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

[Rassah]

Capitalism is a collectivist period within a cycle. It's ending now.

Ok, ignoring that, as generally understood, capitalism and collectivism are at the exact opposite ends of the economic spectrum...

Can you tell me what it is being replaced by, and what exactly we all have to look forward to?

[crumbs]

Nope. Serious. Why is trading something you have for something you want, bad? Unless that's not capitalism in your opinion.

... it is driven by organised violence of the Church and State. ...

Organized violence of the Church?  Where do you live, what church, what did those thugs do & were there any children involved?

[NewLiberty]

Slavery, being involuntary, is in no way essential, nor even included in what the anarchocapitalists advocate.  So outside even the broadest definitions of integral.

I am finding that folks attempting to reclaim both anarchy and capitalism as useful words in discourse are going to end up wasting more time than they need to.
They might do better with ¨voluntarism¨ or something similar.

Let the anti capitalists fight paper tigers and straw men and move on...

Please read slowly & carefully.  I never said that slavery was voluntary.  Nor did i claim it was essential.  Nor did i ever put it into context with "anarchocapitalis[m]."  
No paper tigers.  No straw men.  I rely on a common definition of capitalism, let's say wikip.  Yourself?

Edit:  There's also no need to coin more words like "debitism" & "voluntarism."  Pointless jargon annoys & confuses.  
Edit2: typo

What definition of integral were you intending, the mathematical?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integral
Voluntarism is not new, and it obvious that some other term is needed since all the folks disagreeing are discussing different meanings of the terms being used.  So either there has to be a definition which is agreed, or a different term.
I didn´t pick it out of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

[NewLiberty]

Nope. Serious. Why is trading something you have for something you want, bad? Unless that's not capitalism in your opinion.

Trading is not bad. The cause of trading is bad: DEBT. The first debt is debt ex nihilo: the tribute (census) to the state mafia; it is driven by organised violence of the Church and State. All of the following debts are derivatives of this first debt.

It seem unintuitive to imagine that those without debt would not trade.  But starting from such a premise, the rest of what you have written makes sense.

[Rassah]

Nope. Serious. Why is trading something you have for something you want, bad? Unless that's not capitalism in your opinion.

Trading is not bad. The cause of trading is bad: DEBT. The first debt is debt ex nihilo: the tribute (census) to the state mafia; it is driven by organised violence of the Church and State. All of the following debts are derivatives of this first debt.

How does this apply to people who have no debt, yet still trade just to get things they need or want? For example, my net worth is positive. I don't really have any real debt (rather, I can pay off my debt with my assets at any time, and still have plenty left over). I still trade my labor for money, and money for food, electricity, gasoline, plane tickets, and hotels. Where does the debt come in? Am I indebted to my body that demands of me to continue living or something?

[crumbs]

I'm simply pointing out the untenability of your position.  By claiming that Soviet space program exemplifies capitalism in action, your make it blatantly obvious that your notions about capitalism are ... what's the euphemism i'm looking for?  "Unique."  Most people tend to associate Soviet Russia of the 50s and 60s with ... not capitalism.

As do I. I came from that country. We specifically escaped communism and government persecution. That said, Soviet Union, despite being overall anti-capitalism, focusing instead of central planning and collectivism, still participated in trade to achieve certain goals, even if it was done on a much smaller scale, and was not called trade or capitalism. That even Soviet Union, with all it's oppression, spying, and control, couldn't escape it should say something. Your example was just bad, that's all. If you had used an example like, say, "Soviet union outfarmed USA, creating vastly more food way more efficiently with its collectivist farms than USA did with its capitalist ones," then you'd have a good argument. Except for the fact that Soviet collectivist farming led to 6,000,000+ deaths from starvation.

