Capitalism vs Communism

[Vimana]

I think communism could work, and the reason it hasn't is that it was always put into place violently. The historical trend for any type of government put into place under violent circumstances is one that is corrupt and will hold all the wealth. Many African countries copied or modeled their constitution off of the constitution of the United States, yet they are hardly experiencing the prosperity that the USA is. There are more factors that determine whether or not an economic model will work than the type of economic model.

I am not exactly an advocate of communism. While I prefer it idealistically, I don't see it as a realistic option for any nation any time soon.

 

[Death Aflame]

Wrong. Socialism is the declaration that man has no right to exist for his own sake. that his life and work do not belong to him but to society, that he only serves society. It's tribal collectivism.

Wrong. You're describing state socialism, which is very similar in structure and practice to state capitalism. Socialism comes in diverse forms including of the pro-market and pro-private property variety (which seems to be your critique of socialism). In fact some of the maxims of socialism echo your sentiment that man exists for his own sake entirely.

"The natural wage of labour is its product" - Benjamin Tucker

Take this quote from Tucker, for instance, an American Individualist Anarchist who advocated simultaneously for worker rights, the value of markets, and private property.

Blanket generalizations over loaded "isms" never help to move discussion forward so don't rely on them.

 

[refraction]

Capitalism will only work as long as it can grow. Indefinitely. Wich is impossible because at one point the worker will simply not make enough money to support himself because the company cannot afford to pay him decent wages in order to remain competitive. Marx was right about that.
Communism on the other hand is destined to fail simply because of human nature. Much like Monarchy it is only as good as those who are at its head.
Anarchy? A truly wonderful Idea, but how long would it be before gangs formed and started taking over?
I think we need a new idea...

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Anarcho-Capitalism. Once people understand what those two words truly mean and how they utterly complement one another.

 

[Dak]

Wrong. You're describing state socialism, which is very similar in structure and practice to state capitalism. Socialism comes in diverse forms including of the pro-market and pro-private property variety (which seems to be your critique of socialism). In fact some of the maxims of socialism echo your sentiment that man exists for his own sake entirely.

"The natural wage of labour is its product" - Benjamin Tucker

Take this quote from Tucker, for instance, an American Individualist Anarchist who advocated simultaneously for worker rights, the value of markets, and private property.

Blanket generalizations over loaded "isms" never help to move discussion forward so don't rely on them.

"The natural wage of labour is its product" would be the most short sighted economic statement if there weren't worse fools making economic statements in history.

How much labor it takes to create a widget will be different depending on personal skill, determination, tools available, efficiency in processing etc.

Just because you took all day to make a widget, doesn't mean I should pay a days wage for the widget, especially if someone else can do it in five minutes and sell it to me for less.

 

[Death Aflame]

"The natural wage of labour is its product" would be the most short sighted economic statement if there weren't worse fools making economic statements in history.

How much labor it takes to create a widget will be different depending on personal skill, determination, tools available, efficiency in processing etc.

Just because you took all day to make a widget, doesn't mean I should pay a days wage for the widget, especially if someone else can do it in five minutes and sell it to me for less.

You're reading meanings into the phrase that aren't there.

Tucker does not say that labour is not subject to market conditions, nor does he say that all labour is created equal. All he is saying is that the natural wage of me spending time and effort to create a widget is the widget itself.

It should be noted that this maxim is an early 20th Century interpretation of the labor theory of value. A controversial subject, no doubt, but not one without merit. Your idol, Rothbard, criticized it in this paper: http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf, but not before he recognized the influence Tucker had on his thought.

 

[Dak]

All he is saying is that the natural wage of me spending time and effort to create a widget is the widget itself.

It's a shame that the fact has to be stated though. Once stated, it is available for twisting.

It should be noted that this maxim is an early 20th Century interpretation of the labor theory of value. A controversial subject, no doubt, but not one without merit. Your idol, Rothbard, criticized it in this paper: http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf, but not before he recognized the influence Tucker had on his thought.

Ironically land use/occupancy vs titles is where I disagree with Rothbard.

 

[Death Aflame]

So you're for use/occupancy as a condition of owning property? Tucker initially followed Proudhon and the mutualists with his view on private property (allowable if based on use/occupancy), but in his later years he sort of went off his rocker and advocated for a might makes right position similar to Max Stirner.

