Just took a look at LeftRev to see if I could find out any more about Libertarian Socialism.
Never. Again.
This is where its at, man. The very best libertarian socialists come to us and get schooled. So its no use going elsewhere, all youll find are people competing to see who can write the worst gibberish. Although the gals over at the ms. Magazine forums were pretty putting together wall text that resembled actual arguments. This was before tl;dr was invented, you understand. We had to parse and fisk the entire thing, or at least the relevant parts.
Only by all anarchist ever until the propertarian hijacking of the term in the sixties. Being exposed only to propaganda of the position one allready accepts is not a thing to be proud of, and neither is accepting mass media redefinitions of terms. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman and many other anarchists defined anarchism before Rothbard was even born.
I don’t claim otherwise.
I explicitly said that it is similar, not same. Slavery, feudalism and capitalism are all hierarchical economic systems where the toilers are denied full product of their labor, so that makes that similar, and makes them all illegitimate.
I haven’t been disproved, so there’s nothing to concede, humility is irrelevant to that.
Yes, of cource I mean, I said that clearly. [/irony] How bout convince by sound arguments via dialectics and means of education (like Modern schools).
Nowhere near truth. This FAQ has pretty much everything covered: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ
That’s an almost exclusively state capitalist site, and they tolerate people who call themselves “libertarian socialists” but that also support state capitalism. I, as a communist, was banned there for my support of mutualism (which is in fact a basic form of socialism).
the toilers are denied full product of their labor
How are modern workers denied the full product of their labor?
By the existence of the capitalist owners. E.g. workers in a factory make products, and when the products are sold, they don’t get all the earning, but a part goes to an owner who doesn’t labor to make the products. Labor is central to creation of legitimate property, and the full product of one’s labor is a right.
How did the factory come to be there? Magic?
The capitalist built it? Oh, wait.
Lol, are you even being serious now?
The owners of capital are favoured by the LLC, lower taxation, cheap credit, inflation etc
It’s basically a denial of the idea that a distributor brings any value to a product, or that an investor / capitalist brings any value to production.
It’s a very simplistic and naive view of the mechanics of business, based on a faulty construction of the labor theory of value.
There is no such thing as a set value. Values are relative.
“A dollar of profit is an unpaid wage.” That’s Marx’s conception, and it’s ridiculous. Marx focused purely on labor to the exclusion of all other ways value can be added to a product.
But the owner has provided the means of production, i.e. the building, the computers, the machines, the vehicles etc, so shouldn`t the owner get something in return for letting the workers make use of his means of production?
So capitalists don`t produce anything/provide anything?
The history of anarchism seems riddled with same type of suppression of thought that we see today in modern academia. It is no surprise that marxism which is still taught in today’s state schools, was so prominent in history and capitalist based anarchism which was ignored and suppressed still enjoys the same treatment. Even individualist anarchism in russia was rephrased to be a kin to the modern day stereotype of anarchism. While the other types of collectivist anarchism which in some ways was not far off from marxism did not receive the same sort of treatment.
Basically what I am saying is that marxism and the state have written real anarchism out of the history books per se and replaced it with what is realy communism or marxist tainted version of a stateless society. Obviously because that is much more favourable to a state than individualist based anarchism. As we have seen in the past marxist based anarchism actually was a catalyst for what you call state-capitalism.
To say that those marxist influenced authors were the creators of the concept of a society without a state is very unrealistic in my opinion.
But I am not an historian and I would imagine many people would scoff at what I have said.
E.g. workers in a factory make products, and when the products are sold, they don’t get all the earning, but a part goes to an owner who doesn’t labor to make the products.
What worker makes the entire product? Which single laborer is involved in every step of the manufacture and sale of the product? (Ie, production and acquiring of raw materials, tools, machinery; the maintenance of these items; assembly of every single part into a finished product, the transport of the product to the place of sale, the sale of the product, the marketing of the product etc)
The product of a laborer’s labor is not the finished product as sold, it is merely the energy and work that goes into the laborer’s specific task in regards to the manufacture of the product or service sold.
The owners of capital are favoured by the LLC, lower taxation, cheap credit, inflation etc
How are they taxes lower? Do income taxes apply differently to someone who owns a tractor and someone who is hired to drive a tractor? What is cheap credit? How does inflation favor the owner of a tractor?
