Why I am no longer a socialist

Economics Economics Questions
41

Communication, or to use a term you are more familiar with- argumentation is a (libertarian) socialist setting, there can be different types of it’s organization, but there is no power ineqality, and no imposition of harm, because those are, as I said, it’s a priori norms, if they are manifested, it stops being argumentation and turns into coercion by physical harm or by authority (giving orders).

Socialism is against state capitalism (falsely called “socialism” by marxist-leninists and propertarians), and if a “state” would exist in socialism, it would be non-hierarchical law enforcement agency that would enforce laws accepted by plebsicite, and the manner of it’s functioning would also be determined the same way (which makes it pretty different then all states we has in history, so some don’t call it a state at all). And also, there would be no taxes, we agree with you there.

Yet we can easily establish communities organized according to socialistic principles.

Slavery Utopia, too, could not exist in a socialist society, that doesn’t in any way make socialism authoritarian, but makes it exactly the opposite, being that slavery is authoritarian and it will be banned. Banning types of organizations that limit people’s freedom does not limit people’s freedom, it does the opposite.

Yes, just like slavery, theft, murder, rape. Not banning these things doesn’t constitute a “free society”, and banning these things is not “imposing my ideas”.

What a nice thought experiment. Too bad it has absolutely nothing to do with the right to full product of one’ labor, you’re talking about value, and the principle of full product of one’s labor is violated in (slavery, feudalism and) employment, not trade.

Or something. I mentioned legitimate property in socialism multiple times, likewise that mutualism (free market socialism) will be the main form of socialism. You could read what I wrote before trying to write against it.

In state capitalism, yes. Which has nothing to do with socialism.

Since you start from a false premise, the following will also be false. Employment (/rent of means of production) is a violation of the workes’ right to the full product of one’s labor.

Your understanding of socialism.

Because labor is how legitimate property comes into being. We socialists just apply that principle consistently and say that you can’t take a part of a product of labor if you have not exerted labor to participate in the making of that product. There is no such thing as “proxy labor” by your machines, tools, money, etc, if you didn’t labor youself, you are not entitled to any part of it.

42

Define state-capitalism, please.

43

State-owned economy.

44

There is no such thing as “proxy labor” by your machines, tools, money, etc, if you didn’t labor youself, you are not entitled to any part of it.

I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. If only labor is entitled to any sort of property in socialibertopia, how could you buy a hamburger - or anything - with your money?

45

What about it? You labor, make money, and spend it to buy product of other’s labor. It’s socialism if there’s no capitalist that makes money without laboring, but by owning.

46

Why does the money you spend entitle you to the product of someone’s labor (a hamburger) but the money a “capitalist” spends does not entitle him to the product of your labor?

47

The relation between a buyer and seller and employer and employee, although money is being exchanged in both cases is very different. It laso has to do both with hierarchy being present but the trait we’re talking about here is that the buyer pays for the product of the laborer, but the product of the laborer is his in full when he makes it, while in the employment scenario, the employer pays not for the product (in which case he would be a buyer, not an employer), but directly for the work of the laborer, so I guess it could be said that in essense the question here is that of alienability of labor.

48

How can a non-entity(the State) own something? ‘Capitalism’ without the “state-” infront of it, what do you define that as?

49

Are you kidding me? Where do you live, USA? Ever heard of the Post office, Fire department?

Market capitalism, and it’s pure form, that you guys here advocate- stateless capitalism.

50

I see your words but they don’t give me much information. Let’s stick with the example. In Case A you made a $5 profit by selling the “product of my labor” for more than I sold it to you. Am I (the laborer) entitled to said profit or not? In Case B you made a $5 loss by selling the “product of my labor” for LESS than I sold it to you. Am I (the laborer) responsible for said loss or not? Are you going to (legitimately?) hunt me down after our sale to even out the score, or not?

