Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes)

[NewLiberty]

We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism. Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. People with degrees were earning almost nothing, living in really horrid conditions. Then those same people started getting menial unskilled jobs, working in factories or phone support. Now those people are able to demand pay 10 to 30 times or more than what they used to get, working in research, software development, and engineering. India is no longer an ideal place to hire toilers, because millions of people were raised from the slums into middle class, not because of government programs, but because of market competition. Same deal with China. 10 years ago, people were working in horrible conditions in factories, toiling day and night for little pay, while barely earning enough to survive. Now, even though a lot of the work itself is similar, the working conditions are vastly improved. They are clean, well lit, with much better housing, resembling that of university campuses, instead of shantytowns. Sure, China has a bit to go still, but there's no argument that their toiler's situation has improved as well. And again, decades of communism and social planning couldn't do a thing to help those people out, but as soon as they allowed capitalism, however restricted, and outside companies to come in and compete for workers, things improved dramatically.

Unbelievable. This is your 'answer' to ktttn's argument, that this 'improved things' are exploitative and therefore not sustainable?
Why are selfsufficient, stateless, non-capitalist communities in the rain forests not affected by 'horrible conditions'?

The unsustainable nature seems more of a feature than a bug.  Shouldn't a good economic system should foster socioeconomic mobility (rich becoming poorer, poor becoming richer) based on merit?  This feature has degraded significantly in the USA since the broad adoption of state socialism over the last hundred years, but even still, the richest tend to not have been born that way.  They have famously tended to give the bulk of their wealth to charities rather than to their children.

[1714839538]

1714839538

[1714839538]

1714839538

[1714839538]

1714839538

[1714839538]

1714839538

[1714839538]

1714839538

[crumbs]

I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes -- i genuinely thought we were talking about capitalism as the word is commonly understood.

There's the rub.  We lack that common understanding.

Slavery begins with theft/kidnapping/war, and can only be perpetuated by ignoring that theft/kidnapping/war by the governing authority and the prevailing coercive forces.
So is the capitalism as an economic theory the culprit, or is it the morays and governing authority that are the failure points?

Its fine to say that capitalism doesn't solve the problem of slavery.  It is quite another to say that slavery is integral to capitalism.
Capitalism also doesn't solve many other problems.

"Capitalism" as an economic term has been bastardized and inclusively attached to the governments that have fostered it, it has accrued baggage by associations which (I'd aver) are not inherent to capitalism.  And you'd disagree.  Thus we lack this common understanding of the word.

Perhaps the loss of meaning stems from including the "means-of-destruction/coercion" in the "means-of-production"?  Typically the monopoly on the means of destruction rests with the state.

I mostly agree with you -- there's enough guilt by association to go around.  Capitalism = fat bankers starving innocent children, communism = Stalinist Soviet Russia & gulags, Christianity = self-righteous hypocritical church ladies.  Happens.  I have no problem with claims that capitalism is more than a successful economic system (in the strict sense, as an organism that endures & multiplies is successful), more than just "is"  -- that it is also somehow better because it holds a higher moral ground.  That it is fairer, more "according to nature, logic & all things good." 

I probably didn't make some things clear:  I believe that capitalism, as we know it now and as we know it in the past, is what mankind degenerates to when unshackled -- in a way it *is* the natural state of man, though not a pretty one.  Laissez-Faire capitalism is the two-year-old left to his own devices, stuffing himself with delicious caek until he pukes, and then adults have to pick up the reins & make him wash & eat his broccoli -- that's capitalism as we have it now.  The two-year-old is grumpy, he hates broccoli & the adults (his ego, whatever works) are miserable 'coz disciplining a brat ain't fun, and pointless, too -- he's never growing up, and as soon as they leave it's back to the caek, it's delicious he must eat it.  This only hints at the rest of the problems.
What i'm saying in too many words is capitalism *necessitates* the oppressive regimes you want to dissociate it from.  I didn't try for a clear argument or a irrefutable, logical derivation, but simply a vague sense of what i'm talking about when i lump slavery & capitalism together.

[MoonShadow]

I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes -- i genuinely thought we were talking about capitalism as the word is commonly understood.

There's the rub.  We lack that common understanding.

Slavery begins with theft/kidnapping/war, and can only be perpetuated by ignoring that theft/kidnapping/war by the governing authority and the prevailing coercive forces.
So is the capitalism as an economic theory the culprit, or is it the morays and governing authority that are the failure points?

Its fine to say that capitalism doesn't solve the problem of slavery.  It is quite another to say that slavery is integral to capitalism.
Capitalism also doesn't solve many other problems.

"Capitalism" as an economic term has been bastardized and inclusively attached to the governments that have fostered it, it has accrued baggage by associations which (I'd aver) are not inherent to capitalism.  And you'd disagree.  Thus we lack this common understanding of the word.

Perhaps the loss of meaning stems from including the "means-of-destruction/coercion" in the "means-of-production"?  Typically the monopoly on the means of destruction rests with the state.

