situation with such an abundance of applicants would rarely occur in an-cap; only if someone were for some reason offering a job with low requirements and high pay, in which case of course the demand would go up. However, in the majority of cases, work would be a very valuable asset, and all applicants would be being faced with multiple possible job opportunities at once, so while the employer must lower product prices in order to appeal to customers, they must also raise wages and working conditions in order to appeal to employees, since it is fundamental to capitalism that there should be a balance in the competitiveness of the employment and commodity markets. It is by way of the many regulations on companies such as minimum wage that the amount of jobs has been lowered, and therefore the balance has been tipped in favour of what employers remain in the current system.

Unrestrained capitalism would create an enormous impoverished class that are able to make only enough money to be able to continue to work, and not enough to quit their jobs. But even if they can quit their jobs, their is no reason for other companies to pay more for their low-skilled labor than their original company.

The reason is that the companies need labour, and that there are multiple companies competing for it.

Hence, they are pushed into a cycle of forced labor and endless poverty.

It is not forced labour, since everyone would always have the possibility of working elsewhere or starting their own enterprise.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:29:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 12:02:06 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 11:29:17 AM, kbub wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:21:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:18:34 AM, kbub wrote:
People will be able to leave their jobs under your system, but that does not mean they'll be able to work somewhere better. This is the illusion of freedom and autonomy, not actual freedom and autonomy. It is unadulterated exploitation.

If there is no monopoly, then there are multiple employers competing for staff. Even if there is a natural monopoly (that is, there is only one employer because nobody else wants to be one, for whatever reason,) then there is a market incentive for someone to join the market and compete.

Within capitalism, the value of the worker is relative. Even if everyone were educated suddenly to a PhD level, poverty wouldn't change. People are only able to be valued in the workplace (read: only able to escape poverty) if they are valuable _over_ someone else. Regardless of objective skill.

Not sure what you're saying here. Of course, the payment would fit the amount of value the person provides; someone who is very skilled will make more money than a less skilled person.

The market incentive you are talking about incentives companies to lower the wages they offer their lowest workers as much as possible. This is because they are forced to make their products as cheap as possible in order to compete in the marketplace. Hence, if one company offers their workers $10 and other pays the same workers only $8, although surely more people would apply for a job at company #1, company #1 would offer products that are priced higher, and would therefore be run out of business by company #2. You seem to assume that companies are incentivized to pay their workers well; however, that is untrue. They are incentivized to sell their products as cheaply as possible, which pressures the worst. Companies in a "free" market are primarily competing for consumers, not for employees. (100 applicants does not make a company hiring 4 people much better than a company with 20 applicants.)

A situation with such an abundance of applicants would rarely occur in an-cap; only if someone were for some reason offering a job with low requirements and high pay, in which case of course the demand would go up. However, in the majority of cases, work would be a very valuable asset, and all applicants would be being faced with multiple possible job opportunities at once, so while the employer must lower product prices in order to appeal to customers, they must also raise wages and working conditions in order to appeal to employees, since it is fundamental to capitalism that there should be a balance in the competitiveness of the employment and commodity markets. It is by way of the many regulations on companies such as minimum wage that the amount of jobs has been lowered, and therefore the balance has been tipped in favour of what employers remain in the current system.

Unrestrained capitalism would create an enormous impoverished class that are able to make only enough money to be able to continue to work, and not enough to quit their jobs. But even if they can quit their jobs, their is no reason for other companies to pay more for their low-skilled labor than their original company.

The reason is that the companies need labour, and that there are multiple companies competing for it.

Hence, they are pushed into a cycle of forced labor and endless poverty.

It is not forced labour, since everyone would always have the possibility of working elsewhere or starting their own enterprise.

I think you are switching the things here. You are treating the labor market as if the workers are the consumers and the companies are the sellers, when it's actually the opposite: the workers are the ones selling their labor, and the companies are the ones buying it. The competition happens between the workers not the companies, there is hardly any competition between the consumers of a good, unless it's a very scarce good, and in the labor market this only applies to the highest skilled jobs.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:01:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:13:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:36:40 AM, kbub wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:35:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:17:05 PM, kbub wrote:
Sounds about right.

