Why I am no longer a socialist

[Matthew78]

For quite a few years, I was a socialist. I considered myself an anarchist (also known as a libertarian socialist). I remember reading a few books by some libertarian socialists and my favorites were Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel and Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left by Murray Bookchin. I also read Hahnel’s journal paper “Exploitation: A Modern Approach”. What got me to renounce socialism, regretfully at first, is part of my general trek from progressive politics to libertarian politics. What led me to realize my error as a socialist was actually a thought experiment.

I believed, as a socialist, that only effort, or sacritice, was worth rewarding and not the contrbution of one’s property or labor to the market system. I had aspirations to become an author. I had it in my mind to become a socialist author. I wanted to write both fiction and nonfiction and hope to earn enough money to establish my financial independence so I could write books denouncing capitalism. I now laugh at the absurdity of what I had in mind: a socialist would-be author seeking to become financially independent. Benefiting from capitalism in order to destroy it!

But this put me in a horrile dilemma. How do I escape the horrible charge of hypocrisy? To further educate the world about libertarian socialism and the evils of capitalism and to spend my time educating the world, full-time, would require financial independence. Yet if I became financially independent, I would have to admit that I exploited people in the process. If I became financially independent, I would have to either admit that I am part of the very problem that I am railing against or that there is nothing exploitative about capitalism. How would I avoid hypocrisy? I realized that I couldn’t.

Then something hit me that never hit me before. I was really shocked that it hit me as forcefully as it did. It was also a very profound realization for me.

I realized that many wealthy people acquire their wealth through voluntary exchanges with other people. Take, for instance, Dan Brown or J. Rowling. Brown’s book The DaVinci Code and Rowling’s Harry Potter books sell millions. Brown and Rowling are probably multimillionaires. Yet, there is no exploitation involved, as far as I can see. I realized that if people want to buy any of Brown’s books, that is up to them. How much people are willing to pay and how much Rowling gets for her books is between the customers, the publishing company, and Rowling. It’s all a voluntary exchange.

If a publishing company offers a royality of half for a book to an author, so that for every dollar earned, the author gets half the dollar and the publishing company gets the other half, that contract is between the author and the company. If a company and an author agree to split sales, 50/50, and a book sells at, say, 10 dollars, if 100 people choose to buy this book, the company gets 500 dollars and the author gets the other 500. If 200,000 people buy this book and the author gets 5 dollars per purchase, then that author will become a millionaire.

Again, whether the costumers purchase a book or not is up to them. How much the cost is for the book and how much royalty the author gets is all a matter of voluntary contract. An author freely writes. Costumers freely buy books they choose to buy. The same is with sports. How much a given athlete makes is between that athlete, the manager of a sports team, the sports fans willing to buy tickets for a game, and other people involved. All of it is voluntary exchange. There is no fraud or coercion that I can see in these kinds of exchanges. I realized that the market economy is based, ideally, on free, voluntary market transactions like these.

When I had this realization, I became convinced that capitalism is not exploitatiive and that socialists llke Robin Hahnel and others are simply wrong. This realization shattered my belief that socialism of any sort is morally superior to capitalism. It was after this that I abandoned my libertarian socialist ideas and I realized that I was a libertarian capitalist.

[walden]

Isn’t the objection that it isn’t voluntary if the worker is required to work in order to survive?

[Smiling_Dave]

The objections are two.

First I, the socialist, don’t get enough free money. One way of saying this is that I’m a slave who has to work to survive.

Second, everyone with more money than me is evil, because they exploited me to get their money. And the OP refutes this one very well.

[JoshE]

Ironically enough, and I hope this does not frighten you off, in a truly anarchistic society there would be no copyright laws that could be enforced. I suspect it would be a bit harder for an author to “rest on his laurels”, as it were, by making vast sums of money through licensing his words and ideas.

[Wheylous]

That was beautiful, Matt. ; (

[stsoc]

Yet if I became financially independent, I would have to admit that I exploited people in the process.

I don’t see the connection. Exploitation has to do with living of other people’s labor (or more precisely taking a part of product of someone else’s labor), and economic inequality is not exploitation, neither is it wrong because it can be a consequnce of exploitation.

I realized that many wealthy people acquire their wealth through voluntary exchanges with other people. Take, for instance, Dan Brown or J. Rowling. Brown’s book The DaVinci Code and Rowling’s Harry Potter books sell millions.

Intellectual rights don’t exist, they are illegitimately given by the state, so this example is not really relevant. Also, consent doesn’t make things magically rights. Slavery is illegitimate no matter if someone consented to being made a slave.

I realized that the market economy is based, ideally, on free, voluntary market transactions.

I’m a communist, and I acknowledge this. If someone wants to organize a mutualist society (a society of free people functioning in a free market as peers), I support that.

When I had this realization, I became convinced that capitalism is not exploitatiive

You don’t seem to have the grasp what exploitation is, or at least you didn’t seem to think it important to say why you think capitalism isn’t exploitative, being that you didn’t, you talked about ineqality and voluntarism.