I mostly agree with you -- there's enough guilt by association to go around.  Capitalism = fat bankers starving innocent children, communism = Stalinist Soviet Russia & gulags, Christianity = self-righteous hypocritical church ladies.  Happens.  I have no problem with claims that capitalism is more than a successful economic system (in the strict sense, as an organism that endures & multiplies is successful), more than just "is"  -- that it is also somehow better because it holds a higher moral ground.  That it is fairer, more "according to nature, logic & all things good."  

I probably didn't make some things clear:  I believe that capitalism, as we know it now and as we know it in the past, is what mankind degenerates to when unshackled -- in a way it *is* the natural state of man, though not a pretty one.  Laissez-Faire capitalism is the two-year-old left to his own devices, stuffing himself with delicious caek until he pukes, and then adults have to pick up the reins & make him wash & eat his broccoli -- that's capitalism as we have it now.  The two-year-old is grumpy, he hates broccoli & the adults (his ego, whatever works) are miserable 'coz disciplining a brat ain't fun, and pointless, too -- he's never growing up, and as soon as they leave it's back to the caek, it's delicious he must eat it.  This only hints at the rest of the problems.
What i'm saying in too many words is capitalism *necessitates* the oppressive regimes you want to dissociate it from.  I didn't try for a clear argument or a irrefutable, logical derivation, but simply a vague sense of what i'm talking about when i lump slavery & capitalism together.

Wow.  You make it sound like the whole of society woudl self destruct without the 'adults' around to make us eat our broccoli, and stop smoking, and recycle, and don't get the Big Gulp.  Who the hell do you think you are?  Do you think that you are better suited to decide for me or my children?  Do you think you have the right to tell me I shouldn't eat cake?  Everything in moderateration isn't unhealthy, and chocolate is good for human beings.

Statist mentality in a nutshell.  There is no greater evil that can ever be done by men to men, but by those who belieive they are doing so for the greater good.

[crumbs]

For what it is worth, there is also some disagreement on the tern "slavery".
Some here are using it inclusively to also cover "entry level employees".

I'm not sure if you find that absurd, but think back to serfdom (commonly considered a form of slavery, just hit wikip & the wikipedophiles seem to agree).  What was it if not renting the chunk of land from your feudal lord in a fair & mutually beneficial exchange?  No like?  Where's that entrepreneurial spirit?!  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps & market your vast skills elsewhere!  

[crumbs]

I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes -- i genuinely thought we were talking about capitalism as the word is commonly understood.

There's the rub.  We lack that common understanding.

Slavery begins with theft/kidnapping/war, and can only be perpetuated by ignoring that theft/kidnapping/war by the governing authority and the prevailing coercive forces.
So is the capitalism as an economic theory the culprit, or is it the morays and governing authority that are the failure points?

Its fine to say that capitalism doesn't solve the problem of slavery.  It is quite another to say that slavery is integral to capitalism.
Capitalism also doesn't solve many other problems.

"Capitalism" as an economic term has been bastardized and inclusively attached to the governments that have fostered it, it has accrued baggage by associations which (I'd aver) are not inherent to capitalism.  And you'd disagree.  Thus we lack this common understanding of the word.

Perhaps the loss of meaning stems from including the "means-of-destruction/coercion" in the "means-of-production"?  Typically the monopoly on the means of destruction rests with the state.

I mostly agree with you -- there's enough guilt by association to go around.  Capitalism = fat bankers starving innocent children, communism = Stalinist Soviet Russia & gulags, Christianity = self-righteous hypocritical church ladies.  Happens.  I have no problem with claims that capitalism is more than a successful economic system (in the strict sense, as an organism that endures & multiplies is successful), more than just "is"  -- that it is also somehow better because it holds a higher moral ground.  That it is fairer, more "according to nature, logic & all things good."  

I probably didn't make some things clear:  I believe that capitalism, as we know it now and as we know it in the past, is what mankind degenerates to when unshackled -- in a way it *is* the natural state of man, though not a pretty one.  Laissez-Faire capitalism is the two-year-old left to his own devices, stuffing himself with delicious caek until he pukes, and then adults have to pick up the reins & make him wash & eat his broccoli -- that's capitalism as we have it now.  The two-year-old is grumpy, he hates broccoli & the adults (his ego, whatever works) are miserable 'coz disciplining a brat ain't fun, and pointless, too -- he's never growing up, and as soon as they leave it's back to the caek, it's delicious he must eat it.  This only hints at the rest of the problems.
What i'm saying in too many words is capitalism *necessitates* the oppressive regimes you want to dissociate it from.  I didn't try for a clear argument or a irrefutable, logical derivation, but simply a vague sense of what i'm talking about when i lump slavery & capitalism together.

Wow.  You make it sound like the whole of society woudl self destruct without the 'adults' around to make us eat our broccoli, and stop smoking, and recycle, and don't get the Big Gulp.  Who the hell do you think you are?  Do you think that you are better suited to decide for me or my children?  Do you think you have the right to tell me I shouldn't eat cake?  Everything in moderateration isn't unhealthy, and chocolate is good for human beings.