Anarcho-capitalism is about the most evil system I can think of, including free-market capitalism (saying a lot). I'm generally favorable to all forms of anarchical political movement ideologies (even if not always thrilled by the specific, violent forms that such protests often take), except for this ridiculousness

If a system which is simply the logical extension of property-ownership is what you consider the ultimate evil, then you should have no problem with violence whatsoever, since the people violated presumably have no right to their own bodies or to whatever is required to maintain them.

Oh gosh, I guess I completely misunderstood you. Anarcho-capitalism is basically the easiest and most effective way for coperations to posses the bodies and minds of their workers.

Self-ownership is one of the most fundamental premisses that it is built upon. Further, the 'bourgeois' would by the same logic you are using be under the control of the workers as well as the customers, since they would always be subject to competition, and the workers can always leave and work somewhere better, since there would be no monopolies.

This is not overly relevant to the conversation, but is self-ownership a necessary prerequisite to the Non-aggression principle? Or is it something that can justify the NAP, but is not necessary?
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:18:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 11:01:28 PM, Aithlin wrote:
This is not overly relevant to the conversation, but is self-ownership a necessary prerequisite to the Non-aggression principle? Or is it something that can justify the NAP, but is not necessary?

I'm not sure I'd describe it as a prerequisite, rather I'd say that one is an aspect of the other; non-aggression refers to a right not to have any of one's properties violated, while self-ownership refers to the same right but only with regard to the properties most fundamental to their existence, such as the person's body, mind, and so on.

An attempt to justify the NAP might be illuminating to an opponent who does accept self-ownership, in that it might convince them to be more consistent, but in my opinion they are both sides of the same concept; there is no difference in principle between my ownership of my arm and of any external object other than gradation in their proximity.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:27:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:29:15 PM, joepbr wrote:
I think you are switching the things here. You are treating the labor market as if the workers are the consumers and the companies are the sellers, when it's actually the opposite: the workers are the ones selling their labor, and the companies are the ones buying it. The competition happens between the workers not the companies, there is hardly any competition between the consumers of a good, unless it's a very scarce good, and in the labor market this only applies to the highest skilled jobs.

You are missing the fact that in capitalism everything which occurs is an exchange, meaning each participant is both a buyer and seller: the company is buying labour for money and the worker is buying money for labour. The absence of monopoly means that they always have other options and are always gaining from the transaction, a one-sided transaction is never possible.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:44:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 11:14:10 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I was giving an example of what an externality actually is, not advocating anything. One obvious externality which rarely seems to be accounted for is damage to the environment, unless of course you're pouring bleach into the river that passes by David Cameron's summer home in Devon.

If the "damage to nature" is damage which nobody knows nor cares about, then why does it matter, and how will statism or communism handle that problem differently?

Under capitalism, 'failure' is unrelated to production. Capitalism also incentivises you to ignore externalities, because it doesn't profit you to worry about what happens to other people.

It does profit you, because those other people are your potential customers, and also because material (money) profit is not the only kind of profit. This is what I mean by the free-range eggs example; people far more often than not will do things which are not profitable in terms of material benefit to themselves because they value benefit to others.

"an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing"

I don't really see how this is a principle for appropriation. If I chopped off your arm, you'd still presumably be sdavio, so really you're proposing a thick definition of 'sdavio', but I don't know where you're getting the thickness from, i.e. why your arm, your house, and the universe you inhabit is an "essential or distinctive" attribute of you.

I do not believe I am a 'spirit', or an infinite being, but rather I believe my definition is inherently 'thick'. There is no one aspect of myself which when removed would totally redefine me, rather, I am something like a ratio between all the aspects which are distinctive to me.

According to this logic, kings, emperors and dictators are under the control of their people, because they rely on the obedience of their people. You may as well argue: 'What is wrong with dictatorship? If the dictator did not follow the will of the people, they would simply ignore his stupidity and put someone else in his place'.

But the property of the people is not clearly defined: the king still retains an implicit absolute right to control any given thing which a person 'owns'. This tilts the balance of power in favour of the king.

'What is wrong with the economic elite? If they do not satisfy the needs of the people, they will go bankrupt'

Again, they can just steal more money to avoid that happening.

