News Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[CRGreathouse]

With a system of laws and protection of property rights, which are required for any free society, one can have either, a factory owned by a single individual who then hires workers to work in it, trading them money for their skills, or a factory collectively owned by the employees together, where they all share in the profits.

Yes. But experience so far suggests that the wages paid by the single owner are higher (!) than the share of profit when the factory is owned collectively, even though the single owner takes a good amount of profit for herself. Resources are used more effectively in capitalism.

I'm a worker in a capitalist country. I don't own a business and I don't intend to. I'm happy to work for wages (or salary, or commission, as the case may be). If a person wants to join a voluntary socialist commune, more power to them. I just don't want someone imposing that on me.

 

[madness]

With a system of laws and protection of property rights, which are required for any free society, one can have either, a factory owned by a single individual who then hires workers to work in it, trading them money for their skills, or a factory collectively owned by the employees together, where they all share in the profits.

I'll have to repeat myself - this is all only true within a capitalist framework. Protection of property rights are considered by socialists as detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population. Here I think the distinction between negative and positive liberty is important.

Such a grass-roots democracy would be a government. As all the government ultimately is, when simplified, is a group of people elected by the population to enforce the laws of the society, so that we can have things like a court system and so forth.

I'm not sure about who would enforce law, but I am sure that it is a topic that has been discussed in depth by political theorists. The main difference as I understand it is that you don't elect someone to represent you in government, the power is considered to be bottom-up rather than top-down with decisions being made at a grass-roots level. That and the freedom to participate or leave.

 

[Nebula815]

Yes. But experience so far suggests that the wages paid by the single owner are higher (!) than the share of profit when the factory is owned collectively, even though the single owner takes a good amount of profit for herself. Resources are used more effectively in capitalism.

I'm a worker in a capitalist country. I don't own a business and I don't intend to. I'm happy to work for wages (or salary, or commission, as the case may be). If a person wants to join a voluntary socialist commune, more power to them. I just don't want someone imposing that on me.

Me either!

 

[Nebula815]

I'll have to repeat myself - this is all only true within a capitalist framework. Protection of property rights are considered by socialists as detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population. Here I think the distinction between negative and positive liberty is important.

And socialists are completely wrong on this. Protection of property rights is not detrimental to the freedom of the population; on the contrary, it is crucial to protect the people's freedom.

This kind of thing isn't a point of debate anymore (and I don't mean that in a jerk-sounding way). I mean it literally isn't a point of debate, like we don't debate whether the Earth is round or flat, or whether we orbit the Sun or the Sun orbits Earth. We know from over a century of experience that collectivization and nationalized enterprises do not work. It is no longer theory. Property rights, rule of law, democracy, and capitalism are only where you find freedom.

It also depends on the kind of socialist. Fabian socialism, national socialism, both allow for private property ownership. It is more the Marxist socialists for whom private property is heresy, and even in the Soviet Union, they had to partially privatize their agriculture industry to keep the entire country from starving to death.

The pilgrims tried it too, collective ownership of farming, of course then the slackers figured out they could not work and let others grow the food, of course everyone then thought this and thus the whole group almost starved, until each pilgrim was then granted their own land to grow their own food and they prospered.

Marxism isn't just a form of socialism though, it also is a form of a secular religion. It holds that its "god" (the State) will create a grand utopia here on Earth.

I'm not sure about who would enforce law, but I am sure that it is a topic that has been discussed in depth by political theorists.

It has been discussed by political theorists, but when put into practice, does not work. You need someone to enforce the law, and that is a government.

The main difference as I understand it is that you don't elect someone to represent you in government, the power is considered to be bottom-up rather than top-down with decisions being made at a grass-roots level. That and the freedom to participate or leave.

Notice how all of this is extraordinarily ambiguous though. There is no way you could have a massive organization without a top-down structure. It would be too disorganized. For some things, a bottom-up structure can work, but very few. For example, the free software movement, or a free-market economy (no central planning), etc...but there is no way you could run an organization like say Boeing and design and engineer the next-generation jumbo jet with no top-down control.

Or for the process of governing, you need to elect certain people to enforce the laws to protect the rights of others.

Also people cannot have the freedom to participate or leave. Historically, the way this has worked is:

"We're going to create a utopian, collectivist society!"

