[Eran]

Incorrect. People will have the same motivation to make themselves wealthy, assuming the people will want to continue operating in a market-based economy. Except that they will not be able to use their money to exploit the workers. They can still buy tons of junk and live happy consumerist lives or, if things go my way, get some more time for themselves...

But you cannot be expected to become wealthy by starting and growing a business, as you will be dispossessed of your profits as soon as you start employing others to help. No motivation = many fewer startups, businesses, jobs and growth.

Incorrect, I insist on identifying private property with slavery.

To be pedantic, it is just private ownership of the means of production, right? And you have no problem with collective ownership, say by an employee cooperative?

Incorrect. These exist independently to the capitalist when the production begins. The capitalist has a political title over these, so effectively, due to societies decree, he contributes nothing.

I disagree. Equipment, reputation and know-how do not just "exist independently". They have to be purchased, produced, assembled or otherwise acquired. As for land, it too requires work. Factories are not built on raw land in the middle of nowhere. Rather, the land has to be flattened, connected to utilities and roads, etc.

Without the incentive associated with private ownership, people will have very little reason to take the risk and go through the cost associated with exploring and preparing new land for use.

Correct. But within the social system this is not the case, with the mass majority of employees being dependent on capitalists and their titles.

Again - those are not titles to god-given resources. Those titles represent effort and investment, risk and work. We live in a very dynamic society. Most businesses are not centuries-old. A large fraction of the current economy, certainly a large fraction of capitalist resources (excluding land) is renewed every few years. Workers can start their own companies. Some do. Most don't - because it isn't nearly as easy as it might seem.

Because societies has given him a title that prohibits them form working without him setting the terms first. The capitalist contributes nothing to the production

The title gives the capitalist the exclusive right to control certain resources. However, in no case is an individual private capitalist controlling all resources required for a particular production process. In fact, every area of a capitalist economy is open to competition from new entrants to the market. Why aren't the workers bypassing existing titles by starting their own business?

I never claimed he does not have a social title for that land, allowing him to take rent. I claimed he doesn't do anything. He profits exclusivity form the social title. He profits by doing nothing because he is economically superior. Whats so hard to understand?

In your world, are people ever allowed to retire? I assume you wouldn't expect people in their '80s to continue to work, right?

Take your average 80-year-old retired person. He has social title to a pension, but he is not doing anything to earn that money, is he? He lives off the fruits of his past efforts. How is that different from a capitalist?

I did not claim that any one worker is independent. I claimed that the workers are independent. They control the factory and they, as a collective, can decide what to do (and how income is divided) democratically.

This may be an important point. The slavery relation is a personal one. Person A is a slave to person (or organization) B.
Individually then, the workers in your world are no better off than they are in a capitalist society, right? It is only "collectively" that their situation can be discerned to be any different.

[eugenekop]

Also don't forget that capitalists are also "slaves" of the customers. The customers ultimately decide your fate, whether you will acquire more capital or go bankrupt. The capitalist has dependence on the customers just as the employee has dependence on the capitalist. No one is free from external factors.

[Eran]

Indeed.

In a sense, the capitalist shields the workers from the risk associated with the venture. Workers are paid whether the products are sold or not, whether a venture is successful or not.

Capitalist profits are not "unearned". They reward multiple contributions, including:
1. Use of deferred consumption of savings
2. Risk taking
3. Work as an entrepreneur/manager

Any person who downplays the importance of any of those factors should explain why the workers do not bypass the capitalist by starting their own firms. Without government intervention, there is no monopoly to explain lack of entry by worker cooperatives.

[Melodramatic]

But you cannot be expected to become wealthy by starting and growing a business, as you will be dispossessed of your profits as soon as you start employing others to help.

If you are asking whether a person would have motivation to be a capitalist than no, he would not. But the motivation to work and produce will be identical, you make things people buy things, just without the capitalists slicing the cake from above.

To be pedantic, it is just private ownership of the means of production, right? And you have no problem with collective ownership, say by an employee cooperative?