Finally, how do you determine the FULL “product of one’s labor” without talking about value (market prices, profit/loss, etc.)? In my example, is the “full product of my labor” worth $15, $10, $5, or $1? Or is the only way for everyone to keep the “full product of their labor” to never alienate (sell/trade) it away? Also, who owns the “full product of my labor” (the chair) – I or everyone else? What if the “full product of my labor” was a production tool? Do I still own it or could anyone just walk in and “occupy-use” it by “laboring” with it? Wouldn’t they deny me my legitimate right to the “full product of my labor” by doing so?

I repeat, you haven’t thought this all the way through – perhaps knowingly so. Logic is socialism’s cryptonite.

51

Seems to be yours. I’m talkin about mode of production and employer- employee relation, and you talk about something else, even though I’ve told that you’re off topic, you continue with it.

Full product of one’s labor is a right that means that no one should take any part of a firms earning if they aren’t contributing by labor (but are only passive ‘owners’).

52

How do you define “labor”? It seems like youre excluding a lot of work by fixating on certain workers. I’m sure if you had ever been tasked with supervising a crew of workers you would realize that supervision is also work.

you also neglect to consider how the means of production arose in the first place.

53

I was a manager actually, but was nevertheless a worker, I didn’t own the firm, I was hired by the owner to manage it.

By being made by workers of course.

54

stsoc, my questions were not rhetorical. You didn’t answer any of them. What is the purpose of your visit here?

55

“the principle of full product of one’s labor is violated in (slavery, feudalism and) employment, not trade.”

Core confusion there. Don’t you realize that employment is just a special name for a type of continuing trade? You trade me labor, I pay you for your labor service. That IS a trade.

56

@Anemone BUT it’s illegitimate trade cause it’s slavery. Come now–we don’t want to endow people with the silly pretense of self-determination; we are the philosopher kings, and we know what is best for the masses.

57

production requires capital and work.

you can’t sell corn without corn plants.

the owner can work to get the corn out, employee is a delegation, delegation is trade. a worker picks a profit and makes that money no matter what the final sale price of the corn.

say a owner can spend 5000 on corn plants, 5000 on labor, then only make 4000 back or 0 back from the trade of that corn. does socielism suggest that if the owner brings in 11000 the worker should get 11000, putting the owner in a 10000 hole rather than giving the owner 1000, which is less than the hired work anyway?

58

STSOC

Since you start from a false premise, the following will also be false. Employment (/rent of means of production) is a violation of the workes’ right to the full product of one’s labor.

The relation between a buyer and seller and employer and employee, although money is being exchanged in both cases is very different. It laso has to do both with hierarchy being present but the trait we’re talking about here is that the buyer pays for the product of the laborer, but the product of the laborer is his in full when he makes it, while in the employment scenario, the employer pays not for the product (in which case he would be a buyer, not an employer), but directly for the work of the laborer, so I guess it could be said that in essense the question here is that of alienability of labor.

Based on the above I guess you are saying trade is ok, but employment is not? As opposed to the normal opposition of Socialists to the bourgeoisie you seem to be saying that people can only trade with each other from an equal boigeois footing?

As a builder and seller of widgets (since it would be improper for me to employ someone to paint the widgets I make) would it be legitimate for me to sell the widgets to a painter and then buy back the painted widgets to sell to the end customer? Assuming you find this legitimate (in not alienating the product of ones labor) how does it really differ from simply employing the painter?

How would this be accomplished in the event that I need a plumber to fix a leak in my bathroom? Must I sell my house to the plumber and then repurchase it once it is fixed?

More simply:

What is the proper way for me to get my widgets painted so I can then sell them?

What is the proper way for me to get a leak fixed in my bathroom?

59

Am I kidding? Are you kidding?

You’re simply equivocating. The state is not an entity, thus it cannot own something. Furthermore the state cannot own an economy. At best, attempt to run it. Since there is no private ownership of the post office(therefore not capitalistic), it’s exactly why the service has plummeted while the prices have increased.

So, I ask you to define capitalism, and you walk in a circle and say, capitalism is stateless capitalism. Are you kidding me?

Do I really have to ask the same question twice?

Define capitalism.

60

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit

The three inputs required for production are:

  • labor,
  • land (i.e., natural resources, which exist prior to human beings) and
  • capital goods.