"I don't want to participate in any collective."

"We are going to violently overthrow the current central government and establish a dictatorship in which then we are going to FORCE you to participate in this collective and then you will see how much better collectivism is. And we are going to murder anyone who resists in our attempt to create a glorious utopia."

 

[madness]

And socialists are completely wrong on this. Protection of property rights is not detrimental to the freedom of the population; on the contrary, it is crucial to protect the people's freedom.

This kind of thing isn't a point of debate anymore (and I don't mean that in a jerk-sounding way). I mean it literally isn't a point of debate, like we don't debate whether the Earth is round or flat, or whether we orbit the Sun or the Sun orbits Earth. We know from over a century of experience that collectivization and nationalized enterprises do not work. It is no longer theory. Property rights, rule of law, democracy, and capitalism are only where you find freedom.

I think you'd be surprised. American views on these subjects strike me as very insular and having little resemblance to the views I find in Europe. The word capitalism in the UK (almost) invariably has negative connotations, whereas socialism is often synonymous with humanitarianism. Of course I'm referring to general perception, not academic.

In academic circles however, Marxism is very common and is certainly a subject of debate. As I mentioned already, the distinction between positive and negative liberty is important here. While free market capitalism attempts to maximise an individuals liberty in the negative sense, that is by limiting the extent to which he can be interfered with, socialists attempt to maximise libery in the positive sense, by ensuring he actually has the means to live freely. A friend explained to me that one of the main differences between capitalism and socialism is that capitalists focus strongly on the individual agent, whereas socialists take a far more deterministic view of society in which an individual is seen to be a product of his environment. From this point of view limiting the extent to which an individual can be interfered with is not sufficient to maximise liberty, which is instead maximised through considerations of society as a whole.

It also depends on the kind of socialist. Fabian socialism, national socialism, both allow for private property ownership. It is more the Marxist socialists for whom private property is heresy, and even in the Soviet Union, they had to partially privatize their agriculture industry to keep the entire country from starving to death.

I don't think many socialists consider national socialism as having anything to do with their ideology. And the Soviet union would be better described as Stalinist than Marxist.

"We're going to create a utopian, collectivist society!"

"I don't want to participate in any collective."

"We are going to violently overthrow the current central government and establish a dictatorship in which then we are going to FORCE you to participate in this collective and then you will see how much better collectivism is. And we are going to murder anyone who resists in our attempt to create a glorious utopia."

Well in a libertarian socialist society people are free to join and or leave as they see fit. In the current society they are not. The above scenario basically fits the neoconservatives (replace collectivism with free market capitalism) and their campaign of American imperialism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Will have to look into that, don't see how that is really possible though. Much of it would also mean infringment on other people's property rights. For example if I start a company, work hard, build it up, employ workers, and have say several factories producing widgets, and then one day the workers "decide" to take ownership of the factories because anarchy resulted, well they are technically stealing away my property. The factories aren't theirs, they're mine, but I employ them. They didn't write the business plan, put up the startup capital, build the organization, etc

From what I understand this is more or less how it happened. The revolution succeeded, temporarily, and the "anarchists" seized control of the local resources and means of production. The situation lasted for only a few years so the ability to determine whether or not this particular anarchist or "libertarian socialist" experiment would have continued to work and remain stable is pretty much nil.
There is currently an experimental anarchist town running called Freetown Christiana. It does not seem very stable though and the economy does not seem very insular either. In this case they did not "steal" anything per se but they did take over an abandoned military base so did not really have to concern themselves much with infrastructure and the like.

This is all true but only within a capitalist framework. The (socialist) anarchist answer might be that you don't have a right to property, but the workers have a right to the means of production. And of course, if the anarchists had their way they would already own the factory and wouldn't need to steal it from you, i.e. the "theft" would only occur in the transition from capitalism to socialism.

The question would seem to be: where does the means of production come from? Simply "acquiring" resources and the means of production all ready and at your disposal from someone else without concern for any sort of reciprocity would seem to be theft by anyone's standards. If we break down everything to its barest form individual labour is really the essential "means of production". In this way all individuals are naturally in control of the means of production and theft in its barest form is the assertion of others that they have some right to it.