If the control is democratic, if it gives the workers an equal say, it is a good start, yes.

They have to be purchased, produced, assembled or otherwise acquired.

Correct. but after they are, they do exist independently. I do not mean to imply that a capitalist does not pay for his factory, that's what gives him his social title, but that in process of production he provides nothing but his title, which is dependent on society and property law. That is an intentional oversimplification, but as said, if he does not give the workers less than they've earned he makes no profit.

Again - those are not titles to god-given resources.

As claimed above irrelevant.

The title gives the capitalist the exclusive right to control certain resources. However, in no case is an individual private capitalist controlling all resources required for a particular production process. In fact, every area of a capitalist economy is open to competition from new entrants to the market. Why aren't the workers bypassing existing titles by starting their own business?

That's costs a lot of money? obviously the existing capitalists have a clear upper hand here, with their effortless income and control of the wages. The workers are divided and will prefer to become capitalists, or semi-capitalists, rather than help their fellow workers for the collective good. That is the main thing that needs to change. Workers unite! although it purchasing the means of production does not seem the best course of action IMO.

In your world, are people ever allowed to retire?

Allowed to retire? people are allowed to do anything... If he wishes to stop working he can, his own funds are his own and any arrangement made with the collective or workers cooperative is legit, I guess. In fact I hope that people will prefer to save their money for such things rather than waste it on consumerism, once they get the leeches of their backs.

He lives off the fruits of his past efforts.

I never said I have a problem with people living off their past efforts. I said that capitalists get to have control over the capital without doing anything but utilizing their social title. In the case that a retired workers, say, retains his right as a shareholder (that's not the correct word but I forgot how to spell the correct one) it is according to his agreement with the workers, under the democratic rules of the cooperative. I am not one to judge how much one does to gain his share, that's the workers job. there is nothing wrong with them deciding to give all of the money to some random bloke, as long as they decide.

Individually then, the workers in your world are no better off than they are in a capitalist society, right?

Incorrect. In a socialist company the workers will get an equal say on the production process rather than being enslaved to some capitalist. Its the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. To abolish the social enslavement of democracy you must dismantle society. To abolish the social enslavement to a dictatorship you must create democracy.

I hope I don't need to explain to you how is democratic control over the workplace different from capitalist ownership?

In a sense, the capitalist shields the workers from the risk associated with the venture.

That is also possible under democratic control of the workplace, if the workers wish it be so.

Capitalist profits are not "unearned". They reward multiple contributions

Lovely for them. Lets see if the workers want their contribution or not, democratically. They cannot do so today as the capitalist has a critical advantage, a social title to the capital. This creates slavery, therefor the title must be abolished.

[Eran]

I am confused about the distinction you make between a retired worker who lives off his shares (or savings) without contributing anything to society, and a capitalist who is not similarly allowed to live off his savings without making an ongoing contribution to society.

As for the relation between employee and employer, no, I don't understand why there is a fundamental difference between being the "slave" of a Capitalist, and being a slave of a 1000-strong democratic worker cooperative.

You defined slavery, in this context, as having aspects of your life dependent on the will of another person or group.

So what does it mean to live subjugated? It means that society decided that your life, or aspects of it, is dependent and/or based on the will of another person or group.

As an employee of the cooperative, isn't my life just as dependent on the will of the group, whether I get a 1-in-1000 vote, or not?

If you think that having a 1/1000 vote makes a difference, is there a difference between the position of a single employee under such circumstances, and an employee of a public corporation of which shares he owns 0.1%?

But the motivation to work and produce will be identical, you make things people buy things, just without the capitalists slicing the cake from above.

What about the motivation to start new companies? After all, people do not work in vacuum - they need to work within complex organizations which require significant effort to set up.

You agree that the means of production to not (typically) come from god. Rather, they have to be purchased, produced, assembled or otherwise acquired. If the workers could create the means of production themselves, they wouldn't indeed need the capitalist/entrepreneur. In a capitalist society, they are more than welcome to do just that.