'Unregulated capitalism' is essentially 'unregulated exploitation'. You rely on the workers to challenge power and for the corporations to do nothing to defend their power.

I do not, and it is by definition the opposite of exploitation to allow someone the right to the products of their labour.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:46:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:18:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2014 11:01:28 PM, Aithlin wrote:
This is not overly relevant to the conversation, but is self-ownership a necessary prerequisite to the Non-aggression principle? Or is it something that can justify the NAP, but is not necessary?

I'm not sure I'd describe it as a prerequisite, rather I'd say that one is an aspect of the other; non-aggression refers to a right not to have any of one's properties violated, while self-ownership refers to the same right but only with regard to the properties most fundamental to their existence, such as the person's body, mind, and so on.

An attempt to justify the NAP might be illuminating to an opponent who does accept self-ownership, in that it might convince them to be more consistent, but in my opinion they are both sides of the same concept; there is no difference in principle between my ownership of my arm and of any external object other than gradation in their proximity.

"An attempt to justify the NAP might be illuminating"

should be

"An attempt to justify the NAP using self ownership might be illuminating"
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:29:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:44:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
If the "damage to nature" is damage which nobody knows nor cares about, then why does it matter, and how will statism or communism handle that problem differently?

Plenty of people know about it, and plenty of people care about it. Unfortunately under capitalism, the wealthy people who profit from damaging the environment have the power to influence politicians and public opinion, and are themselves heavily incentivised to continue destroying the environment, because obviously that's what gives them power and wealth. Communism would not instantly rectify the situation, but the incentive to destroy the environment and the means to achieve that end would be severely attenuated. The state currently imposes some regulations on how much damage may be done, so it only stands to reason that without these regulations corporations would even more eagerly destroy our future for profit.

It does profit you, because those other people are your potential customers, and also because material (money) profit is not the only kind of profit. This is what I mean by the free-range eggs example; people far more often than not will do things which are not profitable in terms of material benefit to themselves because they value benefit to others.

But you aren't incentivised to do this under capitalism. You are incentivised to maximise your profit, and there are plenty of examples of how its more profitable to savagely burn everyone around you.

I do not believe I am a 'spirit', or an infinite being, but rather I believe my definition is inherently 'thick'. There is no one aspect of myself which when removed would totally redefine me, rather, I am something like a ratio between all the aspects which are distinctive to me.

If you take X and remove a property from it, it is not identical to X any more.

But the property of the people is not clearly defined: the king still retains an implicit absolute right to control any given thing which a person 'owns'. This tilts the balance of power in favour of the king.

Kings have more power than capitalists, but that wasn't the point of the argument. Just as the power of a king is nominally reliant on the obedience of his subjects, the power of a capitalist is nominally reliant on people accepting his business. The fact that you can resist power does not mean that power does not exist.

Again, they can just steal more money to avoid that happening.

What?

I do not, and it is by definition the opposite of exploitation to allow someone the right to the products of their labour.

Define 'their labour', I dare you.
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 9:08:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:29:06 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:44:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
If the "damage to nature" is damage which nobody knows nor cares about, then why does it matter, and how will statism or communism handle that problem differently?

Plenty of people know about it, and plenty of people care about it. Unfortunately under capitalism, the wealthy people who profit from damaging the environment have the power to influence politicians and public opinion, and are themselves heavily incentivised to continue destroying the environment, because obviously that's what gives them power and wealth. Communism would not instantly rectify the situation, but the incentive to destroy the environment and the means to achieve that end would be severely attenuated. The state currently imposes some regulations on how much damage may be done, so it only stands to reason that without these regulations corporations would even more eagerly destroy our future for profit.

But you aren't incentivised to do this under capitalism. You are incentivised to maximise your profit, and there are plenty of examples of how its more profitable to savagely burn everyone around you.

Capitalism does not really create incentive for anyone to do anything. The incentives are already there, preexisting in the will of each person. It seems to be a common belief that capitalism requires that each person attempt to accumulate as many commodities as they possibly can, however this isn't true. In fact, it provides no reason for anyone to prefer doing that over any other course of action. It allows each person whatever endeavor they prefer to undertake, and merely stipulates that they may not encroach onto those of others in doing so.

