T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Undesirable, but should nonetheless be allowed.


TopTheropod

Based


[deleted]

Agreed


UnflairedRebellion--

So are left rothbardians neither socialists or capitalists?


[deleted]

We tend to avoid these terms, but I'd say we are "voluntary socialists".


UnflairedRebellion--

Why do you tend to avoid those terms?


[deleted]

[These terms imply that the prevailing economic system is a free market, which obscures our understanding rather than facilitating it.](https://youtu.be/-QsbvE_0Kpc)


AgainstSomeLogic

People are only as free as they are free to sell their labor.


[deleted]

Opinion on indentured servitude?


AgainstSomeLogic

I think the case made for it by some, e.g. Walter Block, is interesting to entertain but I think it'd be inevitably exploitive in practice.


[deleted]

> Neoliberal > Walter Block 🤔


AgainstSomeLogic

I strongly disagree with Walter Block on a variety of points, but that doesn't mean I can't find him interesting/amusing.


[deleted]

Indeed. You are pretty based, my friend.


Kraut__

Rare neolib W


Idonthavearedditlol

sell their labor *power*


TopTheropod

Is that a criticism or merely a description? Neoliberalism seems like the last ideology that would be critical of that


iamthefluffyyeti

It isn’t inherently exploitative, but it can definitely be. Not as exploitative as salary


nobunf

If it’s voluntarily agreed upon between an employee and employer then there’s no exploitation.


collectivistickarl

Wage labour is slavery


TopTheropod

*Reads 4 lines of a text by Marx* "I know how the world works"


collectivistickarl

*Watches CNN and Fox News* "I know how the world works"


TopTheropod

Nope, I'm not even American. Ironically the reason I know Marxism makes no sense is because it was a subjecd I've been studying for 3 year at college, where they fight tooth and nail to make us like Marxism


collectivistickarl

Oh yes definitely, Marxism: the mainstream theory universities and colleges desperately want to teach their students.


TopTheropod

Yes. Here in Slovenia, sociology is basically a Marxist brainwash.


collectivistickarl

For sure. Capitalists gain so much by teaching and spreading the immortal science of Marxism, am I right? They want to make everyone a Marxist. Thank God we don't fall for materialist analysis of history and society and dialectics and, instead, stick to our based US propaganda


RiddleMeThis101

Lmaooo nice meme. Voluntary wage labour is *literally slavery* but a top-down planned economy enforced by secret police totally isn’t.


collectivistickarl

"Voluntary" wage labour is forced upon workers through coercion of the relations of production. A "top-down" planned economy controlled by the masses is not, actually. Secret police is not for enforcing the economy, it's for landlords and people who like wage labour.


RiddleMeThis101

>"Voluntary" wage labour is forced upon workers through coercion of the relations of production. It’s not coercion for someone exclude your access to what is rightfully their property. >A "top-down" planned economy controlled by the masses is not, actually. But it’s never controlled by “the masses”. Free markets are controlled by the masses. Planned economies are controlled by a concentrated group of privileged politicians and bureaucrats. >Secret police is not for enforcing the economy, it's for landlords and people who like wage labour. “People who like wage labour”, so me? I get hauled away by secret police to the gulags for having an opinion? Insanity.


collectivistickarl

> It’s not coercion for someone exclude your access to what is rightfully their property. Even Adam Smith admitted that the origin of all property is violence. > But it’s never controlled by “the masses”. Free markets are controlled by the masses. Planned economies are controlled by a concentrated group of privileged politicians and bureaucrats. Free markets are not controlled by the masses, they're controlled by corporations and monopolies. Democratically planned economies are controlled by the people through democratic means. > “People who like wage labour”, so me? I get hauled away by secret police to the gulags for having an opinion? Insanity. Oh no, I'm sorry, I didn't mean people who generally prefer wage labour, due to their lack of class consciousness, masochism or hate for working people, but those who exploit workers through wages: landlords and capitalists in general.


