Hello Mises.org! Defector Here!

[Drace]

That of Wikipedia

**

Capitalism** is an economic system where capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, is distributed to the owners invested in technologies and industries.

[yessir]

What is the difference between the countries that produce enough food and those who do not in terms of :

1. Property rights.

Sources please

[permabear86]

1% of the population owning the majority of the wealth tells us much about capitalism, that it centralizes wealth into the hands of a few. It creates a centralized power which we call money. Wealth is power, something not compatible with the idealogy of anarchism.

1. If we actually had capitalism, the 1% of the population that owned the majority of the wealth would be investing their wealth productively (by making it available to entrepreneurs), and raising the living standards of others while protecting and increasing their wealth. Socialists seem to have trouble understanding this concept. Since we don’t actually have capitalism but a soft form of fascism or corporatism, the concentration of wealth is derived from how much political clout one can purchase from the government. ALERT : THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM.

2.. Something that is incompatible with the ideology of anarchism is the type of central power that would be necessary to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

It is also directly contradictory to “raising living standards”. Capital accumulation will lead to raise in living standards in any system. However, it is the distrubution of this accumlation that is important. If wealth is created, but the majority of it goes to a few hands, it is no use.

3. You say capital accumulation will lead to a rise in living standards in any system? So if we just produce a bunch of producers goods, regardless of their use, we will be become wealthy? I beg to differ. The USSR had tractors rusting in the fields of corn while thousands of people were starving because they were unable to coordinate production.

4. Again you lack the understanding that the wealth of the few is protected or increased by making it available to the many. That is the noble thing about capitalism

But, enough is produced! Enough food exists to feed all the population of the world. Scarcity is not the problem, ill distrubtion of the accumlation of wealth is.

5. This is because governments do not allow markets to function. This is not a problem with capitalism.

While the economy is not exactly zero-sum it does not completely dispose the ill distribution of wealth of its meaning. Does not such distribution of wealth reveal anything at all about the nature of capitalism? That is is hierarchic and authorative? How 1% of the population owning 40% of the wealth deos not at all clue you about a class system which includes the exploiters and the exploited, I don’t know. How you percieve this as fair, I have no clue.

6. There is a natural hierarchy. However it is not authoritative. No one is forcing you to work for anyone else. Even in socialism you can not avoid a hierarchy.

In the words of F.A. Hayek "Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality - an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order. "

7. Life isn’t fair. Some people are better looking than others, some are more intelligent than others. Your solution seems to be to scar the faces of the beautiful and bash the intelligent over the head in order to achieve equality. Furthermore, your definition of exploitation must be much different than mine. Trading my labor for a wage my employer and I mutually agree upon doesn’t sound like exploitation to me. If it wasn’t for the capitalist I wouldn’t have a wage at all.

And how abolishing the state will magically relieve capitalism of its ills, I have no clue.

8. You have no clue because you don’t understand how capitalism works, yet you are criticizing it. Learn about how capitalism really works and you might be pleasantly surprised.

[MikeM11]

Drace,

I’m not sure what country you are in/from. But living in several states in the US I can not relate to the view of “working class poverty”.

I believe with all my heart and head and have so much evidence in front of my face everyday (myself and family included) that a person of average intelligence willing to work a bit and not have a bunch of kids etc. etc. can achieve a good decent life. I honestly have never seen a case of “poverty” not self inflicted. I know that it does happen, but that is the rare exception, IMHO. But I understand also that leftists will not agree with this, most believe that drug use, multiple children, unstable work history, education etc..etc.. are problems inherent to the system, not the individual. This difference of world views, I believe, is the foundation of our disagreement.

Without a concentration of wealth where would investment money (tools, loans etc) come from? If you say the state (aside from numerous other problems this creates) how would the state know what to make or what to charge. I hope we can agree that the labor theory of value holds no water- except, of course, in a monopoly situation.

Without the rich would anything be made besides basic food, shelter and clothing? If so, who would buy them and with what.

Let us also not forget that not that long ago a lower middle class man could support a family and house while the wife stayed at home. What has changed?? The value of our money… and we all know why..

My favorite anecdote; my father. Came here at 16 – not a word of English- started working on a farm- then became a mechanic- then bought the garage, then another and made a good living and supplied many jobs. Then he decided to fight the oil companies and try to stop the forced implementation of convenience store/gas stops by ARCO. Big mistake- if he would have gone along he could be a millionaire today. Instead he sold and opened unsuccessful businesses in a different state. He survived but never prospered again as a business owner. At 57 years old he went to work for a company as a supervisor making $12 hr. He is now a manager making a very good living with a very nice nest egg. BTW his mental capacity and education is below average, but he worked hard and didn’t have kids until he was 29 and had a good foundation.

[Conza]

Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis - Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Drace - that destroys your world view… do us a favour, offer your critique.

General note: Origionally, I was going socratic method but I got over it… lost cause.

[chloe732]

yessir: “Ok now we are getting somewhere. Let me ask you how did you get 30 sandwiches per hour, how come society was able to produce 30 and not 40 or 20?”

Drace, you ignored the above question.

Drace: “It (1% owning x% of wealth, etc.) is also directly contradictory to “raising living standards”. Capital accumulation will lead to raise in living standards in any system. However, it is the distrubution of this accumlation that is important. If wealth is created, but the majority of it goes to a few hands, it is no use.”

Wrong. I am talking about capital formation, not accumulation. Capital formation is the only way to create rising living standards.

Drace: "Just how much capital accumlation do you percieve your idea of free market capitalism will create that will relieve the working class of poverty? Will production boost 50x?

Relieve the working class of poverty? Without capital formation, there would be no working class for which to relieve anything. The only way to relieve poverty is through capital formation.

Drace: “But, enough is produced! Enough food exists to feed all the population of the world. Scarcity is not the problem, ill distrubtion of the accumlation of wealth is.”

Scarcity is always the problem. Human beings will never overcome the problem of scarcity. Your answer is the same as POTUS B.H. Obama, “spread the wealth around”.

How are you coming along with my recommended readings (Pictures of the Socialist Future and Time Will March Back)? Oh, I remember now. When Wilderness recommended you read Socialism you said “I don’t care what Mises wrote. He cannot bend reality nor logic.” I, too, would like you to critique Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis (recommended by Conza).

Socialism is on the march. Markets are becoming less free, not more free. Even those in the media who profess to support free markets actually support interventionism. The United States is not a capitalist system. It is interventionist, which leads to inevitable crises, blamed on capitalism, leading to more interventionism, etc. This is the path to socialism. Those who have studied free markets know what is going to happen to the economy in the next few years. You will see your theories implemented (by force, of course). Government has the power to snuff out liberty, therefore, what will happen to liberty? Anyone care to guess?

You say that the USSR was not socialism because the workers did not own the means of production, the state did (I think that is your thesis)… My friend, there is so much to learn on this website. The answers are here. Crack open a book, read the daily articles. I will not waste my time on Marx, you will not waste your time on studying the unhampered market and liberty. So, we part ways. (Will you visit me in the gulag?)

[yessir]

Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis - Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Drace - that destroys your world view… do us a favour, offer your critique.

Wow Hoppe is the best!