Btw, do you mean ‘the LLC’ as some organization, or are you referring to limited liability companies?
A group of capitalists: http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/images/08/feb/13-35Wbridgesparks600.jpg
Legitimate property comes into being by mixing labor in it. Labor is central to existence of property. When people labor they are entitled to everything they make and earn, it is illegitimate for someone to take any part of product of their labor when he has not labored with them.
No. To rent means of production is to violate people’s right to the full product of one’s labor, which is actually the right to property. Also the capitalist has come in the possession in the first place by illegitimate means, either by force (war or other state action) or by ownership of natural recources- which is illegitimate (they can legitimately only be possessed, not owned).
Contradiction in terms.
This makes absolutely no sense. Read these:
Who claimed that?
Legitimate property comes into being by mixing labor in it. Labor is central to existence of property. When people labor they are entitled to everything they make and earn, it is illegitimate for someone to take any part of product of their labor when he has not labored with them.
If someone makes and sells a hammer, are they entitled to everything the hammer is used to make?
No. To rent means of production is to violate people’s right to the full product of one’s labor, which is actually the right to property. Also the capitalist has come in the possession in the first place by illegitimate means, either by force (war or other state action) or by ownership of natural recources- which is illegitimate (they can legitimately only be possessed, not owned).
What is the full product of one’s labor in hammering the the nails that fasten together the framing of a house?
What is it that ensures as fact the proposition that all capitalists at all times must have come by possession of their capital either by force or ownership of natural resources?
What is it that makes natural resources into a special case from which it follows that they can merely be ‘possessed’ and not owned? (Also, what is the differenece?)
This makes absolutely no sense. Read these:
His statement makes no sense because you linked to definitions of anarchy on a web-page whose stated mission (right at the top) is ‘kill capitalism before it kills you’? Your choice of sources seems to underscore his point.
Who claimed that?
Then how can someone be denied ‘the full product of their labor’ since they can’t possible own the end-product, as they have not mixed their labor with it?
No. They have sold the hammer. Don’t ask idiotic questions.
Only products of labor can be owned. Recourses that are in the state of nature, that is- that don’t have labor mixed with them, can only be under possession. Property is the right to exclusive use until the transfer of title, right to possession is the right to exclusive use during use of that possession.
Looks like ad hominems can be directed at entities like websites. Read the links.
What you make is yours, and you can sell it. What part of that are you not understanding?
E.g. people make chop trees or mine or similar, and make timber and similar materials (they use labor and remove them from their state of nature) and then sell them to someone who will use them to make something else. Those people make boards, nails, tools, etc and sell goods to other people. Those people use it e.g. to build a house, and then they sell the house. Is there something incomprehensible there?
No. They have sold the hammer. Don’t ask idiotic questions.
Laborer’s have sold their labor. Why are they still entitled to it, if hammer sellers are not entitled to their hammers?
Only products of labor can be owned. Recourses that are in the state of nature, that is- that don’t have labor mixed with them, can only be under possession. Property is the right to exclusive use until the transfer of title, right to possession is the right to exclusive use during use of that possession.
So hammers can be owned, but a rock you pick up off the ground and bring home and put on your table cannot be owned?
Looks like ad hominems can be directed at entities like websites. Read the links.
Ad hominem does not mean what you think it means.
What you make is yours, and you can sell it. What part of that are you not understanding?
I accept your intellectual concession.
E.g. people make chop trees or mine or similar, and make timber and similar materials (they use labor and remove them from their state of nature) and then sell them to someone who will use them to make something else. Those people make boards, nails, tools, etc and sell goods to other people. Those people use it e.g. to build a house, and then they sell the house. Is there something incomprehensible there?
How can they sell the house, it is not a product of their labor alone… Someone owns the framing, someone else owns the foundation (normally not the same people who make these things), someone else owns the armoring, someone else owns the plumbing, someone else owns the wiring, someone else owns the paint and someone else owns the roofing.
Cause the Ministry has labelled them as slaves so they aren’t allowed to the product of their own labor! (see? I’m catching on)
Easy answer: there won’t be workers on a house, because the division of labor wouldn’t exist under these circumstances so we won’t have to worry about complicated undertakings like that.