Sorry, I misread. In the case of a cooperative society, if Bob gives Alice the product of his labor in exchange for anything less than she might turn around and sell it for, the he is either foolish (and Alice is taking advantage of his foolishness), a fetishist, or doing Alice a favor.

http://www2.warnerbros.com/spacejam/movie/jam.htm

/thread

It would be aberrant behavior although not necessarily impossible. It would be unlikely that Alice would find someone like Bob to accept anything less than ownership of that which he produces because most people would expect to own the product of their labor.

It's exploitation because Alice gains more than Bob in the exchange due to her position of power. And it's exploitation whether Bob likes the arrangement or not, unless he specifically wants to be exploited as in the case of a fetish. Perhaps he submits to exploitation so as to support a system that he thinks will allow him to exploit in the future. I guess that's the corrupting promise of capitalism. We should reject that promise because it makes it difficult to impossible for any of us to avoid exploitation.

As long as you put work into something or do work with it, it’s yours. Some members of some communities will choose to use and take care of things communally. Others will use and take care of things individually. Of course, owning something doesn’t give you any right to exploit others with it. So as long as you put work into your car and do not neglect it, it will be in your driveway every morning. If you do neglect it, you cease to own it. If someone comes along and restores it, it becomes theirs.

It is in use and it will look as such. If the discoverers aren’t sure, they can wait for the farmer to come back to maintain the field. If he does not come back, and the discoverers start to take care of the field, they will own that which they produce from it by their own labor. If the farmer ever comes back and can prove that he didn’t really neglect the crop, he can have the share of the harvest that his labor in planting the crop entails him.

The harvest belongs to whomever actually works the field. If the farmer uses robots to work the field, the harvest belongs to whomever works to maintain and operate the robots.

I’m saying that the discoverers of the field only expect to get that which they produce from their labor. If the field’s official owner does not work the field, he should not get anything.

You do not defend something you haven’t worked for. Instead, you take it. But, assuming that a capitalist really believes that he owns something for which he has not worked, how much force might he ascribe to an infidel who refuses to play along with capitalism?

Communities will determine their own protection measures. Perhaps volunteers will supervise known exploiters for a time and prevent them from exploiting again. If the exploiter will not reform, community members can always shun him.

First of all, the people working the machine would owe its builders for their expenses, including their labor, but no more. If the builders try to take more than their fair share from the workers, the workers ought to defend themselves. Anyone else with an interest in preventing exploitation should help them.

Well, think about it. The only way you can get an income from a piece of land without working it is by working to keep others from working that land unless they pay you a tithe. I imagine a land owner patrolling his property claim trying to keep workers out. But that’s tiring, and he can only patrol so much land himself, so he hires thugs to do the task for him. But that’s expensive, so with the help of other land owners with similar concerns, he sponsors a government that will help him and do so at least partly on funds extorted from the workers themselves.

If you’d like to make that argument, please present it.
 
You didn’t. A cooperative society will simply exist while a neighboring exploitative society will just try to eat it. Naturally, the cooperative society will resist, but this is not competition because the two societies do not want the same thing. You can compare the two ideas in your head though, if that’s what you mean by competition.

There's the problem. You would claim that a given area of land, which you aren't actively using, and a party, meaning no offense to you, starts using it because they do not recognize vacant or unused property, you will try to drive them away or destroy them thereby plying your trade--land ownership, if you could call it a trade--by violence. Perhaps you will hire someone else to do it. What other recourse does a capitalist have? The two ideas aren't compatible.

It just seems like an oxymoron to me.

But so long as tyranny prevails, it is right?

I have no problem with Bob paying for his share of the expenses. He should give to Alice some of that which he produces until he has paid for half of the building and the equipment. The problem occurs when Alice continues to collect from Bob until after he pays for his fair share. In that case, Alice is exploiting Bob with her ability to prevent him from working at the shop.

Here's the thing, I oppose the state because it is capitalistic. Agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and the like oppose the state because they think it opposes capitalism. That makes no sense to me. The state is profitable because one can use it to better exploit others. In the absence of states, capitalists will compete to create new ones. They do so even in the presence of states by creating corporations, amorphous kingdoms. I will not help a capitalist topple one state so he can subject me to one of his own creation.

I think revolutionaries treat violent revolution like self-defense and its spoils like restitution. I can understand that, but I don't advocate it because I have capitalist friends and family and I don't want anyone to hurt them. Besides, using violence or the threat of violence to make someone behave differently seems counterproductive.

How are all capitalists not red-marketeers?

They might. Then again, they might say that the state, in a communist society, is merely the last capitalist and it will surely whither away. Either way, what if they would?

I may not have stated it clearly enough, but I think we can reach this end by embracing cooperative relationships and divesting ourselves from capitalism.

So might is right? I cannot agree.

If any enclave refused to honor your property and thereby threatened your profits, as a capitalist, you would not tolerate it. Besides, why would a cooperative society compete?

No one has done that with the arguments I've presented here.

Lies! I don't recall advocating anything of the sort.

Communism, wherein the state owns all of the capital and controls its citizens' access to it, is just state capitalism. In other words, the state is the capitalist and its citizens are its employees. In oppressing its people, a communist state simply intends to secure its profits, like any other capitalist.

Are you kidding me? Hitler would have loved Bitcoin!

Why is the age of an argument relevant?