As if!  The only thing that makes me better (in my own eyes) than the idiots with their hands on the reins is knowing that they're idiots, that i too am an idiot & should never be trusted with any sort of pony tack & see the whole ordeal of reining as distasteful & doomed to failure.  This doesn't affect knowing that what we have here is a dumb two-year-old.  Now stop making me out to be a power-hungry tyrant -- not interested.  

Statist mentality in a nutshell.  There is no greater evil that can ever be done by men to men, but by those who belieive they are doing so for the greater good.

Edit: whoops, didn't see that -  will update in a min.
Edit2:  Hate it when this stuff happens.  I point out that something's fundamentally borked, and people instantly assume that i want to fix it, that i'll fix it the wrong way, & act like i've already offered & they've refused.  No, ffs!  I don't want to fix it, i don't know how to fix it, & i certainly never made any offers.  It's borked nonetheless.

[crumbs]

We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism. Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. People with degrees were earning almost nothing, living in really horrid conditions. Then those same people started getting menial unskilled jobs, working in factories or phone support. Now those people are able to demand pay 10 to 30 times or more than what they used to get, working in research, software development, and engineering. India is no longer an ideal place to hire toilers, because millions of people were raised from the slums into middle class, not because of government programs, but because of market competition. Same deal with China. 10 years ago, people were working in horrible conditions in factories, toiling day and night for little pay, while barely earning enough to survive. Now, even though a lot of the work itself is similar, the working conditions are vastly improved. They are clean, well lit, with much better housing, resembling that of university campuses, instead of shantytowns. Sure, China has a bit to go still, but there's no argument that their toiler's situation has improved as well. And again, decades of communism and social planning couldn't do a thing to help those people out, but as soon as they allowed capitalism, however restricted, and outside companies to come in and compete for workers, things improved dramatically.

Unbelievable. This is your 'answer' to ktttn's argument, that this 'improved things' are exploitative and therefore not sustainable?
Why are selfsufficient, stateless, non-capitalist communities in the rain forests not affected by 'horrible conditions'?

The unsustainable nature seems more of a feature than a bug.  Shouldn't a good economic system should foster socioeconomic mobility (rich becoming poorer, poor becoming richer) based on merit?

Depends on what you mean by merit.  I was born into a whole bunch of good stuff.  Do i merit more than the guy who was born in a trailer?  Just so you know, i never really had to try to get by -- things came easy, so there was no need.  The trailer-trash guy?  He worked damn hard, but he ain't that bright & he went to a shitty school & straight to work at 7/11.  

 This feature has degraded significantly in the USA since the broad adoption of state socialism over the last hundred years, but even still, the richest tend to not have been born that way.  They have famously tended to give the bulk of their wealth to charities rather than to their children.

The richest tend not to have been born that way?  Now, please, go cherry-pick a few examples for us -- that always makes a good case.  Charities?  After i rob you & yours of everything, i'll make sure to donate my fabulous art collection to some museum.  You'll get to see it when you get laid off from work, 'coz i'll make sure to close the museum on the weekends.

Edit:  I'll be sure to leave most of my money to charity, leaving my children just enough money to be unspendable in 5 lifetimes

[NewLiberty]

For what it is worth, there is also some disagreement on the tern "slavery".
Some here are using it inclusively to also cover "entry level employees".

I'm not sure if you find that absurd, but think back to serfdom (commonly considered a form of slavery, just hit wikip & the wikipedophiles seem to agree).  What was it if not renting the chunk of land from your feudal lord in a fair & mutually beneficial exchange?  No like?  Where's that entrepreneurial spirit?!  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps & market your vast skills elsewhere!  

I'm no expert but couldn't Feudal Serfdom be more similar to communal autocracy than to capitalism? (The general population owns nothing and works for the central planning authority who holds the monopoly on the right to violence within the geography).

The point I was looking to make was that there is a vast slushiness in the terms which is not helping my understanding of what folks are hoping to discuss here.  It seemed to start out on reconciling the notion of capitalism with the notion of taxes, and veered widely.

I suppose the taxation regime in feudalism had a great deal of coercion involved, and probably more in some than in others.

[crumbs]

For what it is worth, there is also some disagreement on the tern "slavery".
Some here are using it inclusively to also cover "entry level employees".

I'm not sure if you find that absurd, but think back to serfdom (commonly considered a form of slavery, just hit wikip & the wikipedophiles seem to agree).  What was it if not renting the chunk of land from your feudal lord in a fair & mutually beneficial exchange?  No like?  Where's that entrepreneurial spirit?!  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps & market your vast skills elsewhere!  

I'm no expert but couldn't Feudal Serfdom be more similar to communal autocracy than to capitalism? (The general population owns nothing and works for the central planning authority who holds the monopoly on the right to violence within the geography).

The point I was looking to make was that there is a vast slushiness in the terms which is not helping my understanding of what folks are hoping to discuss here.  It seemed to start out on reconciling the notion of capitalism with the notion of taxes, and veered widely.