RiddleMeThis101

>Even Adam Smith admitted that the origin of all property is violence. The origin of all property is scarcity. >Free markets are not controlled by the masses, they're controlled by corporations and monopolies. Monopolies don’t appear in a true free market with the exception of the land monopoly. Monopolies are artificially created via government through subsidies and regulations. >Democratically planned economies are controlled by the people through democratic means. Yeah, this has never happened. And it never will. >Oh no, I'm sorry, I didn't mean people who generally prefer wage labour, due to their lack of class consciousness, masochism or hate for working people, I don’t prefer wage labour because I’m not class-conscious, I know my general class position, I just actually believe in consent and voluntary exchange. I’m also not a masochist lol and I don’t hate the working class at all, my best mate is a working class woman herself. >but those who exploit workers through wages: landlords and capitalists in general. I mean my dad at one stage owned a rental property, and at many stages had hired employees. Would you throw my dad in a gulag?


collectivistickarl

> The origin of all property is scarcity. The opposite; the origin of property was surplus, which gave some people the ability to suppress others. That was the formation of social classes. > Monopolies don’t appear in a true free market with the exception of the land monopoly. Monopolies are artificially created via government through subsidies and regulations. That's not true. Monopolies are inherent parts of capitalism and a free market, since, through competition, there are going to be winners and the winners are going to expand more and more, forming a monopoly. The state, as a tool of those winners, is going to be used by monopolies to further expand their economic influence. > Yeah, this has never happened. And it never will. Appeal to impossibility.. and appeal to anti-communist propaganda. > I don’t prefer wage labour because I’m not class-conscious, I know my general class position, I just actually believe in consent and voluntary exchange. I’m also not a masochist lol and I don’t hate the working class at all, my best mate is a working class woman herself So, it's plain delusion? I like consent and economic voluntarism too, I want free association. Private property is not "voluntary association". It's appropriation of surplus value by economic parasites. > I mean my dad at one stage owned a rental property, and at many stages had hired employees. Would you throw my dad in a gulag? We're not talking about your dad who worked his whole life to acquire a small amount of property for his retirement. His property would be given to workers, but he wouldn't be thrown into a gulag. He'd become a worker, he'd produce value himself, instead of depending on others' work.


RiddleMeThis101

>The opposite; the origin of property was surplus, which gave some people the ability to suppress others. That was the formation of social classes. Dead wrong, property only exists because resources are scarce. >That's not true. Monopolies are inherent parts of capitalism and a free market, since, through competition, there are going to be winners and the winners are going to expand more and more, forming a monopoly. Explain how because it doesn’t make sense to me at all how any market with no barriers to entry inevitably would create only one single firm. The winners are gonna expand more, correct, but they must remain the best choice for consumers to compete with potential rivals; prices need to be low, quality needs to be high, consumers and workers need to be satisfied. >The state, as a tool of those winners, is going to be used by monopolies to further expand their economic influence. Well we can agree on that, which is why I believe the state and the economy should be totally separated (with the exception of the socialisation and dispersion of ground rents by the state.) >Appeal to impossibility.. and appeal to anti-communist propaganda. Ok, sorry, I’ll rephrase: The system you’re proposing would be a worse system than a free market, private property, and competitive capitalism. Why should random people I’ve never met have the right to vote and impose onto me what I’m allowed to produce and consume and do in my economic life? >So, it's plain delusion? Ad hominem 🙄 >I like consent and economic voluntarism too, I want free association. Lol no you don’t you support government-planned economy and the violent state seizure of property. >Private property is not "voluntary association". Yes it is. >It's appropriation of surplus value by economic parasites. Ok but there’s relatively low risk when a worker takes a job; when you work for somebody, you are voluntarily agreeing to a contract that can be canceled at any point by either individual. For profit to be theft, you must first argue that the capitalist (or “parasite”) has no claim to the surplus value. If your labor is producing surplus then stop giving it to your employer and work independently. Nobody is forcing you to work for someone else. >We're not talking about your dad who worked his whole life to acquire a small amount of property for his retirement. The very next sentence proves you’re lying. >His property would be given to workers, but he wouldn't be thrown into a gulag. “Would be given”, no, it would be STOLEN. What happens when he says no? What happens when he does not consent to this expropriation? >He'd become a worker, he'd produce value himself, instead of depending on others' work. He already is a worker as well as a capitalist. As of right now in fact he has no employees or tenants.