I don't recall ever getting in anyone's way. I merely called out capitalism for the exploitative relationships it promotes and suggested that Bitcoin pioneers embrace cooperation instead. Kiba caught me by surprise with his resounding butthurt.

Take a Midol, already.

How many do you have?

That's what I think.

Also, an exchange would do well to piggyback off of its advertising.

When you charge another party for the use of something without transferring ownership, you get a piece of their work without having done any work yourself. Meanwhile, they lose a portion of their work and do not meaningfully gain anything. The only reason you can do so is because you have the means to prevent them from using it without your permission. That is a type of blackmail.

Employees often do work, especially in the case of small businesses. That they possess more capital than the other workers ought not to give them special decision making or apportionment powers.

Wat? I don't really have a problem with people selling goods that they rightfully own on a market. Not sure where you got that. I'm against lending with interest, renting, and employing.

How did you get on the topic of anarchist communism?

I would think that workers would reinvest their earnings from one batch of product to pay for repairs, upgrades, and supplies for the next batch. If you needed some extra money, you could simply contribute less of your earnings from the previous batch than you normally would.
If you really had to, you could promise some your future earnings to someone in exchange for some money now (without interest). But a worker wouldn't get much for selling a share of the building that houses the cooperative because only work done entitles one to a portion of the final product. Also, owning a building is expensive because you have to maintain it. Only it's occupants would be interested in that.

In the case of a revolution, the workers would just be taking back what belongs to them. I'm not too big on that though. I advocate simply divesting ourselves from capitalism.

The employee-employer relationship is forced.

With what? Furthermore, why pay someone for land that he isn't using?

Well, I take care of my employer, landlord, and lender, for what it's worth.

I couldn't maintain a cooperative, friendly relationship with my single worker while treating her like a worker. I don't see how anyone can. That was a long time ago and I've matured since then. It's definitely besides the point though.

Voluntarily selling that which you produce on a market and having to sell yourself are different things.

To that extent he is a worker, yes, he deserves a share of the product that he helps to produce, but only to the extent that the other workers agree.

My point is that you can use your capital to exploit or not.

But only just enough.

I doubt that. Blacks can operate machines just fine. Besides, de facto slavery has persisted since the abolition of the official institution.

Well, you lament that employers don't make as much as they would in the absence of worker solidarity. I lament the dearth of worker solidarity.

...At the mercy of an employer or other exploiter.

So would I.

This arrangement does not represent a democratic decision as much as it does a shakedown. Having to choose between starvation and a set of extortionists does not equal freedom.

At least the slaves had Canada to look forward to. Historically, factory workers did resist the capitalist employee-employer relationship and they paid dearly for it. I'm just doing my part to reawaken workers' sense of indignation. Too many years of servitude have dulled it.

Which contributes to the present suckage of unemployment. You can't even go and grow your own food or build your own shelter without appeasing some capitalist for the right to use land that he owns but isn't using.

Debunked? At least one capitalist, or devil's advocate, in this thread has agreed with my association of the two terms, just not that it's a bad thing.

Except for the fact that I am not presently an employer, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don't know how it affects my argument though.

So, workers should sell that which they produce at market prices. If they contribute their labor to a larger product, they deserve a proportional share of the sale price. That's what I'm advocating.

Beyond the restrictions and regulations set forth by the state, capitalists will set their own the resources they control. The builder of the factory can gift it if he likes. I recommend that he sell it to a party that will actually use it.

Right, and you can put your efforts towards exploiting others and gaining at their expense or not. For example, you can work to obtain a lock-picking set. With it, you can either use it to take other people's hard work or you can use it to do honest work as a locksmith.

Perhaps it isn't profitable for employers to be vindictive. However, it's profitable for employers to find obedient hires. A worker's reputation had better befit that requirement.

Profitable use != best use. See slavery.

I find it rather sad that even union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they deserve to own that which they produce.

The drill press operator still deserves his fair share of the final product.

People are still people. 171 years hasn't changed that.

+1 However, the capitalist delusion affects all members of society.

The workers can delegate such duties to those most fit.

A supporters of slavery used a similar argument against abolitionists. "Who says the slaves want to be free?"

Alphabetized the download list. Put Linux first.

This is not work.

This is work.

This is not work. Furthermore, when the product fails, the employees lose their income.

To the extent that an employer does work, he deserves compensation. To the extent that he merely gives permission for others to work at his direction, he does not.

The workers could work on their own were it not for the fact that capitalists withhold from them the equipment and resources to do so.

See my response to TheKid.

Employers never ask for references from potential hires?

What if capitalists control all the resources?

Or, he could do the right thing and recruit someone as a partner.

Employee spends eight hours building a widget. Employer pays employee 80 bitcoins (10 BTC/hour) and takes the widget. Employer sells the widget for 800 bitcoins. The employer hasn't added any work to the widget. It's the same as when he got it from the employee. The employer gets 720 bitcoins without having done any work. The employee concedes those 720 bitcoins and submits to his employer's direction because the employer will prevent him from working otherwise. Even if his former employer doesn't blacklist him, the worker will encounter the same deal with every other employer.

Both parties benefit, but one much more than the other, because one has more capitalist power than the other. If employees, tenants, and borrowers had an even playing field, they would own their workplaces, their homes, and wouldn't pay interest. But they do not, because capitalism reigns.

An employer takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital in order to direct them has he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by charging them for the privilege to use his.