That they don't indicates that they do need help in putting together the means of production. If you set up a society in which the person who puts together means of production is immediately dispossessed of any benefit by his employees, why would anybody go to the trouble? Without anybody going to the trouble, where will your workers work?

That's costs a lot of money? obviously the existing capitalists have a clear upper hand here, with their effortless income and control of the wages.

You do not object to people having personal property.
Say I saved a bunch of money by working hard in my friendly neighbourhood worker's cooperative. The saved money is mine. I am entitled to blow it all off on a round-the-world cruise.

If I chose, instead, to use the money to buy a few machine tools, why am I not equally morally eligible to benefit from the value of my past savings?

[Melodramatic]

I am confused about the distinction you make between a retired worker who lives off his shares (or savings) without contributing anything to society, and a capitalist who is not similarly allowed to live off his savings without making an ongoing contribution to society.

I don't care about his contribution to society or such shit. I care about what determines his shares, it can be either his social title (property) or the democratic process within the cooperative. Its the difference between dictatorship and democracy. The dictatorship might be benevolent, the capitalist might contribute enough, but I don't a dictator. The workers will decide whether he will get a share of the income for his labor, regardless of how much labor he contributes.

As for the relation between employee and employer, no, I don't understand why there is a fundamental difference between being the "slave" of a Capitalist, and being a slave of a 1000-strong democratic worker cooperative.

The slavery between the capitalist and workers is a power relation, based on property. The slavery between the worker and cooperative is a social relation, based on equality. It is impossible to have neither, in such a case there will be no society. One must choose between hierarchy and democracy, and for the worker the choice is clear. Anarchism is about democracy, it end slavery using democracy.

What about the motivation to start new companies? After all, people do not work in vacuum - they need to work within complex organizations which require significant effort to set up.

To be able to work and make a living?

If the workers could create the means of production themselves, they wouldn't indeed need the capitalist/entrepreneur. In a capitalist society, they are more than welcome to do just that.

But as said in the capitalist society the workers are subjugated and will not be able to do so.

If you set up a society in which the person who puts together means of production is immediately dispossessed of any benefit by his employees, why would anybody go to the trouble? Without anybody going to the trouble, where will your workers work?

The workers will pay him.

If I chose, instead, to use the money to buy a few machine tools, why am I not equally morally eligible to benefit from the value of my past savings?

Because I morally don't care about morality. You can do anything you fucking want, but when the workers demand workplace democracy I will give it to them. Your social title does not give you the right to exploit the workers, or to put it differentially the workers have the right to ignore it if you do.

[eugenekop]

So according to your theory all trade should be banned, or just the trade of money for labor?

[Melodramatic]

^



No trade should be banned...

[CounterChaos]

The workers will decide whether he will get a share of the income for his labor, regardless of how much labor he contributes.

Some Indian tribes would just turn their backs on the very old if there was no one to support them. Do you approve of this? What if the workers decided not to help the old retiree?

[eugenekop]

If trade will not be banned, then I can hire someone to do some job, right? Isn't that the exploitation you worry about?

[Melodramatic]

Some Indian tribes would just turn their backs on the very old if there was no one to support them. Do you approve of this? What if the workers decided not to help the old retiree?

Of course not.

But its not a matter of helping. Its a matter of working conditions. It makes very little difference, he can probably save that money anyway, its not like it comes for thin air, it comes from their pay checks. Still it might be a good idea, having the workers benefiting for their past work after they retire, and therefore giving them a larger incentive to make the company successful for the long term.

Regardless, I would not attack them for any distribution of funds. Anarchism doesn't work like that. The collective deals with such issues. Anarchism is based on a certain level of collectivism, it can't work without it. I find it improbable that any cooperative will work against the will of the people, but in an extreme case you can always expel them from collective services and refuse to trade with them. If the collective does not care, well than, that's the will of the people... this is democracy...