[Malachi]

Also, consent doesn’t make things magically rights. Slavery is illegitimate no matter if someone consented to being made a slave.

slavery is nonconsensual by definition. Other than that, rights are social in nature so yes consent would be the opposite side of that coin.

[Matthew78]

Yet if I became financially independent, I would have to admit that I exploited people in the process.

I don’t see the connection. Exploitation has to do with living of other people’s labor (or more precisely taking a part of product of someone else’s labor), and economic inequality is not exploitation, neither is it wrong because it can be a consequnce of exploitation.

In the socialist works I read, profits are necessarily the result of an exploitative relationship between a capitalist boss and a worker. At least how I understood it, a profit made results from exploitation, somehow, someway, somewhere. If I made profits in the form of selling books, then exploitation had to be involved somehow. I realize that economic inequality is not the same thing as exploitation. But I would disagree with you back in my socialist days; income inequality is exploitative, I thought, if there was an economic relationship involved when two or more agents are benefiting at the expense of others.

I realized that many wealthy people acquire their wealth through voluntary exchanges with other people. Take, for instance, Dan Brown or J. Rowling. Brown’s book The DaVinci Code and Rowling’s Harry Potter books sell millions.

Intellectual rights don’t exist, they are illegitimately given by the state, so this example is not really relevant. Also, consent doesn’t make things magically rights. Slavery is illegitimate no matter if someone consented to being made a slave.

How are intellectual rights illegitimately given by the state? As for consent not making things “magically right”, I agree. I didn’t say otherwise. However, I have to question you on this point. You say that “slavery is illegitimate no matter if someone consented to being made a slave”-but if someone consented to servitude, is it really accurate to describe it as slavery, if the consenting person is, legally, a grown adult?

I realized that the market economy is based, ideally, on free, voluntary market transactions.

I’m a communist, and I acknowledge this. If someone wants to organize a mutualist society (a society of free people functioning in a free market as peers), I support that.

Mutualists and market socialists have always believed that a market economy is based on freely voluntary transactions in the market place. The point I was trying to make is that even in a capitalist system, the ability of athletes and authors to make large profits from their services is based on voluntary market transactions. Voluntary transactions aren’t just limited to market economies; it extends to capitalism as well.

When I had this realization, I became convinced that capitalism is not exploitative

You don’t seem to have the grasp what exploitation is, or at least you didn’t seem to think it important to say why you think capitalism isn’t exploitative, being that you didn’t, you talked about ineqality and voluntarism.

It may help if we define what exploitation is. I was going by what Robin Hahnel defined exploitation as, although I modified, to my personal satisfaction, his definition into one of my own. Perhaps you have a different definition of exploitation?

As for why capitalism isn’t exploitative, in my opinion, the best I can offer is a critique of Hahnel’s argument for exploitation. Since it was chiefly Hahnel who originally convinced me that capitalism is exploitative, my reasoning is that I have detected what I consider to be flaws in his argument.

[stsoc]

slavery is nonconsensual by definition.

If a condition of extreme need that would make someone so desparate to sell himself into slavery is coersion, then yes, slavery is by defition nonconsesual. But if coersion has to do only with a more direct actions of people, then, no, slavery is not by definition nonconsesual, because people have “voluntarily” sold themselves into slavery troughout history.

In the socialist works I read, profits are necessarily the result of an exploitative relationship between a capitalist boss and a worker.

In classical and marxian economics, profits are defined as the income of a capitalist. E.g. a factory sells the products it makes, and the earning are split up into expences (material, electric power, etc) + wages + profits (the part that goes to the owner/ capitalist); that is- being that the owner takes a part of earnings, the workers don’t get the full product of their labor.

But I would disagree with you back in my socialist days; income inequality is exploitative

So you left socialist that you didn’t even understand. Economic ineqality and exploatation are both wrong but not because the of the other one, and are not directly connected.

How are intellectual rights illegitimately given by the state?

I have a printer, I have paper, I have text of a published book on my computer, but I am prohibited to use my possessions how I want, although I would use it peacefully without in any way interfering with anyone else of their possessions. Anyone (state, firm, an individual) who prohibits me that is violating my freedom.

You say that “slavery is illegitimate no matter if someone consented to being made a slave”-but if someone consented to servitude, is it really accurate to describe it as slavery, if the consenting person is, legally, a grown adult?

Yes. Slave is person that is kept by another person as property. If you sell yourself into slavery, you have become a voluntary, consensual slave. But, as I said, voluntarism doesn’t make things magically legitimate. Slavery is illegitimate no matter the consent. Likewise with serfhood and employment.

It may help if we define what exploitation is.

Someone taking profits, in the meaning of the word I mentioned above; a concrete identification of the action that is exploitation, would be, in the narrower sense- renting means of production (instruments and subjects of labor), or in a wider sense- renting anything. Afaik, Hahnel talked about the latter as exploitation, being that renting is unearned (unlabored for) income, but I didn’t really read the paper, correct me if I’m wrong.

