How would one control the means of production that they don’t even use themselves? How would a capitalist extract the surplus value from his workers? How would a landlord extract rent from his tenant?
Thanks very much if you could clear this out for me guys
lol
How would a capitalist extract the surplus value from his workers?
Wow XD
Karl, is that you?
I think you forgot to ask: When will capitalism stop beating its wife?
Ever heard of “Medieval Iceland?” Anarcho-capitalism worked there for 300 years.
hey man I’m serious.
Why would one want to control useless means of production?
Workers would be responsible for extracting their surplus value via a second job.
Landlords would extract rent from tenants with a little help from Bruno and his big bat.
With or without a state, value is subjective.
Why should anyone control the means of production used by others?
Why should a capitalist extract the surplus value from workers?
How to “extract”?
Why should anyone allow others to use his means of production?
Value is subjective. There is no such thing as “surplus value”. The capitalist pays a laborer the subjective, agreed upon, value of his output and charges the customer the subjective, agreed upon, value of his product. These are not the same.
What? Lockean property rights, i.e. what you dont use, you dont own.
Use has nothing to do with Lockean property rights, which have everything to do with creation, i.e. what you create, you own forever, or until you choose to give it away.
capitalism has never existed without state. prove me wrong. in fact it doesnt even have to be capitalism, any economic system of somewhat stable property rights requires the state. As demonstrated by the paradox in the “The failure of Anarcho-Capitalism” thread, this is STRICTLY the case. And by strictly i mean 100% exceptions are impossible.
btw iceland & ireland had state functionality though somewhat differently structured. they had the final judicator / chieftan / king. it is only through the distorted eyesight of the libertarian that this system is interpreted as anarchy
Capitalism can’t exist with the state.
I think you’re conflating the state with law and order. If the state was set up to protect law and order, it can’t also be what caused law and order.
This is unsubstantiated reactionism. Correlation does not equal causation. Consider that if this were the year 1000 AD, you could substitute ‘capitalism’ with ‘society’ or ‘civilisation’, and ‘state’ with ‘chattel slavery’.
‘Any system of relatively desirable civilisation we’ve seen so far has involved chattel slavery, therefore the most desirable system of civilisation available to us necessarily requires chattel slavery.’
Well, if you’re willing to necessarily and strictly circumscribe the role of “the state” to that of a natural or common law enforcer and contract dispute arbitrator, you probably are a libertarian.
One has to consider the basis for why any particular such entity has jurisdiction over particular peoples and not others. Do you think there should be one world government for every human being, with universal jurisdiction and only devolved powers to sub-global governing bodies? What real mechanisms are there in place to ensure that it does not become abusive of its monopolised mandate, assuming the logical impossibility that it was set up to both create and protect desirable human civilisation? Is it appropriate to regard human beings as one primary actor? A collective hive mind?
But if you don’t accept world government, what particular arrangement of nation-states is the most desirable or rational, given the government’s strictly circumscribed role as the court of last resort for law enforcement and dispute resolution? What theory of international relations do you ascribe to? If you believe in the desirability of nation-states, don’t you realise the desirability of ‘international law’ and ‘international relations’? Why is it rational to regard the shifting patchwork hodgepodge of violently-established nation-states and empires as the primary actors in a system of ‘international relations’? How can legal fictions like nation-states be primary actors? Surely it is the individual who is the only real primary actor, superstitions and legal fictions aside?
Of course there must be a court of last resort for a given dispute of law, but that’s no reason to accept the state, and no reason to accept profoundly irrational grounds for jurisdiction. There is a lot of literature on the subject of private law arbitration mechanisms, but really the most rational system has to be emergent, as it can only be seen with the benefit of hindsight.
Does anyone create stuff out of thin air?
No, but that’s not really relevant is it? I used, “Create,” when I should have used, “Mixing one’s labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something.”
Better? If you have an issue with Locke, that’s fine. Please don’t attribute your “use it or lose it” ideas to him.
So there is a big difference between “use” and "Mixing one’s labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something "(yes, one is very short, and the other is 30 times longer)?