Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Murray Rothbard is not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. How can a system based on one class exploiting another be anarchist?
“No passaran!”
- Thread starter e19896
- Start date
Murray Rothbard is not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. How can a system based on one class exploiting another be anarchist?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
oi oi
let's take this one stage at a time in the (probably vain) hope that in the end moon23 will gain enlightenment oi oi
Thanks for working with me! Yes listening is important as my wife always says to me
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i bet the people who usually work with you have chaises longue on which you lie while they do their analysis.
Its possible to have non exploitative models for social businesses is it not like restricting companies so they are not for profit workers co-op existing in a restricted but largely free market that uses a money system and allows for ownership of property
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No it's not.
No considering all the acid and Dmt in seasonaly sane
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
seasonably sane? not from where i'm sat.
Can I ask why or will you kill me?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Because, for starters, wage labour is exploitation itself, there is no such thing as non-exploitative wage labour today.
Its the wrong season.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Thats a tautology wage labour is exploitative for a reason not just because it is. i always thought it was because of the creation of surplus value, rather than the exchanging of a monetary symbol per re. If the surplus wealth is re-distributed whats the problem?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I suspect you actually mean "complicit".
No, it doesn't.
It may influence people to take a self-centred attitude, but it doesn't "force" them.
Then don't be surprised when you get shat on, because you'll have asked for it.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's neither here nor there. You said that it was possible for it not to be exploitative, not something about distributing the results of that exploitation. Anyway, not that interested in this line. Sorry.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Except insofar as "anarcho-capitalism" is a self-contradictory concept, and merely a name thought up by extreme libertarians to give their ideology a more appealing name.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Probably not, but then again neither did Murray Rothbard.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
do you mean the big solar eclipse of august 1999?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
A "largely free market" is not, by definition, a "free market". It's a managed market.
Its not that exploitative if strong unions and laws ensure that surplus value is given back to the workers. Compared say to a collectivist or unrestricted capitalist system where exploitation can be widespread
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
If it's given back it's not surplus value -the alienation of that value is sort of the deal. And again, you said it could be non-exploitative, and i'm still not really interested in this argument.
Yes thats what I was trying to propose a free market that is actively opposed by unions in order that a balance is struck, the contradiction is essential to this arrangement you see to avoid either forces of the free market or unionised workforce gaining a position of hegemony. Essentialy it allows for innovation and economic freedom withing the needs and wishes of the communtity.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So, even by your own measure, it's still "exploitative".
By the way, workers only ever have a fraction of the surplus value of the fruits of their labours returned to them, hence wage labour being inherently and unarguably exploitative.
So, yet again what you're saying that you're to preserve the political status quo for no better reason than convenience, and the fact that the only alternatives you personally can conceive are at the extremes of the topic.
Yes thats the one. It did not help improve my attitude towards un opposed capitalism now of course I would have just walked out
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
A balance being struck, an accommodation being reached between the parties, means that your "free market" isn't free, but rather managed, whether through agreement or conflict.
Except that a state of dynamic equilibrium between the two poles is impossible to attain except insofar as it can be (simplistically) modelled mathematically.
Except that it would rely, as does any form of market capitalism, on persuading the community what their "needs and wishes" might be.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
No. Private property is inherently exploitative. Private property means wage labour. If some people have no choice but to work for a wage for others, how is that not exploitative?
Similar threads