I go heavy on the "private ownership of the means of production" & "maximising profit as the motivator."  I try to limit my arguments to those two as definitive of capitalism, just so i don't get sloppy.  The feudal lord is a "natural person" (thanks, DeatAndTaxes -- got that from one of your posts), and he owns the land (means of production), so i think i can squeeze through that.

I suppose the taxation regime in feudalism had a great deal of coercion involved, and probably more in some than in others.

Probably, though today we have some new shananigans.

[KSV]

wow, some very interesting views . . .

[MoonShadow]

Edit2:  Hate it when this stuff happens.  I point out that something's fundamentally borked, and people instantly assume that i want to fix it, that i'll fix it the wrong way, & act like i've already offered & they've refused.  No, ffs!  I don't want to fix it, i don't know how to fix it, & i certainly never made any offers.  It's borked nonetheless.

Perhaps you could avoid that by not stating your personal opinions (the world is a 2 year old, all borked) as an objective observation or fact.  It's not, there are many people that are quite capable of managing themselves (i.e. 'adults' in your worldview) that do not feel the need to intervene with the (follwoing through with your analogy) childish tantrums of governments or societies at large.  I don't consider those 'tantrums' to be so much a flaw of societies, but the failed experiments not yet permitted to follow through with a natural ending.  If the whole of Europe devolves (again) into a roiling toddler fight, the adults will be those who choose to stay out of the way as best as possible.  The Roma have a culture that is at least as old as the rest of Europe and isolated from the rest of Europe, and doesn't suffer from the cultural connections to particular parcels of land.  The Roma don't have national loyalties, don't fight for nations, and don't care what happens to most of Europe.  Whatever happens to Europe (Germany, France, Italy, whatever), they'll still be Roma.  Whatever happens to the United States, there will still be Anabaptists; and again, they don't much care what happens to the rest of us either.  They may or may not be the 'adults' in the room, that remains to be seen; but nor are they among the 2 year olds.

A further irony, is that both of those cultures deal with the greater world on capitalistic terms, and among themselves on  particularly communistic terms.  But of course, I don't trade with my own children either; I trade with those beyond my family unit.  Capitalism is how soverigns deal with each other in peace; they make agreements about borders and property, etc.  If you don't agree that you own yourself, and that I own myself; then we cannot trade on peaceful terms.  If you do agree that I own myself, you must also agree that I own the fruits of my labors; and therefore have the right to tarde those fruits under my own terms, or otherwise rent out my labors, as I alone see fit.  If we can agree on this simple principle, then capitalism is the only economic system that can arise from that on any significant scale.  No other form of economy can naturally or voluntarily grow beyond Dunbar's Number.  Therefore the only form of peaceful anarcy that could ever exist is an Ancap society.

[crumbs]

Edit2:  Hate it when this stuff happens.  I point out that something's fundamentally borked, and people instantly assume that i want to fix it, that i'll fix it the wrong way, & act like i've already offered & they've refused.  No, ffs!  I don't want to fix it, i don't know how to fix it, & i certainly never made any offers.  It's borked nonetheless.

Perhaps you could avoid that by not stating your personal opinions (the world is a 2 year old, all borked) as an objective observation or fact.

You simply refuse to pay attention. Here:

I didn't try for a clear argument or a irrefutable, logical derivation, but simply a vague sense of what i'm talking about when i lump slavery & capitalism together.

Can i have been any clearer?

It's not, there are many people that are quite capable of managing themselves (i.e. 'adults' in your worldview) that do not feel the need to intervene with the (follwoing through with your analogy) childish tantrums of governments or societies at large.  I don't consider those 'tantrums' to be so much a flaw of societies, but the failed experiments not yet permitted to follow through with a natural ending.  If the whole of Europe devolves (again) into a roiling toddler fight, the adults will be those who choose to stay out of the way as best as possible.  The Roma have a culture that is at least as old as the rest of Europe and isolated from the rest of Europe, and doesn't suffer from the cultural connections to particular parcels of land.  The Roma don't have national loyalties, don't fight for nations, and don't care what happens to most of Europe.  Whatever happens to Europe (Germany, France, Italy, whatever), they'll still be Roma.  Whatever happens to the United States, there will still be Anabaptists; and again, they don't much care what happens to the rest of us either.  They may or may not be the 'adults' in the room, that remains to be seen; but nor are they among the 2 year olds.

You totally lost me.

A further irony, is that both of those cultures deal with the greater world on capitalistic terms, and among themselves on  particularly communistic terms.

So, you're saying that your model societies are communistic?  That's a refreshing change   Let's try that, then?

But of course, I don't trade with my own children either; I trade with those beyond my family unit.  Capitalism is how soverigns deal with each other in peace; they make agreements about borders and property, etc.  If you don't agree that you own yourself, and that I own myself; then we cannot trade on peaceful terms.

I agree that you own yourself if it maximises my profit.  If it doesn't, i agree that i own you.  In other words, you're right, trade, by definition, is not peaceful but aggressive -- otherwise it's called gift-giving.  I want to get the most, you want to give the least:  A recipe for aggression.