And yeah, Tucker's value maxim sort of assumes a base knowledge of the labor theory of value (popular at the time). Tucker was pro market and pro labor, which makes his position unique in the history of American libertarianism.

If you're interested in further reading on Tucker I'd recommend his essay State Socialsm and Anarchism: How far they Agree and Wherein they Differ

 

[Dak]

So you're for use/occupancy as a condition of owning property?

Only for land. Not all private property. I can't see any way around "titles" requiring a state to support it, not to mention, the issues of de facto slavery when you start "in the hole" by not owning the ground under your feet, no matter where you go.

Now, that being said, that doesn't mean you cannot "sell land". If you live on/ improve a place, and someone offers you a lot of whatever you want to no longer occupy it, this would be the same thing.

If you're interested in further reading on Tucker I'd recommend his essay State Socialsm and Anarchism: How far they Agree and Wherein they Differ

Ok.

 

[monoxide_child]

Capitalism will only work as long as it can grow. Indefinitely. Wich is impossible because at one point the worker will simply not make enough money to support himself because the company cannot afford to pay him decent wages in order to remain competitive.

in america, the employed people that are not making enough to feed their families is partially (maybe even mostly) because of the guys at the top, where a companty that employs hundreds of thousands, (or maybe even millions) of "workers" where the company is generating money and most of the money is going into the pockets of about 10 people (president/vice president/regional managers/board of directors) while the vast majority of the employees are only making about 1% (maybe even less) of what the 10 (maybe 20) guys at the top are making

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Government-Corporate collusion is not a symptom of laissez faire capitalism. In fact, if you were to rip away the layers of lies or even structure the half-truths of most corporate CEOs into to some tangible form of consistent platitude, you would find that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are some of THE most anti-laissez faire people around as they need/depend on the guns of the government to prevent free and open entry and competition from revealing their mediocrity.

Indeed, nothing would be as glaringly ephemeral in a truly free market than a corporation. In fact, I question that they would even exist at all. Considering how they are structured based on legal shields and on liability protections for the execs and their losses, in light of that truth, nothing is more impotent than a corporation without the gun<cough> the government.

 

[monoxide_child]

my point was that if the richest 1% of americans were willing to take a pay cut, then min wage could easily be increased up to a "living wage"

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I abhor the idea of minimum wage. But if you refer to fixing a break without fixing the source of the break, I guess I can see some reasoning there; but it is a course I refuse to go along with.

 

[monoxide_child]

I abhor the idea of minimum wage. But if you refer to fixing a break without fixing the source of the break, I guess I can see some reasoning there; but it is a course I refuse to go along with.

i just meant
calculating out a living wage and then making min wage turn into a "living wage" over night

 

[Dak]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The living wage would either A. Shortly cease to be a living wage or B. Scarcity in the economy would ensue.

 

[monoxide_child]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The living wage would either A. Shortly cease to be a living wage or B. Scarcity in the economy would ensue.

i know people that work a full 40-hour-work-week and still sleep in homeless shelters because min wage is not enough to live off of!!! how do you propose to fix this???

 

[Dak]

Minimum wage was supposed to "fix" that problem (IE, a "living wage"). Obviously it didn't. State interference only creates more problems in the long term.

I can't make any suggestions on what an individual working forty hours a week and still in a homeless shelter might do to improve their situation in this fucked up economy without knowing many more specifics, but the only way government can fix that kind of problem on a grand scale is to shrink to nothing or next to it.

 

[monoxide_child]

Minimum wage was supposed to "fix" that problem (IE, a "living wage"). Obviously it didn't. State interference only creates more problems in the long term.

I can't make any suggestions on what an individual working forty hours a week and still in a homeless shelter might do to improve their situation in this fucked up economy without knowing many more specifics, but the only way government can fix that kind of problem on a grand scale is to shrink to nothing or next to it.

my whole fucking point was that if a person is working a whole freaking 40-hours a work-week, then that person should be making enough money to pay rent and buy food without having to be on reduced-rent-housing and foodstams

 

[Dak]

my whole fucking point was that if a person is working a whole freaking 40-hours a work-week, then that person should be making enough money to pay rent and buy food without having to be on reduced-rent-housing and foodstams

Why? All work is not equal, and who determined 40 is the magic number and why?

 

[monoxide_child]

Why? All work is not equal, and who determined 40 is the magic number and why?

if you can't agree with post 278 you're an idiot