Capitalism = Feudalism!

Miscellaneous General
1

Recently in a few conversations with Marxists, the common arguement that comes up that capitalism is nothing more than re-worked feudalism. That is, the owners of land and capital use force to take the product of the worker’s labor. This is all old hat and pretty familar with everyone here. Basically I’m looking to explore the differences between ownership of land and capital under capitalism, and under feudalism. I understand the arguments against various value theories, ie. Bohm-Barwerks critcism of exploitation theory, marginalism, etc. Thats not what I’m thinking about here. I can easily make the case against the LTV, “surplus labor”, and the like.

What I’d like to address are counters to the “But the workers need capital to survive, and it is kept from them by force!” argument. Marxists usually retreat to this after you demolish some of the more naive ideas about Marxist exploitation and LTV. I’ve usually seen it framed as the relationship between a peasent and a feudal lord: The worker labors in the fields of the lord, and at the end of the day hands over a portion of his crops to the guys with the swords. Implying that the land-owners do little but threaten force to the workers, not nessecarily to harm them directly, but to kick them off of the land they need to survive, so that they will starve. This is similar to the wage-slavery argument, and is the arguement made against private property under capitalism.

I think we can say that both Marxists and Libertarians/Austrians agree that property aquired by force is illegitimate. So, starting from that point of agreement, some things that pop into my mind are:

1.) First off, under feudalism, land was aquired illegitimately through force and distributed by vassalage rather than free exchange. That is, peasents as a class could not own land. In capitalism, everyone is free to purchase land/capital if they have the savings to meet the market price via voluntary exchange.

2.) Unlike feudalism, in a free society, the “workers” aren’t really restricted in terms of armament or protection. The “protection” offered by feudal lords in the early stages was tied to certain land areas rather than to people’s individual property. Thus the peasents, who originally homesteaded thier land, were essentially forced to give it up for “protection” from roving maruaders. It’s unclear if the agressors were actually different from the lords who extended this “service”. Contrast this to a free-society protection system, where any owner of land or capital can contract with various protection services, regardless of geographical location, e.g. the Icelandic Commonwealth.

How else can we make this distinction? Basically, we’re talking about why its legimate to own private land and capital in capitalism, contrasted with the illegimate control of these resources under feudalism.

2

Yeah right, the free market forces of industry that brought the serfs off the farms are going to put them back for the lulz. You think it was the government that abolished the Middle Ages?

Capitalism entails the rational division of labour. Why is everyone suddenly going to become a subsistence farmer? There are better things for workers to do than be peasants.

3

Thier argument about feudalism isn’t that we’ll return to agrarian Lord-and-Serf society, but rather that the capitalists use violence to extract economic rent from the non-capital owners. The feudalism connection is a frequent favorite among Marxists because it seems anti-liberty, violent, and barbaric, equating capitalism with slavery. Basically they try and paint capitalism as “feudalism with machine presses and electricity”, as Marx said “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.”

The Marxists I talk to often reject utilitarian arguements for capitalism. When you mention that employers help employees by providing them pay up front instead of waiting to sell the product at market, they usually counter that the worker has no choice in the first place because he “has no access to capital”. They then usually make some comment along the lines of “a slave who lives a more wealthy life because he produces more is still a slave”.

I know that usually posters here tend to think that Marxists are a funny little minority, but I’ve seen a strong upswelling of people sympathetic to them on certain forums I frequent. I’ve also had a few friends, that I don’t talk to frequently, start to sway in that direction after reading a bunch of Chomsky and other left-opinions. Basically I’m trying to build a strong body of information I can draw up quickly to counter these positions without having to go back and “review my notes” as it were.

4

Critical question would be - who, in their opinion, forces you to work for ‘capitalist’? Somehow they never mention this. If there is nobody then how this is the same as being slave, where you have explicit persons that force you to make payments in money or labor? If the only thing that “forces” you to work for ‘capitalist’ is that you are dirt poor then this is no force in the sense of using violence and there is no exploitation because there is always a choice of working by yourself. When you are forced to take a piss by your body are you a slave?

5
  • If the only thing that “forces” you to work for ‘capitalist’ is that you are dirt poor then this is no force in the sense of using violence and there is no exploitation because there is always a choice of working by yourself.

This, I believe, is the crux of thier arguement. The claim is that the worker doesn’t have access to land or capital, and therefore cannot work for themselves in a manner where they will not starve. They usually throw out a reductio ad absurdum where a hypothetical capitalist or company owns all the land. The person is forced to submit to the conditions of the capitalist in order to survive. Without the “violence inherent in property”, the worker could simply work the land without having to give the crop over to the landlord for a wage. This is different, they claim, then the usual laws of nature, where a person must work for food, shelter, etc. merely to survive.

Keep in mind that at this point I usually have already made the point that we are assuming the capital owner aquired the capital justly.

This is a bit of a tange, but now that I’m thinking about it, does anyone have any information of, for example, Chinese (or other developing nations) peasant/subistence farmers leaving thier farms willingly because they can earn more in factories? This would be good emperical information to show that people will sell thier labor willingly to improve thier lives. rather than just work for themselves.

6

This is the crux of Marxist and much other leftist belief - that being deprived of what they “need” (at least survival-wise, but often otherwise too) justifies their taking of it from others without those others’ consent. I’d start by simply asking them to demonstrate this justification.

7

Even, if you don’t look for answers about it here, still pin the Marxists down on there false conceptions on those issues.

That Marxists view that as illegitemate would be news to me.

While this was indeed sometimes the case, it wasn’t always like that.But I think you want to say the Marxists portray it like that and equate this to modern practice, “to Capitalism” and then equate it to a social order were contractual freedom and ownership in the means of production are possible.

Exactly how is this kept from them by force? As a norm workers do get wages and they’d be able to use some of this to acquire capital.