  If you do agree that I own myself, you must also agree that I own the fruits of my labors; and therefore have the right to tarde those fruits under my own terms, or otherwise rent out my labors, as I alone see fit.  If we can agree on this simple principle, then capitalism is the only economic system that can arise from that on any significant scale.  No other form of economy can naturally or voluntarily grow beyond Dunbar's Number.  Therefore the only form of peaceful anarcy that could ever exist is an Ancap society.

This is another paragraph's worth -- have to run out for a few, brb.

[MoonShadow]

Edit2:  Hate it when this stuff happens.  I point out that something's fundamentally borked, and people instantly assume that i want to fix it, that i'll fix it the wrong way, & act like i've already offered & they've refused.  No, ffs!  I don't want to fix it, i don't know how to fix it, & i certainly never made any offers.  It's borked nonetheless.

Perhaps you could avoid that by not stating your personal opinions (the world is a 2 year old, all borked) as an objective observation or fact.

You simply refuse to pay attention. Here:

I didn't try for a clear argument or a irrefutable, logical derivation, but simply a vague sense of what i'm talking about when i lump slavery & capitalism together.

Can i have been any clearer?

Yes, you could.  Start by not wording your opinons as facts. Don't make statements in a vacuum.

It's not, there are many people that are quite capable of managing themselves (i.e. 'adults' in your worldview) that do not feel the need to intervene with the (follwoing through with your analogy) childish tantrums of governments or societies at large.  I don't consider those 'tantrums' to be so much a flaw of societies, but the failed experiments not yet permitted to follow through with a natural ending.  If the whole of Europe devolves (again) into a roiling toddler fight, the adults will be those who choose to stay out of the way as best as possible.  The Roma have a culture that is at least as old as the rest of Europe and isolated from the rest of Europe, and doesn't suffer from the cultural connections to particular parcels of land.  The Roma don't have national loyalties, don't fight for nations, and don't care what happens to most of Europe.  Whatever happens to Europe (Germany, France, Italy, whatever), they'll still be Roma.  Whatever happens to the United States, there will still be Anabaptists; and again, they don't much care what happens to the rest of us either.  They may or may not be the 'adults' in the room, that remains to be seen; but nor are they among the 2 year olds.

You totally lost me.

Sadly, I'm not surprised.

A further irony, is that both of those cultures deal with the greater world on capitalistic terms, and among themselves on  particularly communistic terms.

So, you're saying that your model societies are communistic?  That's a refreshing change  Let's try that, then?

Yes, you could say that.  Families are communal by definition, and by nature.  The problems only arise when the well intended try to apply the communal elements of a family beyond Dunbar's Number.  It can't work only because it's simply not scalable.  Capitalism may appear harsh from a certain perspecitive, but it's both sustainable and scalable.  The assertion that it requires some degree of slavery or government force to function is false, and provablely so.  The sad fact is that, yes, slavery has historicly been found coincincidntal to capitalsim. It's also been found coincidental to just about every other known form of governance, including those matriachies that certain posters seem so fond of.  Corrolation is not causation.

But of course, I don't trade with my own children either; I trade with those beyond my family unit.  Capitalism is how soverigns deal with each other in peace; they make agreements about borders and property, etc.  If you don't agree that you own yourself, and that I own myself; then we cannot trade on peaceful terms.

I agree that you own yourself if it maximises my profit.  If it doesn't, i agree that i own you.  In other words, you're right, trade, by definition, is not peaceful but aggressive -- otherwise it's called gift-giving.  I want to get the most, you want to give the least:  A recipe for aggression.

It's a balance of motivations, however.  You can look at trade as an advesarial relationship (a conflict) if you like.  That's not a completely unsupportable position.   However, trade is almost always more profitable for both parties when both parties benefit, because voluntary exchange is less costly than war.  In the cases that voluntary exchange is not mutually beneficial, such exchanges cannot (by reason) be voluntary.  That's conflict, war, theft, and force.  Those are the halmarks of governments.  Corporations cannot fight wars because they don't hold monopolies on force, their governments do.  Would corporations wage wars if governments did not exist or were too weak to prevent it?  I don't know, maybe they would.  The East India Company was known to function in such a manner in far flung corners of the British Empire.  Still, corporations are not naturallly occuring "corporate' structures; as they all require the support of some government to even exist.  I question whether or not corporations, as we know them, could even exist in the absence of supporting governments.

[ktttn]

"Original" as in the definition that has been used for the last century or two, and is still being used by economists, as opposed to the weird revision you are using. Specifically this "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

I've bolded the keywords. In laymen's terms, recognition of property, voluntary trade, and uninhibited competition with other traders.

Is this beyond criticism? Is it wrong to criticize the way it has been put into use? To point out the obvious flaws?

Of course not. As long as you point out the flaws in the system itself, not point to unrelated things and claim that they are the system. I.e. saying "Capitalism is bad because it fails to address this crime" is ok. Saying "Capitalism is bad because this crime is capitalism" is not ok.

Can't have crime without the state.

Are you saying that all economists think alike- or just ignoring all nonclassical economists?