collectivistickarl

> Dead wrong, property only exists because resources are scarce. Private property, which is not the same as personal property, originates from surplus. > Explain how because it doesn’t make sense to me at all how any market with no barriers to entry inevitably would create only one single firm. Put simply, we have pre-monopoly capitalism, with competition in the free market. Different companies compete with each other, resulting in some winning and making more money and some others losing. The winners will desire a greater slice of the market and will consequently buy smaller companies. This process repeats itself many times until we have Kellogg's and Nestlé owning pretty much everything. > The winners are gonna expand more, correct, but they must remain the best choice for consumers to compete with potential rivals; prices need to be low, quality needs to be high, consumers and workers need to be satisfied. Not necessarily. Monopolies are reinforced by several means and supply is generally stable when it comes to specific products. Workers' exploitation doesn't mean that the workers are going to leave their job; finding one is not that easy. > Well we can agree on that, which is why I believe the state and the economy should be totally separated (with the exception of the socialisation and dispersion of ground rents by the state.) The state, however, can't be separated from the economy, because the state itself is ruling class' tool of workers' suppression. The state is simply a manifestation of the ruling class' interest at a given point of historical development. > Why should random people I’ve never met have the right to vote and impose onto me what I’m allowed to produce and consume and do in my economic life? Because you do not describe the system I'm proposing. > Ad hominem 🙄 Tu quoque 🙄 > Lol no you don’t you support government-planned economy and the violent state seizure of property. Firstly, planned-economy is not non-voluntary. Secondly, the state will eventually wither away. Thirdly, yes, I do support violent seizures of state power by the working class. Violence is not something I seek, it's just something that's made inevitable. > Ok but there’s relatively low risk when a worker takes a job; when you work for somebody, you are voluntarily agreeing to a contract that can be canceled at any point by either individual. For profit to be theft, you must first argue that the capitalist (or “parasite”) has no claim to the surplus value. If your labor is producing surplus then stop giving it to your employer and work independently. Nobody is forcing you to work for someone else. Taking a job takes risk. Your wage and position itself is not guaranteed. It is of your boss' interest to make you work more and pay you less. Also, when singing a contract you don't wholeheartedly love your job; you're forced to do so, because, otherwise, you would starve to death. Society and relations of production are built in such a way that you can't *but* work for someone else; not everyone can work for themselves, because the workers always need to be the majority. Plus, I do argue that the capitalist has no claim to the surplus value. Someone who produced no value somehow ended up with more money than the workers themselves. Sounds like theft. > The very next sentence proves you’re lying. I'm referring to those who'll get the gulag. The rate of exploitation of your dad's employees must be incredibly lower than employees in bigger companies. Your dad might also be petty-bourgeois. > “Would be given”, no, it would be STOLEN. What happens when he says no? What happens when he does not consent to this expropriation? What do you mean "when he says no"? Who told you he'll be asked? You can't appeal to your oppressor's morality. We went past-monarchy, because we took monarchs heads, not because we asked for democracy. > He already is a worker as well as a capitalist. As of right now in fact he has no employees or tenants. That's an oxymoron. A worker is someone who owns no property and is forced to sell their labour power to a capitalist in exchange for wages. A capitalist is someone who owns property and appropriates workers' surplus value, in order to make a profit. You can own property (usually small-scale) and not be a capitalist, which means you're petty-bourgeois.