When you find yourself in a hole, the smart thing to do is stop digging.  I didn't come up with that morsel of wisdom -- just passing it on as a favor.
Let's start by freeing you from a few misconceptions you seem to be all tangled up in:
1.  Where you're from is irrelevant.  
2.  As are the horrors of Soviet Russia.
3.  "Engaging in trade" is done by all econo-political systems with the possible exception of total isolationism.  And even then only foreign trade.  Trade is certainly not unique to capitalism.
4.  "Your example was just bad, that's all"  
5.  Yes, i could have chosen an example which gave credence to your argument & discredited mine.  That would'a been stupid.  I didn't do that.  Sorry.

Slavery, on the other hand, fits seamlessly within the scope of conventional capitalism definition.  Like factories & tractors, slaves are "means of production."  Don't you agree?  Slave ownership is not only a sound capitalist concept, but was [and, arguably, remains] an integral part of many capitalist societies.  

You may have a point. I guess the thorn in this whole thing is what exactly we consider "voluntary." I don't think we can argue that slaves couldn't make personal choices, and couldn't distinguish between volunteering to exchange their labor and being forced into it. But even if we ignored all that, and simply focused on "human capital," be it slavery, toil, or white-collar employment, if capitalism is about trade and competition, you can WAY outcompete someone who uses forced slave labor by using incentive-based voluntary labor. I'm not sure if this is somewhat of a tangent though, but let me know if you need more learnin on this subject.

I don't consider slavery voluntary.  Not sure where you got that idea.  I simply said that slaves, like other beasts of burden, are a means of production.  Private ownership of the means of production is the defining quality of capitalism.  I expanded on that point by explaining that slavery is not only theoretically possible, but was [and, arguably, is] practiced by capitalist societies.
Problem?

[crumbs]

Slavery, being involuntary, is in no way essential, nor even included in what the anarchocapitalists advocate.  So outside even the broadest definitions of integral.

I am finding that folks attempting to reclaim both anarchy and capitalism as useful words in discourse are going to end up wasting more time than they need to.
They might do better with ¨voluntarism¨ or something similar.

Let the anti capitalists fight paper tigers and straw men and move on...

Please read slowly & carefully.  I never said that slavery was voluntary.  Nor did i claim it was essential.  Nor did i ever put it into context with "anarchocapitalis[m]."  
No paper tigers.  No straw men.  I rely on a common definition of capitalism, let's say wikip.  Yourself?

Edit:  There's also no need to coin more words like "debitism" & "voluntarism."  Pointless jargon annoys & confuses.  
Edit2: typo

What definition of integral were you intending, the mathematical?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integral

Let's drop the pedantry.  "Integral: 2. composed of parts that together constitute a whole." -WCD.  
Usage:  The ears are an integral part of this cast iron kitty, they don't come off unless you break them.  Of course, you are free to do so -- they're by no means essential!

I noticed you didn't mention "voluntary" or "anarchocapitalis[m]."  

Voluntarism is not new, and it obvious that some other term is needed since all the folks disagreeing are discussing different meanings of the terms being used.  So either there has to be a definition which is agreed, or a different term.
I didn´t pick it out of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

You're right, it's not new, though Libertarian-specific usage is new to me.  I apologise.  I honestly didn't expect a wikip page with logos & everything.  

[Zarathustra]

Nope. Serious. Why is trading something you have for something you want, bad? Unless that's not capitalism in your opinion.

Trading is not bad. The cause of trading is bad: DEBT. The first debt is debt ex nihilo: the tribute (census) to the state mafia; it is driven by organised violence of the Church and State. All of the following debts are derivatives of this first debt.

How does this apply to people who have no debt, yet still trade just to get things they need or want? For example, my net worth is positive. I don't really have any real debt (rather, I can pay off my debt with my assets at any time, and still have plenty left over). I still trade my labor for money, and money for food, electricity, gasoline, plane tickets, and hotels. Where does the debt come in?

You are a tax payer, a protection money payer, because the state mafia tells you, that you owe them protection money. That is everybody's debt, and this is the root of the so called economy. The selfsufficient communities are forbidden and destroyed by the church and state complicity. Without a community which is taking care for the seniors, you are dependent on your savings.

Am I indebted to my body that demands of me to continue living or something?