 

[mheslep]

From what I understand this is more or less how it happened. The revolution succeeded, temporarily, and the "anarchists" seized control of the local resources and means of production. The situation lasted for only a few years so the ability to determine whether or not this particular anarchist or "libertarian socialist" experiment would have continued to work and remain stable is pretty much nil.
There is currently an experimental anarchist town running called Freetown Christiana.

It appears the town is anarchist in name only, as one would expect.

 

[vici10]

The question would seem to be: where does the means of production come from? .

Interesting, Marx was concerned exactly about this issue. He calls means of production "dead labor" (since once there was a need of somebody's labor to produce it.) In most cases people who labor to produce means of production do not own them. There is a big chunk of Das Kapital that goes into English history describing this.

According to Marx "dead labor" by itself cannot produce wealth. There is always a need for "live labor" to use the means of production to create wealth. But the result product is usually mostly owned by owner of means of production ("dead labor").

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Interesting, Marx was concerned exactly about this issue. He calls means of production "dead labor" (since once there was a need of somebody's labor to produce it.) In most cases people who labor to produce means of production do not own them. There is a big chunk of Das Kapital that goes into English history describing this.

Interestingly American capitalistic freedom, often touted as the epitome of capitalism either praisingly or derisively, was constructed in part based on a rejection of Colonial English exploitation (excepting the institutional allowance of slavery of course).

According to Marx "dead labor" by itself cannot produce wealth. There is always a need for "live labor" to use the means of production to create wealth. But the result product is usually mostly owned by owner of means of production ("dead labor").

A capitalist would likely consider the means of production "invested labour" with the potential to be used to create wealth. The description "dead labour" seems to negate the value of the labour of its creators or the "essential means of production". It seems contradictory to the philosophy to uphold the value of some labourers over others.

 

[Nebula815]

I think you'd be surprised. American views on these subjects strike me as very insular and having little resemblance to the views I find in Europe. The word capitalism in the UK (almost) invariably has negative connotations, whereas socialism is often synonymous with humanitarianism. Of course I'm referring to general perception, not academic.

Europe tends to have that view yes, but it isn't correct. Europe flirted with socialism throughout much of the twentieth century. France is quasi-socialist, the UK went Fabian socialist under Labour party, and the only thing that stopped Germany from remaining socialist after Nazism was the people didn't want any policies that the Nazis had utilized, so free-market capitalism was permitted.

In academic circles however, Marxism is very common and is certainly a subject of debate. As I mentioned already, the distinction between positive and negative liberty is important here. While free market capitalism attempts to maximise an individuals liberty in the negative sense, that is by limiting the extent to which he can be interfered with, socialists attempt to maximise libery in the positive sense, by ensuring he actually has the means to live freely.

Marxism is common in academia because that's the sole place those people reside...in academia. Put into practice, it doesn't work. Marxism also doesn't advocate democracy, but dictatorship. Also, a socialist does not attempt to maximize any individual's ability to live freely. They do just the opposite: A socialist attempts to force and coerce an individual to give up what they produce in the name of the collective.

A friend explained to me that one of the main differences between capitalism and socialism is that capitalists focus strongly on the individual agent, whereas socialists take a far more deterministic view of society in which an individual is seen to be a product of his environment. From this point of view limiting the extent to which an individual can be interfered with is not sufficient to maximise liberty, which is instead maximised through considerations of society as a whole.

A socialist always views that the individual's liberty is best expressed through the glory of the collective. Which again means force and coercion, to glorify the collective. A classical liberal (adherent to free-market capitalism) understands that the glory of the collective comes through the glory of the individual.

You let people be free and individuals, to do as they please within the rule of law, and you get great and prosperous society. You force and coerce people in the name of the collective, and you get a poverty-stricken, non-free society.

I don't think many socialists consider national socialism as having anything to do with their ideology. And the Soviet union would be better described as Stalinist than Marxist.

Marxists do not consider national socialism as having anything to do with them, even though both are just different takes on the same thing. But that's because they are both secular religions in a sense. Both emphasize the glory of the state over the individual, that the individual is best expressed through the collective, a government dictatorship, and so forth.

But because of a few minor differences, they were slaughtering one another, just as the Catholics and the Protestants were killing one another for many years even though in the end they both believe in the same thing.