I am saying economists try to establish an agreed-upon definition of terms before they start deriving economic theories and debating each other. It's hard to set up a Supply/Demand graph when some people decide that "Supply" means the supply of need instead of supply of products, for example.

I'm not the one attempting to redefine capitalism.

When you say "recognition of property" who on earth are you talking about?

Me, you, everyone. We all recognize that we own the things we have, almost from birth. Moreso, we recognize that we own then in spite of laws that may say otherwise. It's why people get upset when government comes in and "legally" seizes their property, such as in imminent domain cases to use for building malls, or in nationalization cases.

Can we not inherit stolen land and goods? You know, like in the case of the Americas?

Is it not the supposed job of the violent state to do this?

Violent state can help enforce it, just as violent individuals and violent private security firms can help enforce it, but that's all they do - enforce. They don't actually create the concept of property; the concept of "I own this because I made it myself using my own stuff."

Again, without violent coersion, "property" reverts back into its natural state.

What about those who recognize all resources as commonly owned?

Difference of opinion? It's ok if the resource in question is just commonly owned and shared by everyone who owns and shares it. It would be a big problem if someone rightfully feels like the own something, and then a bunch of other people start coming in and claiming ownership to it too. That's when violence may come in, from state or otherwise.

You wanna rephrase that so it makes some sense maybe?

Certainly this is a fair viewpoint, and one capitalism actively sweeps under the rug.

Not at all. Corporations are commonly owned. Capitalism just makes sure that there is a set number of owners who are responsible for their ownership, instead of having things be unowned and in a free-for-all.

"Responsible" lol

When you say "voluntary trade" are you not talking about ill-gotten, stolen resources?

Voluntary suggests it was traded voluntarily. Trade means two or more parties. Ill-gotten stolen things are by definition not voluntarily traded away by their previous owners. So, no, I am not talking about that.

Hey! Gimmie back my argument!
Glad you're only talking about the Forests/ Land/ Oil/ Minerals/ Time That wasNEVER stolen from ANYONE.
Stay tuned for part 2.

[ktttn]

Moonshadow said matriarchies.
Again.

[ktttn]

I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes -- i genuinely thought we were talking about capitalism as the word is commonly understood.

There's the rub.  We lack that common understanding.

Slavery begins with theft/kidnapping/war, and can only be perpetuated by ignoring that theft/kidnapping/war by the governing authority and the prevailing coercive forces.
So is the capitalism as an economic theory the culprit, or is it the morays and governing authority that are the failure points?

Its fine to say that capitalism doesn't solve the problem of slavery.  It is quite another to say that slavery is integral to capitalism.
Capitalism also doesn't solve many other problems.

"Capitalism" as an economic term has been bastardized and inclusively attached to the governments that have fostered it, it has accrued baggage by associations which (I'd aver) are not inherent to capitalism.  And you'd disagree.  Thus we lack this common understanding of the word.

Perhaps the loss of meaning stems from including the "means-of-destruction/coercion" in the "means-of-production"?  Typically the monopoly on the means of destruction rests with the state.

I mostly agree with you -- there's enough guilt by association to go around.  Capitalism = fat bankers starving innocent children, communism = Stalinist Soviet Russia & gulags, Christianity = self-righteous hypocritical church ladies.  Happens.  I have no problem with claims that capitalism is more than a successful economic system (in the strict sense, as an organism that endures & multiplies is successful), more than just "is"  -- that it is also somehow better because it holds a higher moral ground.  That it is fairer, more "according to nature, logic & all things good."  

I probably didn't make some things clear:  I believe that capitalism, as we know it now and as we know it in the past, is what mankind degenerates to when unshackled -- in a way it *is* the natural state of man, though not a pretty one.  Laissez-Faire capitalism is the two-year-old left to his own devices, stuffing himself with delicious caek until he pukes, and then adults have to pick up the reins & make him wash & eat his broccoli -- that's capitalism as we have it now.  The two-year-old is grumpy, he hates broccoli & the adults (his ego, whatever works) are miserable 'coz disciplining a brat ain't fun, and pointless, too -- he's never growing up, and as soon as they leave it's back to the caek, it's delicious he must eat it.  This only hints at the rest of the problems.
What i'm saying in too many words is capitalism *necessitates* the oppressive regimes you want to dissociate it from.  I didn't try for a clear argument or a irrefutable, logical derivation, but simply a vague sense of what i'm talking about when i lump slavery & capitalism together.

Wow.  You make it sound like the whole of society woudl self destruct without the 'adults' around to make us eat our broccoli, and stop smoking, and recycle, and don't get the Big Gulp.  Who the hell do you think you are?  Do you think that you are better suited to decide for me or my children?  Do you think you have the right to tell me I shouldn't eat cake?  Everything in moderateration isn't unhealthy, and chocolate is good for human beings.

Statist mentality in a nutshell.  There is no greater evil that can ever be done by men to men, but by those who belieive they are doing so for the greater good.

A state - free Capitalist loses his stockpile.
Do Capitalists not attempt to centralize resources limitlessly?

[ktttn]

The operation of capitalism is exploitative and inefficient according to the definition we agree on.