Yes. A (monogamous pairing-) family is not a community, and therefore not selfsufficient. (famulus = house slave)

[ktttn]

I'm all for reclaiming words, but when the word's near universal application is unethical, popular, and appropriate, the reclaiming is going to take some uglyand backwards revisionism, as well as resistence from longtime anticapitalists. Nothing "actually" means anything, you know. Ideology is a conversation with arguably justifiable conclusions, not an emperical fact, that determine meaning

The problem is that we are arguing for the original "idea" or capitalism, while you are arguing for something that is not exactly capitalism, while arguing against something you call capitalism, which isn't capitalism, either. So, essentially, we are trying to argue for A, while you are arguing for B while arguing against C. We're not arguing against C.

Is the whole of your worldview about your own personal opinions?

Hail Satan.

Ugh. I read that as Hail Stalin at first. Too much Soviet talk in here.

Unless you can come up with source material ciiting the first known use of the word with clear implications about capitalism that follow along with your definition, your "original" is revisionist and inaccurate.

[ktttn]

Hail Satan.

Yeah, I'm done with you.  You're just a troll, although a particularly thoughtful one.

I'll mark this down as "Pro-Capitalist cannot interface with maximum-edgy Satanist and ragequits."
Ayn Rand would be so dissapointed.
Thx for the thoughtful comment tho.

[Rassah]

Unless you can come up with source material ciiting the first known use of the word with clear implications about capitalism that follow along with your definition, your "original" is revisionist and inaccurate.

"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.

[ktttn]

Unless you can come up with source material ciiting the first known use of the word with clear implications about capitalism that follow along with your definition, your "original" is revisionist and inaccurate.

"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?
Are you saying that all economists think alike- or just ignoring all nonclassical economists?
When you say "recognition of property" who on earth are you talking about?
Is it not the supposed job of the violent state to do this? What about those who recognize all resources as commonly owned? Certainly this is a fair viewpoint, and one capitalism actively sweeps under the rug.
When you say "voluntary trade" are you not talking about ill-gotten, stolen resources?
The operation of capitalism is exploitative and inefficient according to the definition we agree on.
Any force that makes most poor and few rich, as it can be seen to have made, is a force that cannot be sustained.
Before you go back into this silly drivel about making toilers rich as well, you might consider at what cost and how often.

[NewLiberty]

Let's drop the pedantry.  "Integral: 2. composed of parts that together constitute a whole." -WCD.  
Usage:  The ears are an integral part of this cast iron kitty, they don't come off unless you break them.  Of course, you are free to do so -- they're by no means essential!

Even so, the notion that capitalism without slavery is not whole, also seems bizarre.
Help me understand.  In what way is slavery integral to capitalism? Like a cat's ears to a cat?

We agree that slavery is "not essential" to capitalism.

Slavery certainly flies in the face of voluntaryism, (which seems to be what the an-caps this thread has provoked into carrying on for so long, are more narrowly advocating as the true definition of "capitalism").
I remain skeptical that either the term "Anarchist", or "Capitalist", are reclaimable outside the realms of ivory towers by the an-caps, though I expect that effort to never cease.  (well... maybe it will after another 20 pages of posts)

[Rassah]

"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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

It's chaotic, that's for sure. 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.  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?

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. 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.

[Rassah]

No, I'm just saying: check your assumptions. I call bullshit on the "first we assume that both parties are better off by trading" claim. Where's your evidence? The mere fact that trade occurs is not evidence.

That's easy enough to settle. Prove to me that someone is worse off from voluntarily trading. Give me an example. Just to head you off from any bad ones, "under duress" is not voluntary. "Being swindled" is close, but that's not exactly voluntary, as the other person didn't have all the information, and anyway, they would stop trading as soon as they find that information. I.e. they'll be better off knowing something they didn't before, and would be able to improve their life going forward.

They are almost all bias/discrimination. People discriminate against things they find less valuable, and are biased towards things they want and need.

My thoughts must have jumped ahead of what I actually wrote. I meant that some observers are biased because they ignore trades that are obviously not mutually beneficial...