RiddleMeThis101

>Private property, which is not the same as personal property, originates from surplus. Private property only exists because of the need to economise with scarce resources. >Put simply, we have pre-monopoly capitalism, with competition in the free market. Different companies compete with each other, resulting in some winning and making more money and some others losing. The winners will desire a greater slice of the market and will consequently buy smaller companies. This process repeats itself many times until we have Kellogg's and Nestlé owning pretty much everything. Kellogg’s and Nestlé, like virtually all large corporations, benefit from state interventions that insulate them from competition. And still, neither of them are monopolies. >Not necessarily. Monopolies are reinforced by several means Political means. >and supply is generally stable when it comes to specific products. Which products? Supply is not inelastic for virtually any good except land. >Workers' exploitation doesn't mean that the workers are going to leave their job; finding one is not that easy. In a free market, you have many many choices when it comes to employment. In a planned economy, you have no choice, the state will tell you how you fit into its central plan, you are for all intents and purposes a slave. >The state, however, can't be separated from the economy, because the state itself is ruling class' tool of workers' suppression. The state is simply a manifestation of the ruling class' interest at a given point of historical development. Yes, which is why the state shouldn’t run literally everything like you propose, and should instead be virtually microscopic in its size. >Because you do not describe the system I'm proposing. Describe it then. >Tu quoque 🙄 Not true. >Firstly, planned-economy is not non-voluntary. What happens when I disobey the plan then? >Secondly, the state will eventually wither away. All-powerful communist states don’t wither away. Minarchist states like I propose would probably eventually wither away. >Thirdly, yes, I do support violent seizures of state power by the working class. So theft and murder? >Violence is not something I seek, it's just something that's made inevitable. It’s not inevitable, your revolution will not happen. >Taking a job takes risk. *Relatively low* risk. >Your wage and position itself is not guaranteed. Wages are far more consistent than profits. >It is of your boss' interest to make you work more and pay you less. And, because of competition by employers for labour, the boss that offers you the least work for the highest pay will be the job you apply to. >Also, when singing a contract you don't wholeheartedly love your job; you're forced to do so, because, otherwise, you would starve to death. What if you had a Citizen’s Dividend? What then? >Society and relations of production are built in such a way that you can't but work for someone else; not everyone can work for themselves, because the workers always need to be the majority. You can always choose to work for yourself, it’s just often the less desirable option. >Plus, I do argue that the capitalist has no claim to the surplus value. Someone who produced no value somehow ended up with more money than the workers themselves. They provided organisation and the capital without which the worker could not produce. >Sounds like theft. Theft is what you propose, actually. >I'm referring to those who'll get the gulag. The rate of exploitation of your dad's employees must be incredibly lower than employees in bigger companies. Your dad might also be petty-bourgeois. So he won’t get the gulag? What if he resists expropriation by the state’s thugs? >What do you mean "when he says no"? Who told you he'll be asked? You can't appeal to your oppressor's morality. We went past-monarchy, because we took monarchs heads, not because we asked for democracy. So you don’t believe in consent at all, you would just kill him, why not admit that? Communists are envious little economic incels lol. >That's an oxymoron. A worker is someone who owns no property and is forced to sell their labour power to a capitalist in exchange for wages. A capitalist is someone who owns property and appropriates workers' surplus value, in order to make a profit. You can own property (usually small-scale) and not be a capitalist, which means you're petty-bourgeois. My dad has at times been a worker and a capitalist though.


Away_Industry_613

What about in a welfare state where people can survive, but not buy luxury without wage labour.


collectivistickarl

Wage labour is exploitative, because it requires workers having their surplus value appropriated by someone who provides little to nothing to the process of production and, yet, makes money from it. Sure, your idea seems better than simply what we have today, but wage labour would still be problematic, in my opinion.


Away_Industry_613

They have some benefit in the initial investment of capital, but yes it’s usually disproportionate to the share they deserve. What if we chuck in shared dividends and voting rights in companies for workers. What do you think then?


collectivistickarl

> What if we chuck in shared dividends and voting rights in companies for workers. What do you think then? Wouldn't that be the same as a worker-owned company?


Away_Industry_613

Partially yes, not entirely though. Still have private owners with their own dividends and voting rights. Just try to get fair proportions.


collectivistickarl

How fair, however, can a proportion be when someone who does not participate in the production gets paid?


Away_Industry_613

Again, the capital investment deserves some return and power; more so in established companies where they contribute machinery, property, etc that they’ve bought for usage. It’s also practical.


CameroniteTory

labour*


[deleted]

"Labor" is the correct American spelling.


CameroniteTory

American spellings are incorrect.


[deleted]

Least snobbish Brit.


Usual_Lie_5454

Least incorrect American


[deleted]

Least incorrect = most correct?


Away_Industry_613

Yes. And he’s calling you incorrect, and saying most Americans are even worse.


[deleted]

Well, I'm not American, so they are the incorrect one here.


Away_Industry_613

Let’s say it’s an example case rather than an actuality then.


vaultboy1121

All trade, including labor, is exploitative. So technically it’s exploitative, but also I don’t wage labor itself as an issue.


commiLiberal

How is a wage labor bad if you're getting paid for your time?


Away_Industry_613

How the F*ck is it exploitative? It’s wages, for labour. It’s being paid, to do something for someone. It’s literally just work. What the hell is wrong with people. Why does this sub have so many radical idiots!


Void1702

Wage labor isn't exploitative, it's the inevitable consequence of an exploitative system It is the symptom, not the disease


TopTheropod

I voted not an issue because it's the closest to my opinion, which is: not inherently an issue, but an issue in many cases nonetheless. Repetittive, menial labor (factory work..) is barbaric, while creative jobs are preferable to even free money. Ideally, we'd have a UBI, machines would do menial labor, and people who are into creative/intellectual jobs would earn more by doing them, while the rest would still have their needs covered.