It's chaotic, that's for sure.

If only...
Private ownership attempts to reconcile personal posessions with the commons, and does so in a linear and oligarchical way. Its rather a rejection of chaos.

As for whether it's inefficient, intuitively it may seen that a central planning body that can oversee everything and determine where resources are used best would be more efficient. In practice, and in history, this was shown not to be the case. The main reason is that when you have an enormous amount of constantly changing information, it's actually more efficient to only allow small groups/actors to work within the small sections of that information to make decisions. A large single planning body just can't process the information fast enough. It's decentralization, and is also why 3D printing and Bitcoin are way more efficient when it comes to giving people exactly and specifically what different people want, instead of having a single unweildy body, like a bank or a factory, produce the average of what people want, while lagging behind changing trends.

Any force that makes most poor and few rich, as it can be seen to have made, is a force that cannot be sustained.

Agreed. The poor will undoubtedly rebel when they get fed up with being treated unfairly.  

Hi.

It has happened over and over, with disastrous consequences. But which force are we talking about exactly? Capitalism, that prices goods and labor, and gives people information about whether their skills aren't valued, and perhaps should be changed or improved to get them out of poverty? Corruption and crime, often sustained by governments that pass regulations to help keep their corporate buddies in power and use the police force, paid for by taxing the poor, to keep those very same poor from revolting? Or just plain apathy and laziness of some people, who do nothing except complain about how their lives suck, while doing nothing to change their situation, and just watch their peers take evening classes, working on developing new skills, and quickly leaving them behind, while using excuses such as that their peers were just lucky?

Those born without capital are as a rule kept that way by capitalists.

Before you go back into this silly drivel about making toilers rich as well, you might consider at what cost and how often.

We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism.

All the time? Seriously?

Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. People with degrees were earning almost nothing, living in really horrid conditions. Then those same people started getting menial unskilled jobs, working in factories or phone support. Now those people are able to demand pay 10 to 30 times or more than what they used to get, working in research, software development, and engineering. India is no longer an ideal place to hire toilers, because millions of people were raised from the slums into middle class, not because of government programs, but because of market competition. Same deal with China. 10 years ago, people were working in horrible conditions in factories, toiling day and night for little pay, while barely earning enough to survive. Now, even though a lot of the work itself is similar, the working conditions are vastly improved. They are clean, well lit, with much better housing, resembling that of university campuses, instead of shantytowns. Sure, China has a bit to go still, but there's no argument that their toiler's situation has improved as well. And again, decades of communism and social planning couldn't do a thing to help those people out, but as soon as they allowed capitalism, however restricted, and outside companies to come in and compete for workers, things improved dramatically.

A bit to go still, huh...
Who picks up the slack? Africa?
An increase in affluence is a bad thing, it increases gentrification, obliterates culture, wastes people's lives on working for a boss, and the list goes on. A fully employed world is a very bad thing.

[Rassah]

"Capitalism" as an economic term has been bastardized and inclusively attached to the governments that have fostered it, it has accrued baggage by associations which (I'd aver) are not inherent to capitalism.  And you'd disagree.  Thus we lack this common understanding of the word.

Perhaps we should stop arguing about Capitalism, or supposedly specifically defined terms that we apparently have differing definitions of, and start arguing about the concepts by actually describing what they do.

So, I am for people being able to claim that they own something when they make things from items they have traded for or created, for being able to trade anything with anyone without having some third party sticking their nose into the trade, and for being able to compete against other people who own or do things without anyone else setting the rules but the people who are trading. Who's with me?

[Rassah]

Why are selfsufficient, stateless, non-capitalist communities in the rain forests not affected by 'horrible conditions'?

They're no capitalist? Don't the best hunters get the most praise, the best mothers get the most help, and the best medicine men get the more reverence? Or do they all share everything equally, including fruits of labor and status in the community, regardless of how much effort they put into supporting the community? I don't know, so you'll have to tell me. As for 'horrible conditions,' what is the life span, disease rate, level of hardship and quality of life in those communities?

[Rassah]

Can't have crime without the state.

Are you splitting hairs on definitions again? Are rights and crimes things only defined by governments on paper in your world view? Ok, fine. Replace "crime" with "unjust deeds" in every one of my statements.

I'm not the one attempting to redefine capitalism.

But you are. You are ascribing situations and examples to capitalism, which themselves have nothing to do with capitalism, other than just existing along-side it. "Did you know tat there are murders that happen within socialist communes? That obviously means that communes lead to murder."

Can we not inherit stolen land and goods? You know, like in the case of the Americas?

Yes we can. If by "inherit" you mean "given, and assume it's ours, without knowing any better." If no one comes to claim it, then it's technically abandoned property. If someone does come to claim it, we have to give it up. You obviously have never bought a house, but when people buy houses, they have to pay for something called a Title Insurance, which is insurance specifically against a situation where someone shows up and claims that the house you bought from someone else wasn't actually someone else's to sell. What happened in Americas was tragic, though, but, again, theft and collonialism isn't what capitalism is about.

Again, without violent coersion, "property" reverts back into its natural state.

