"1. Define the term "means of production" in a coherent manner."

     By "means of production," I mean what I have said before in giving examples. I mean capital. To be more specific, I mean objects which, when operated, will produce products. For examples, I have cited factories, farms, mines, and the like. These are the means of production. They produce the products of society.

     "2. If capitalism leads to such dramatic injustice, why does the average worker in freer countries make more than most rich people in heavily Statist countries? That is, how does your melodramatic brush paint around the facts of higher prosperity, duration of life, proportion of profits, lessened corruption, and all the other advantages of capitalism?"

     That is perhaps a rather gross exaggeration. Is the average worker in "freer countries" making more than the most rich in heavily Statist countries? From my understanding, the richest people on the earth tend to be the richest of the "Statist countries." But, though you may claim that life in Capitalism is better, you did not provide any resources for this claim.

     When comparing Cuba to the United States today, children who die under the age of 5, children mortality rate, child hunger, and other basic social factors are equal. [UNICEF, State of the World's Children, 1997.]

     The idea that Capitalism gives a greater "proportion of profits" is also equally absurd.

     Just what do you mean by prosperity? Prosperity for whom? In an article in Business Week entitled "The Problem Now: What to Do with All That Cash," it quotes "surging profits" that are "overflowing the coffers of Corporate America," but quietly, it states that there has not been a real increase is wages in the past fifteen years. Everything is expanding: the machinery, the technology, the profits, but one thing remains stagnant: the payrolls.

     Furthermore, you must consider that there are various factors determining prosperity, duration of life, proportion of profits, lessened corruption, etc..

     Not everything is determined by a society's economic policy. Had I seen the mailman come just before it rained, would it be logical to conclude that the mailman is responsible for making it rain? Certainly not. And throwing all the "benefits" of a society solely on its economic policy is perhaps a remarkable demonstration of inability to discern cause and effect.

     "3. Can you define any form of brutality which is not a crime under capitalist rights? If not, why have you tried to pair off the two with a dubious historical association?"

     It is quite OBVIOUS that under Capitalism, the right to become wealthy by another's labor is not a legal crime. However, under Feudalism and slavery (yes, my "dubious historical association"), it was not a legal crime to disallow a person from leaving their land or doing exactly as their master told them. You have not, in any part of this debate, argued why Capitalism differs from Feudalism or slavery. When people argued against slavery, they were arguing against what was legal. And now today, while Communists argue against Free Enterprise, in several centuries -- if the Socialist Revolution is to come -- I understand that what our Corporations do will be regarded as "The Capitalist Crimes." Furthermore... The fact that I cannot demonstrate how Capitalism does not break the law (a rather absurd assertion) does not mean that it fails in its historical association of other systems.

     "4. You state that 'A law ought to be made... stating that no person may become wealthy from the labor of another'. Does this mean you advocate the destruction of our current large-scale economy in favour of subsistence labour? If not, what does this sentence mean?"

     An industrial society produces a social product (as Alexander Berkman put it, in his "The ABCs of Anarcho-Communism"). Through the division of labor, people are capable of producing more. Also, by the utility of laborsaving devices, people are capable of producing still more. I simply stated that no person should become wealthy from the labor of another, meaning that no means of production are to be privately owned -- in effect, making it impossible to become wealthy from the labor of another, a clear theme of my proposal.

     "5. You state that 'Everyone should have an equal obligation to work'. Does this mean you think the government should make it illegal not to work? If so, from what age to what age, and in what capacity? How does this enslavement of action jibe with your melodramatic notion that statism makes people free?"

     I never stated that Statism makes people free. Quite the contrary, I am an Anarchist, and I have clearly expressed the belief that I believe in Democracy, and no other system of decision-making.

     When I stated that everyone should have an equal obligation to work, I was making a reference to the Capitalist class. That is, to say, the class of beings who do no work. Though it may be true that they are managers and CEOs, and the like, they do no productive work, only exploitative work.

     Also, I do not believe that children should be forced to work. I believe that they ought to be given an education, if they so decide to take that opportunity.

     "6. You say: 'Imagine, for instance, if instead of 2.5%, a person was paid closer to 90% or 95%.' How do you refute the statistics I gave that show that each person is already paid this proportion for his work?"

     You did not provide statistics that stated this. You provided one statistics, one extremely vague one, stating that "the GDP of the freest nations are highest." And then, you stated that in one period of time, the wages of the workers rose with the profits of the companies they worked for.

     Comparing these two statistics, I can hardly see -- HARDLY SEE -- the idea that workers are paid all the wealth they produce. It is a remarkable stretch of the imagination.

join the punkerslut.com mailing list!

copyleft notice and responsibility disclaimer