|
|||||||||||||
Capitalism is Opposed to Human Happiness Debate, Volume 2
Posts #071-#075
Post #71 Why is it that leftists typically leave the arguments so early? Here's how this seems to have played: You: material benefit is key. But inequality of bargaining reduces materials for the average person by surplus value(or something similar?) and wanton waste of resources. Me: capitalism is built around increasing material wealth. You: well, I'm still against the idea of inequality positioning! Your position is that which is basically slavery! I also dislike it when you say that I support this position! Now, the post that you quoted did not cover "So does slavery"; it stated the strawman that you are entirely against production, and compared it with everything else you said. It covers everything that you stated, your own summarization of everything, showing you how you are avoiding your own subject by making this an issue of bargaining instead of an issue of material gain. In your own conclusion, you made arguments (2) and (3), which clearly stated 'Capitalism reduces materials for average people, so therefore: end capitalism', which is more evident with your first sentence in that post: My arguments have been for a society that most materially benefits its members and participants. Note that you didn't add anything else. I quoted as much of what you said that I can, explaining why you're misleading. So, either you hold no value for production gains in comparison to the gains from bargaining, or you have a huge, rightous stance against the idea of exploitation and the whole agument that involved the word "production" has been a waste upon you that you won't dignify with, "Yes, I do not care for production as long as inequality exists, stop talking about this". So, you are still strawmanning me and even messing with what you previously stated. I did not answer to "So does slavery"; I answered to: 'What, I do believe in production! We need to end capitalism to increase material gains!' Of course, this does not cover the pleasentries of bargaining, because I am showing you your strawmanning and your inability to just flat-out admit which position you prefer. Post #72 Hello, Radical, and thanks for responding. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: These are not so much poetic rephrasings but rather point out that there is no clear distinction between labor and capital: IMHO, a better dichotomy is between labor and natural resources (that were not created by anyone's labor, John Locke's theory about taking something from the field being "labor" not withstanding). CNT-FAI Radical wrote: That takes away from the generality of the principle that we all have a right to the means of production -- the exception being that we don't have a right to each other, even though we are also a means of production. So it is not a universal principle. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: A right to productive property for everyone is most effectively and elegantly implemented by everyone having an equal share of this property. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: I presume that what you call "the product of their labor" also includes the raw materials to which the labor is applied. But these raw materials are not the product of their labor. Why should they receive complete right to do what they want with these raw materials? (John Locke's idea that taking something from a field is "mixing your labor with it" is dubious). And what about babies, children, the elderly, the feeble, infirm, and the sick, who cannot work? They have no right to any produce? CNT-FAI Radical wrote: Suppose automation has advanced to the point that it only takes one worker to operate the means of production, and it is not practical to distribute this work to more than one person. So you have one worker. Is he the only one who has a complete right to do what he wants with the product of his labor? Of course I understand that considerable labor went into developing this means of production. But at some point, when there's only one worker and many non-working citizens, if he is the only one who has a complete right to do what he wants with the product of his labor, he becomes the "king", everyone else depends on his generosity. I.e. "There's no need for either a king over subjects, capitalist over workers", or worker over capitalists. The issue in my opinion is not "capitalist over workers" but rather "the few over the many", including the case of the few being workers and the many being non-workers (or "capitalists", though it's not how you use that term). CNT-FAI Radical wrote: There are rules and restrictions on trading shares, and sometimes contractual restrictions on trading shares of a specific corporation. The untradable inherent rights of humanity to own a share of the capital can be simply represented by providing untradable shares. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: I empathize with your concern about the few exploiting the many, but you seem to define capitalists as the "exploiting few", in whatever system, from upper Caste Hindus to feudalism, etc. This definition can fly in an anti-capitalist environment, but it is not a suitable definition for discussion of the fundamental ideology of capitalism as I understand it: Capitalism is simply the right to earn interest or rent income on the property you own. You can be a capitalist and be the poorest of your working class friends. A tenant can be richer than a landlord. Distribution of wealth is more critical than whether you are an employer or an employee. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: He is contributing something: the use of the property he owns. You question his right to own such property. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: The "raw materials" were not made by the Capitalist -- nor were they produced by other workers! We all have a right to what God or nature has provided. This has nothing to do with labor. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: I agree, and my approach would be to distribute capitalism, so that we are all capitalists, rather than none. The following quote suggests you might agree: CNT-FAI Radical wrote: I would not trust that it would equalize bargaining power -- it would change the balance, but not necessarily democratize it: It provides opportunities for union leaders to take advantages and we'd be back to square one: They would become the new "capitalists", to use your definition. It's much simpler, more transparent and direct to simply distribute ownership of equal shares. Post #073