Is it "violence" if I tell my neighbor that the land I own is my property, he tells me that the land he owns is his property, and we agree to respect each other's property to avoid any annoyances or conflicts? Isn't agreeing to respect each other's property "peace?"

What about those who recognize all resources as commonly owned?

Difference of opinion? It's ok if the resource in question is just commonly owned and shared by everyone who owns and shares it. It would be a big problem if someone rightfully feels like the own something, and then a bunch of other people start coming in and claiming ownership to it too. That's when violence may come in, from state or otherwise.

You wanna rephrase that so it makes some sense maybe?

Your opinion is that the tomato garden I am growing is "commonly owned." My opinion is that the land, and the tomatoes that I grew on it, are owned by me. If we both agreed to collectively own the land, and both contributed to growing tomatoes on it, we wouldn't have a problem, but you coming in and taking he tomatoes I spent time and labor on, just because in your opinion they are "commonly owned," would lead to problems. So, in regards to those who recognize that all resources re commonly owned, I think they will run into some problems and violence along the way, since they would rightfully be considered thieves and parasites. Better?

Not at all. Corporations are commonly owned. Capitalism just makes sure that there is a set number of owners who are responsible for their ownership, instead of having things be unowned and in a free-for-all.

"Responsible" lol

You obviously misunderstood my meaning of "responsible." By "responsible" I mean "I own this beautiful garden, with its big red tomatoes" and thus is it in my interest to make sure it stays beautiful and the tomatoes continue to grow. I am "responsible" for that garden. If the garden was "commonly owned," then I have no responsibility for maintaining the garden. I can just come in, take the tomatoes, and leave garbage behind. You are not responsible, either. No one is. And sure, we could all feel responsible for maintaining it, but it will only take one asshole in the group to take a bunch of tomatoes ad carelessly leave garbage, before everyone else starts to feel that it's not their problem either. This is how Soviet farming worked.

Glad you're only talking about the Forests/ Land/ Oil/ Minerals/ Time That wasNEVER stolen from ANYONE.

And so what if the were? What does theft have to do with trade?

A state - free Capitalist loses his stockpile.

Explain the process of how that actually happens.

[Rassah]

[Capitalism is] chaotic, that's for sure.

If only...
Private ownership attempts to reconcile personal posessions with the commons, and does so in a linear and oligarchical way. Its rather a rejection of chaos.

Definitive proof you don't understand economics or markets.

Those born without capital are as a rule kept that way by capitalists.

Really? Is that written down somewhere? Is it a law? Or some unspoken rule that all capitalists must follow? Why can't those born without capital, simply trade the only thing they have, that being their time and labor, to acquire capital? Or are you complaining about the differing levels of capital that are attainable? In that case, why are some who start with no capital stay that way, while others --

like my parents, who came to this country with two young kids (I was 10 at the time, my brother 6) and a total of $300, went from working as janitors, to lab assistants, to bio-researchers, and then spent evenings taking computer classes (while still raising us), switched careers when they were in their late 40s, and now each make a six figure income as software developers and managers, and own 4 very expensive properties

-- manage to acquire lots of capital? Why did capitalists fail to follow your rule and didn't keep them down? Why did the capitalists instead decide to reward them for their work with more capital? Or is it perhaps that your entire premise is completely wrong?

We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism.

All the time? Seriously?

Yes. When was the last time you saw mass starvation and entire towns dying out due to drought, famine, or disease like in he 1700's-1800's? When was the last time you saw a mother, with children, starving on the streets, like in the 1930's-40's? Today's toilers have cell phones, TVs, video games, and fairly good housing. Tomorrow they'll have even more stuff. A lot of us started out as toilers, too, my parents and myself included. But we improve our skills, and trade up. Hell, today's toilers are so rich, that they are able to throw away enough excess capital to support your freegan self.

Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. ...

A bit to go still, huh...
Who picks up the slack? Africa?

Of course. And we're not done yet. India is still continuing to improve dramatically, as is China.
Yes, Africa is next. As I mentioned, Africa is the next big target for outsourcing, and there are no doubts that it will follow the sale stages that India, China, and many others have gone trough. Hopefully, with open trade, eventually all third world countries will be lifted up, balancing income disparity in the process, and all menial, repetitive work can be replaced with robots, freeing up the toilers to become thinkers.

An increase in affluence is a bad thing, it increases gentrification, obliterates culture, wastes people's lives on working for a boss, and the list goes on. A fully employed world is a very bad thing.

Really? Unless the culture you speak of is one of slackers and hobos (and even they have a culture and conventions http://www.hobo.com/convention.html), more money doesn't really destroy culture. Look at two of the biggest, most influential cultures in the world: Greece and Italy. The whole reason they have such influential cultures in the first place was because of the ridiculously huge amounts of money they had. Grecian palaces and statues, and Italian cathedrals and art (and even whole cities like Venice), couldn't exist without all the money that they made through trade. Plus not everyone works for a boss. Some people work with managers and leaders. Some even work for themselves.

Also, what is the alternative to a fully employed world?