Which observers ignore that? I certainly don't. There is crime, which may include coersion, theft, destruction of property, and lying about products/services. This crime exists regardless of the economic system. The question isn't whether or not this crime is capitalism/"mutual beneficial trade" (it's not, it's crime). The question is how well the different economic and political systems can deal with and minimize it.

What's wrong with a little education and life experience? Should we have government hold everyone's hand and make all their decisions for them, just to make sure no one makes a bad trade?

No, I'm just trying to counter your "mutual gain" propaganda.

Bad trades are possible. Sheesh, sorry I scratched your rose-tinted glasses.

How do you propose we stop all trade to make sure that bad trades are no longer possible?

No one discounts externalities. And the parties can be two people, two corporations, or one corporation and the society it serves. No one is disputing that. The question is, why should that watchdog be a government?

I'm just rolling with what evolution obviously selected. I guess that that makes me a 'believer' in evolution because I don't always fully grasp why something turned out to be superior, but I have confidence that evolution was right.

Evolution You mean tribalism and pack mentality? You don't think tribes established territories and ownership? Or believed in scarce resources? Or traded between tribes? Or had to make choices as to whether to expand their resources to support someone, or write them off as a lost cause? Or had members that specialized in various skills, and earned differing levels of respect and resources based on what they did for the tribe?

Especially since governments both can set laws AND be bought. Personally, I have been arguing that it is WAY more effective to have a private body fighting negative externalities...

Evolution says you're wrong.

That's funny, because evolution doesn't have "government" beyond our own species, which itself is a new invention.

[Rassah]

I remain skeptical that either the term "Anarchist", or "Capitalist", are reclaimable outside the realms of ivory towers by the an-caps, though I expect that effort to never cease.  (well... maybe it will after another 20 pages of posts)

Maybe we should just rename ourselves economic progressives 

[crumbs]

Let's drop the pedantry.  "Integral: 2. composed of parts that together constitute a whole." -WCD.  
Usage:  The ears are an integral part of this cast iron kitty, they don't come off unless you break them.  Of course, you are free to do so -- they're by no means essential!

Even so, the notion that capitalism without slavery is not whole, also seems bizarre.
Help me understand.  In what way is slavery integral to capitalism? Like a cat's ears to a cat?

There are so many tempting ways to approach this -- like being loose in Willy Wonka's factory or a 20s bordello...  And being made to choose.  I'll do my best, but forgive me if i jump on more than one.

Historically, slaves and capitalism went hand in hand.  "In pre-industrial societies, slaves and their labour were economically extremely important to those who benefitted from them. Slaves and serfs made up around three-quarters of the world's population at the beginning of the 19th century."*  See where i'm going with this?  Slavery is more than integral to capitalism -- it's integral to mankind.  But nah, that's too easy.  

If capitalism means putting the means of production in private hands, and slaves are a means of production (we're assuming they're bought with the purest of motivations -- maximizing profits, and nothing off-color), buying slaves is as natural as buying a mule or a backhoe. As long as there is no law prohibiting it, and the balance sheet makes sense.  The mores will always adjust:  They're not really people, they attacked us, and deserve to suffer, they were bought and paid for (chattel slaves), they ran up a debt & now they need to work it off (bonded labor), they're on my land (serfdom), they committed a crime & it is only just that they pay (forced labor) -- the list goes on.
*Wikip.

We agree that slavery is "not essential" to capitalism.

Yes, in the sense that ears are not essential to a cat -- sure, but they're usually there & they sure do help.

Slavery certainly flies in the face of voluntaryism, (which seems to be what the an-caps this thread has provoked into carrying on for so long, are more narrowly advocating as the true definition of "capitalism").

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

I remain skeptical that either the term "Anarchist", or "Capitalist", are reclaimable outside the realms of ivory towers by the an-caps, though I expect that effort to never cease.  (well... maybe it will after another 20 pages of posts)

Don't get me wrong, it's not like they stole something i use all the time -- i just think it's confusing & makes for 20 pages of bickering

[NewLiberty]

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.

[Zarathustra]

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'?

[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".