DanDaMan wrote: I have already answered this response earlier, when I said to you, "I am not advocating a new form of Capitalism, where someone else controls everything. The economy ought to be organized according to small, decentralized, worker-managed firms within each industry." I.E. I am not in favor of state Socialism. Michaeluj wrote: You're debating someone who, you think, doesn't believe in productivity as any means of value. That is, you're debating a figment of your imagination, and you certainly don't need me for that. If you actually debated my arguments, that would be another thing. Besides, I've been correcting you from the beginning: interpretation of thoreau, praxeology, monopoly, etc., etc.. I've stopped debating you because I have ceased to see the value in using my time this way. Arie wrote: A person is a laborer, and the tools they work are the means of production. They are separate and distinct things. Air is equally necessary, but we don't find oxygen listed under capital or capital. For instance, you could argue you believe in freedom of religion, but Charles Manson's religion is murder, so, one could theoretically argue, there is no such thing as freedom of religion. This can only be done by a poetic rephrasing, as I pointed out: it is to redefine religion to include such a vicious act. You could, theoretically, continue this type of rephrasing for anything. You don't have freedom of speech, because you can't order someone to kill someone else. And you don't have freedom of religion, because you can't adopt the religion of murdering other people. Likewise, possession of capital does not mean possession of human beings. Sure, I guess every principle of justice is only accepted on the condition that it does not harm other people. Arie wrote: Do you mean "this property" as people having a right to own other people? Arie wrote: Yes, these raw materials were gathered and made useful by labor, so they are the product of labor. Even gathering accorns is work. Arie wrote: You mean all of those people who have no right to the produce of society today? Either the workers will control the terms of their work directly, or someone on top of them will do it. I do not see any other feasible alternative. Now, who do you think is going to make more socially conscious decisions with the means of production? The workers or the Capitalist? Clearly the people, as a king has not benefited them in making decisions over them, so why would a king of economics benefit them? Arie wrote: Well, of course, there's such an inequality of bargaining here that violates the principle of everyone owning the terms of production. I have only chosen collectivism for the latter, since production for almost the entirety of humanity has taken on a particular collective mindset or effort. Arie wrote: Yes, you can call them "shares" and define them as inherent, human rights. It would be irrelevent or ambiguous. Arie wrote: Yes, but in terms of Capitalist, the phrase I'm using is someone who has so much capital that it grants them excessive bargaining power. For instance, silverware is capital when it's wrapped up for sale, but it's a consumer good when it's unwrapped at home. Or, it could be used in a restaurant, as capital goods. Either way, it's not really a matter of defining this or that as capital, but to look at the really situation of the vast majority of people -- and ask yourself the question of what or whom they are dependent upon to earn their right to life. Arie wrote: This property, that he owns, was not made by him; it was made the workers. And, considering the history of the globe, there's a strong chance that the property only ended up in his hands through slavery, oppression, or government intervention on behalf of the Capitalists. Arie wrote: The "raw materials" were not made by the Capitalist -- nor were they produced by other workers! A gigantic mound of coal is worthless if it just sits inside the earth unmined. It was not "produced" by the workers. It was made valuable by the workers. Arie wrote: Yes, but there should be no Capitalist who is not a worker, and no worker who is not a Capitalist. Arie wrote: There are no union leaders within a system of delegation, particularly within Libertarian Communism. I'm familiar with the phrase "union leaders," but the system I introduced, of direct worker-management, does not create them. They are the product of unions being bought out by the Capitalist so that they can subdue and pacify the workers. Abolishing Capitalism means abolishing all economic rulers, whether called the state, the capitalist, or the "union president." Shares in one gigantic corporation that owns everything, or various corporations that own monopolies, is far more complicated than each business being managed and operated by those who labor their. Post #074
Quote: How do you go about punishing your small collective community, that makes something twice as good as all the surrounding communities, with half the labor and double the profits, when they start having the finest things in life? Post #075
Quote: Oh my god, why don't you understand that the key word is "COMPARISON"!? I say that productivity has high value. You say that it's worthless because the people still wouldn't be able to bargain. You say that being able to bargain is what will most definitely increase the material wealth of the people. Therefore, you hold a much greater value to bargaining, meaning that, even if I'm right, you will still think that production is lesser to what could be obtained through what you support. LESSER, NOT NO VALUE!! For crying out loud, I QUOTED YOU! If you really thought so highly of production, making it the most important, then why did you say otherwise. Either production is lesser to bargaining or it's greater: pick one! Guys, if he's still going to insist that he thinks that silly conclusion, could you please tell me how he's doing it? I feel like I'm talking with someone with poor reading skills. Oh, and that ending comment is just a snide excuse to make it seem like everything you said matters and that I know nothing, thus giving all of the innocent, and probably also biased, readers the impression that you saved yourself from the horrible monster of me. Ha, Thoreau is irrelevant to speak of, praxeology definitions never mattered here, the monopoly part was just a waste, and so was so much.
|