If already on the subject I should note that the market socialism that I presented in this thread is not nearly ideal. It is not "pure anarchism" according to my own definition. And it will not survive if we do not live as a collective, rather than warring individuals. This includes strong community control over important subjects of our lives (health, education, welfare), to prevent injustices. I am hoping that eventually the same collectivism will come to replace the market functions completely, moving to some decentralized and moneyless production mode. I have yet to educate myself on such ideas sufficiently to explain more.

If trade will not be banned, then I can hire someone to do some job, right? Isn't that the exploitation you worry about?

No, that's a market service. It can become exploitation, but that's related to property not hiring.

[eugenekop]

So which is exploitation and which is not? If I pay someone to do a job, is it an exploitation? If not, then when does it become one?

[Melodramatic]

So which is exploitation and which is not? If I pay someone to do a job, is it an exploitation? If not, then when does it become one?

By exploitation I am referring to giving the workers less than the market value of their labor. It is created using hierarchy, in which an elite decides the distribution of funds. For this elite to make profit it must pay the workers less than they are due, that is their profit.

They usually do this using the title society gives them over the capital and land. I call for the abolition of such dictatorships, for the same reason I oppose dictator states, by supporting the worker's struggle against them. eventually I they will be replaced with democratic cooperatives, not using pointless violent measures, but by taking away the title when it is abused, when it is no longer used for personal use or production but rather for profit (read:slavery).

[eugenekop]

So give me a concrete rule, when does my trade of money for labor becomes exploitative to the extent that violence is justified against me?

[SecretSquirrel]

I can't believe that I actually sympathise more with Eugene than Melo. How far into the murk of socialism you've fallen, Melo.....

[CounterChaos]

I have tried to lay out my "minds eye view" of what anarchism means to me, or rather what a working system could look like. I really think to understand this it would be in everyone's best interest to do the same. We can talk all day about this and that-create a scenario like I did, so everyone can see your system from a physical point of view.

If modern industrial society came crashing down tomorrow-every single one of us would be an anarchist at that time by definition-explain from that point what comes next.

[Melodramatic]

So give me a concrete rule

There are no universal rules, and I am surely not the one to set them.

when does my trade of money for labor becomes exploitative to the extent that violence is justified against me?

At not point. If a system becomes exploitative and creates slavery using the naturally hierarchical tool called property, I want society to forgo such titles. Property titles for personal use and production can overrule ones for exploitation and landlord-ism. Not that complex.

How far into the murk of socialism you've fallen, Melo.....

I am a socialist, If that is the question....

If modern industrial society came crashing down tomorrow

That is not a prerequisite for anarchism. Not sure if it would even help it...

-every single one of us would be an anarchist at that time by definition

Incorrect. The way I see it, anarchism is unrelated to the social constructs that exist in society. It is defined by the persons attitude towards hierarchical power structures and states.

explain from that point what comes next.

The goal of anarchism is to abolish slavery and create democracy. Form there it is the choice of the people. I do believe people will band together in collectives for communal efficiency, these will effectively replace government and will be based on direct democracy (the direct part is not a complete necessity and I heard some other good ideas as well). collectives are not artificially set, they are dynamic and can be fractal (collectives of collectives of collectives and so on). While the collective will probably have power I will hope it will not abuse it to hurt individuals who do not wish to be part of it (the whole liberty concept), but there is no way to control that expert for the changes anarchism demands for property and production (see bellow) that will abolish the hierarchy and the need to preserve it.

Property titles used to exploit and enslave people will not be respected. This means that landlord-ism, and therefore rent, will be abolished, while constructive parts of it, funds used for maintaining common assess for example, will be replaced by the collectives. Production will no longer be able to work hierarchically, unless the workers are unusually docile and don't demand democracy, and will be replaced by workplace democracy. This should lead to each worker getting a fair share of the income, rather than the pyramid we see today.

Anarchism will not attack states or anybody, hopefully, but in the spirit of helping your fellow men I hope they will try to invoke similar changes in other lands, whether fighting a-cap property owners or states.