8
  • This is the crux of Marxist and much other leftist belief - that being deprived of what they “need” (at least survival-wise, but often otherwise too) justifies their taking of it from others without those others’ consent. I’d start by simply asking them to demonstrate this justification.

Continuing to play devil’s advocate here, the responses I could probably expect would be basically accusing me of claiming it was moral to let people starve in wilderness, or, less politely, saying “fuck you, got mine!”.

The counter to this, I believe, may be to argue that is is illegitimate for someone to physically force someone to labor for you (slavery), but it is equally illegitimate to steal the fruits of ones labor (stealing the property of the capitalist). The only morally acceptable outcome is to come to voluntarily agreement about how the “capital-less worker” can aquire some of the employer’s property in order to survive. One of these possibilities is wage labor.

A response to thier reductio ad absurdum might be to go to Crusoe economics: Crusoe and Johnson are stranded on an island, each of thier own plots of arable land. There is no other arable land on the island. They both have more than enough crop yield to, in Marxist terms, “reproduce thier labor-power” two or three times over. One day Johnson’s land is inundaded by sea water in a storm, destroying all crops and making the land unable to grow more. He now faces the threat of starvation, yet Crusoe has “extra” land that he could use. Does he have a right to go start working some of Crusoe’s land without compensation to? More importantly, does he have the right to harm or kill Crusoe if he resists?

9

The only people who think employees are exploited by employers are people who have never been an employer, and probably have never worked for an employer in the private sector. It is not easy being an employer.

More importantly, it is government that distorts the relationship between employer and employee. In trying to make this relationship benefit the employee the government has only made it more expensive for employers to hire employees especially the young and unskilled.

10

“Continuing to play devil’s advocate here, the responses I could probably expect would be basically accusing me of claiming it was moral to let people starve in wilderness”

It does not follow from Autolykos post. It would be useful to agree on some standards in debate with your friends, like using logic for example instead of one’s own biased emotion (admittedly this is not an easy thing to do…).

“The counter to this, I believe, may be to argue that is is illegitimate for someone to physically force someone to labor for you (slavery), but it is equally illegitimate to steal the fruits of ones labor (stealing the property of the capitalist). The only morally acceptable outcome is to come to voluntarily agreement about how the “capital-less worker” can aquire some of the employer’s property in order to survive. One of these possibilities is wage labor.”

Voluntary agreements benefit both parties. Violent actions benefit only one party. Which method are they going to use to satisfy their needs? Either voluntary - then there is no substantial difference in our views - or by force, thus becoming opressors they seek deliverance from.

11

My own position here is that I think it’s moral (in the sense of not wrong) to “let people starve in the wildnerness” or say “Fuck you, got mine!” However, I also think it’s unethical (in the sense of not good) to do such things. The point is, not giving people (certain) things is hardly the same as hurting those people.

I think Marxists and many other leftists are mistaken about what the fruits of a wage laborer are. They aren’t the physical products of his labor. Rather, they’re the wages he receives in exchange for his labor. After all, he didn’t agree to make things that are then sold to the capitalist. Thinking otherwise is a hold-over from the old cottage-industry era.

12

“Exactly how is this kept from them by force? As a norm workers do get wages and they’d be able to use some of this to acquire capital.” - Torsten

This is the first response that comes to mind.

13

It isn’t feudalism, it’s Capitalism - hence the different names.

Get rid of all words like “free”, “slave”, “serf”, “illegit” and any other meaningless morality play word - than speak of the universal mechanics involved in human action.

14

The laborer receives wages in the form of fiat-money, i.e. money that is regulated/given a monopoly by a government which is controlled by lobbyist on behalf of special interest groups.

15

I think it is true that access to land is restricted, but that’s not because of capitalism. It’s because of the state and environmental regulations, etc.

16

Problem with the word “capitalism”, is that people associate it with any type of society, i.e. from laissez-faire-/anarcho- etc to crony-/state capitalism etc. So without the words ““free”, “slave”, “serf”, “illegit” and any other meaningless morality play word”, people might think you are refering to something completely different than laissez-faire/anarcho etc.

17

Yeah left lib types who insist - no matter where they are what situation they are in - will call things like capitalism, free market, etc different, (which for us is irrelevant just use whatever works to the audience) ; and than refuse to care about anything than constant sloganing, anti concepts, and creating noise, and setting us-them “cool guy” purely intellectual categories.

When you encounter someone like this get out of the conversation - they are not speaking or thinking economics, science, philosophy, etc what they are doing is more along the line of trying to subsidize their social signaling devices by using the right words at the right time.

18

That would make it (emotionally) loaded terminology. And this maybe just the problem with the word capitalism. When Marxist and those influenced by them talk about it you even don’t know, if they are talking about supporters of an ideology of “capitalism” or the owners of capital. I recall a debate with someone, where I pointed out that the Greens were just Marxists using ecological issues to have an argument against “Capitalism” (meaning private ownership of factories, machines and the like). He replied that he would have an issue with “Capitalism”, too (meaning international corporations). The issue at hand was that the government needed excuses for regulation/intervention something that would restrict private business and may even benefit larger corporations (like it is the case in the pharmaceutical industry).

19

a quick thing to remember though is that ‘capitalism’ is a term that was coined by Karl Marx. Many people like the(some) Left libs, dont like the word capitalism because they hold on to the Marxist definition to it which is something like, “private ownership of the means of production with the legal structure on commerce and the market is provided by a given State.” I mean in that sense, I guess, I am anti-capitalist, if we were to give capitalism that meaning.

20

Actually Marx waffles on the definition of Capitalism.

At times he calles it “free buying and free selling” and at other times he seems to like it to the exploitation of the proletariat by the state controlling bourgeois.