[Anenome]

Thanks for that. Coming from the right myself it’s interesting to read about the journeys of others from the other side and what specifically convinced them.

[Winder]

But how did you end up a socialist to begin with? That is the question that always baffles me.

[Anenome]

@Winder

But how did you end up a socialist to begin with? That is the question that always baffles me.

By being confused economically about what would be moral in that sphere. That seems to be the heart of it from what I have seen. Ultimately socialism rests on a moral argument about economics, but it’s completely confused and obfuscated.

[Serpentis-Lucis]

@Anenome

By being confused economically about what would be moral in that sphere. That seems to be the heart of it from what I have seen. Ultimately socialism rests on a moral argument about economics, but it’s completely confused and obfuscated.

They don’t seem to care if socialism is economically sound at all. Socialism is purely grounded in emotion, using economics only to rationalize their already held desires, not caring about truth in the slightest.

[Will44]

Slavery is illegitimate no matter the consent. Likewise with serfhood and employment.

So, employment is illegitimate no matter the consent. If I am completely self subsistent and I spent my days tilling the fields to to produce food to survive, but one of my neighbors invents a more efficient way to do it, and offers me the opportunity to use this invention, but we contractually agree that I must also till part of his land–yet I still save time and effort, this is illegitimate?

Say the same neighbor begins to produce more food than he needs. He sells some of his produce for other goods, and gives me an amount that we both find fair. I now have to do less work and produce more food than before. Is it illegitimate at this point?

What if the same neighbor accrues enough goods through his barter that he is able to make another one of his inventions and he leases it to his other neigbor on the same terms. Is this also illegitimate?

[stsoc]

They don’t seem to care if socialism is economically sound at all. Socialism is purely grounded in emotion

False. Even if I were the only socialist on the world to base my views not on emotions but ethical principles (and I am certanly not the only one), it would still make this generalization false.

So, employment is illegitimate no matter the consent.

Yes.

If I am completely self subsistent and I spent my days tilling the fields to to produce food to survive, but one of my neighbors invents a more efficient way to do it, and offers me the opportunity to use this invention, but we contractually agree that I must also till part of his land–yet I still save time and effort, this is illegitimate?

Yes. Principles cannot be invalidates by a pressumption of (general) preferability of actions’ consequences. To deprive someone of the full product of their labor is illegitimate, and that is why employment will be banned. Also “to till someone else’s land” would be a contradiction, land cannot be owned, but only “occupied-and-used”, and that principle will be established in socialism.

Say the same neighbor begins to produce more food than he needs. He sells some of his produce for other goods, and gives me an amount that we both find fair. I now have to do less work and produce more food than before. Is it illegitimate at this point?

I don’t get what are you asking here. Maybe you missed a word, or my english is not so good.

he is able to make another one of his inventions and he leases it to his other neigbor on the same terms. Is this also illegitimate?

Rent is illegitimate, and would be banned in socialism. At least the rent of the means of production (that’s the basis of socialism), but I would personally agitate for all renting of anything to be banned.

[Autolykos]

@stsoc

Yes. Principles cannot be invalidates by a pressumption of (general) preferability of actions’ consequences. To deprive someone of the full product of their labor is illegitimate, and that is why employment will be banned.

So even if there was some form of employment where the employee wasn’t deprived of the full product of his labor, you would want to ban that form of employment too?

@stsoc

Also “to till someone else’s land” would be a contradiction, land cannot be owned, but only “occupied-and-used”, and that principle will be established in socialism.

So you’d agree that, under occupancy-and-use, no one has the right to stop you from tilling land that you’ve been tilling?

[stsoc]

Sorry?

[Autolykos]

What part are you confused about? (I’m not implying that you shouldn’t be confused, I’m just asking so I can hopefully make my questions [more] understandable to you.)

[Will44]

Principles cannot be invalidates by a pressumption of (general) preferability of actions’ consequences.

I agree with this, this is why we are not utilitarians. However, I don’t see how a legitimate principle could prevent people from making their own choices about how they wish to transform their labor.

I don’t get what are you asking here. Maybe you missed a word, or my english is not so good.

I’m trying to put my finger on what the dispositive factor is from when labor becomes “illegitimate”. I would guess from your former analysis that you do not take employee consent into consideration because you believe that bargaining power is unequal; one party, usually the employee, ‘needs’ the work far more than the employer needs the employee. It’s the difference between starving to death and making a profit. Except less melodramatic. Is this more or less the gist?

[stsoc]

However, I don’t see how a legitimate principle could prevent people from making their own choices about how they wish to transform their labor.

Slavery is illegitimate no matter if it is the slave’s choice. Things being volutary doesn’t make them legitimate.

I would guess from your former analysis that you do not take employee consent into consideration because you believe that bargaining power is unequal;

You haven’t see me mentioning that everyone has the right to “full product of one’s labor”?