I do not believe I am a 'spirit', or an infinite being, but rather I believe my definition is inherently 'thick'. There is no one aspect of myself which when removed would totally redefine me, rather, I am something like a ratio between all the aspects which are distinctive to me.

If you take X and remove a property from it, it is not identical to X any more.

I am quite sure you are aware of the fact that you're playing with words now. 'Sdavio at 7pm' is not identical to 'sdavio at 8pm', however they are both referred to under one and the same label, 'sdavio'.

But the property of the people is not clearly defined: the king still retains an implicit absolute right to control any given thing which a person 'owns'. This tilts the balance of power in favour of the king.

Kings have more power than capitalists, but that wasn't the point of the argument. Just as the power of a king is nominally reliant on the obedience of his subjects, the power of a capitalist is nominally reliant on people accepting his business. The fact that you can resist power does not mean that power does not exist.

This is partially true in that the king does not have power in and of himself, but requires on a complex power structure involving the implicit agreement of many others who enforce his will. However the fact that the population is not allowed any property right means it is much more difficult for them to rebel, since it would require a much more organized and brutal action of physical force. In anarcho-capitalism the people can undermine any company or individual by, for instance, just refusing to buy their products. This is a huge difference.

Again, they can just steal more money to avoid that happening.

What?

The upper classes can tax the lower to avoid going bankrupt.

I do not, and it is by definition the opposite of exploitation to allow someone the right to the products of their labour.

Define 'their labour', I dare you.

Labour is something you do, not because you enjoy the act itself, but in view of the end result you expect to gain by it. Exploitation is to allow someone to labour, but then purposefully deny them the end product.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 12:54:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 9:08:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
Capitalism does not really create incentive for anyone to do anything. The incentives are already there, preexisting in the will of each person. It seems to be a common belief that capitalism requires that each person attempt to accumulate as many commodities as they possibly can, however this isn't true. In fact, it provides no reason for anyone to prefer doing that over any other course of action.

Is it not the case, though, that under capitalism you may succeed at the expense of others? Exploiting employees, driving others out of business, destroying the environment, etc., and so it is under capitalism that you may have incentive to harm others. Furthermore, you are punished under capitalism for not seeking profit after profit, because if you control less capital, than you are more subject to the will of those with more capital. If you do not become part of the economic elite, then you will suffer the consequences. The less capital you accumulate, the less power you have, so there is in almost every case incentive to accumulate more capital.

It allows each person whatever endeavor they prefer to undertake, and merely stipulates that they may not encroach onto those of others in doing so.

No, it allows people to control resources. It also subjugates what people 'prefer to do' to the market, as people essentially have to accumulate capital, which is to say that people are subjugated by those who control the resources. What you are saying appears to rest on the idea that we live in a fantasy world with infinite quantities of every resource.

I am quite sure you are aware of the fact that you're playing with words now. 'Sdavio at 7pm' is not identical to 'sdavio at 8pm', however they are both referred to under one and the same label, 'sdavio'.

Yes, because playing with words often falsifies definitions, e.g. the definition of private property you are trying to put forward.

This is partially true in that the king does not have power in and of himself, but requires on a complex power structure involving the implicit agreement of many others who enforce his will. However the fact that the population is not allowed any property right means it is much more difficult for them to rebel, since it would require a much more organized and brutal action of physical force. In anarcho-capitalism the people can undermine any company or individual by, for instance, just refusing to buy their products. This is a huge difference.

You literally just prove my argument by saying that its a matter of degree. I don't even need to dispute which is harder to overthrow to prove my point.

The upper classes can tax the lower to avoid going bankrupt.

What are talking about?

Labour is something you do, not because you enjoy the act itself, but in view of the end result you expect to gain by it. Exploitation is to allow someone to labour, but then purposefully deny them the end product.

So you even admit that employment is exploitation? Lol okay.

Unfortunately, like all definitions of property and of appropriation, this one is unintelligible. Someone may conceive of an "end result", but "end product" does not seem to make any sense. If I break a window, the immediate end result is clear, but we understand that there are further repercussions to that breakage. If I break a window, what is the product? Attempting to encapsulate the consequences of my actions into a "product" is simply not possible without unjustified arbitration.