The Soviet Union was founded by Vladimir Lenin, an adherent to Karl Marx. After Lenin, there was a struggle for power, with Stalin ultimately winning out. Stalinism versus his rival Trotsky's Trotskyism were slightly different (there were also some other -isms from other rivals), but in the end, all were socialism (Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc...).

Well in a libertarian socialist society people are free to join and or leave as they see fit. In the current society they are not.

There is no such thing and in current liberal democratic societies, people are very free. They only cannot "join" as they see fit in that you have to become a legal citizen of the nation you seek to join, but even then, you usually can still live in any liberal democratic nation for periods without being a citizen. There are democratic socialist nations, where the government is a democracy, and people can leave those if they wish. But in such a nation, collectivism and force and coercion will occur to a degree. And even those are tending towards free-market capitalism more now.

All a free-market ultimately means is people can engage in voluntary cooperation and free-trade with one another. One can't really get more free then that. Socialists either want the government to run everything, or they want everything done as a collective, which takes force, and force requires a government of some type.

It is basic economics. There isn't enough of everything for everyone, so we have trade and with a free-market, society rations goods on its own. Central planning by the state to ration goods and materials never works.

Either a market will ration goods and materials or the state, or some central authority will.

The above scenario basically fits the neoconservatives (replace collectivism with free market capitalism) and their campaign of American imperialism.

Neoconservatism has no campaign of American imperialism.

 

[vici10]

Interestingly American capitalistic freedom, often touted as the epitome of capitalism either praisingly or derisively, was constructed in part based on a rejection of Colonial English exploitation (excepting the institutional allowance of slavery of course).

It is interesting. But I do not understand how is English and American capitalism differ. Can you explain?

A capitalist would likely consider the means of production "invested labour" with the potential to be used to create wealth. The description "dead labour" seems to negate the value of the labour of its creators or the "essential means of production". It seems contradictory to the philosophy to uphold the value of some labourers over others.

I think there is a confusion in terms. "dead labour" is Marx's term and does not have any negative connotation. It is part of his labour theory of value. This is quite relatively complicated topic for me to go into details now. If you wish to understand what socialists and communists think about labour or means of production, I suggest you to read first volume of Das Kapital in order to avoid common misunderstandings and prejudices.

 

[Galteeth]

It is interesting. But I do not understand how is English and American capitalism differ. Can you explain?

In the modern day sense they don't, since American "capitalism" as it currently stands is as mercantilistic as the old British empire. Re, the Bangladeshi making shoes, dollar reserve, IMF, WTO, CIA coups, etc. etc.

In regards to some other things... in theory the laborer is selling his labor, thus his "labor" is the product.

The way I look at the abstracted property thing is that an arrangement that people view as unfair won't be voluntarily submitted to. The reason it appears to be is because the arrangemnts are often not really voluntarily, i.e., the owner's rights of ownership are supported by the violent defense of his property, not the acknowledgment that he has some Lockian right to it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is interesting. But I do not understand how is English and American capitalism differ. Can you explain?

Laws were instituted through the national constitution to prevent the government from exploiting and harming citizens through attainder, ex post facto laws, land takings, ect. Citizens of territories under US control are equally protected by federal law and have the ability to petition for statehood to receive full representation in government under the same formula as any other state.

I think there is a confusion in terms. "dead labour" is Marx's term and does not have any negative connotation. It is part of his labour theory of value. This is quite relatively complicated topic for me to go into details now. If you wish to understand what socialists and communists think about labour or means of production, I suggest you to read first volume of Das Kapital in order to avoid common misunderstandings and prejudices.

Merely stating that it does not have a negative connotation does not make it true. Nor would continuing with the explanation that it is part of a "labour theory of value" seem to refute my assertion that it is a value judgment.

 

[Galteeth]

Laws were instituted through the national constitution to prevent the government from exploiting and harming citizens through attainder, ex post facto laws, land takings, ect. Citizens of territories under US control are equally protected by federal law and have the ability to petition for statehood to receive full representation in government under the same formula as any other state.


Merely stating that it does not have a negative connotation does not make it true. Nor would continuing with the explanation that it is part of a "labour theory of value" seem to refute my assertion that it is a value judgment.

The current neo-mercantilism I was describing is different in nature then the formal British system. It is a world economic system where third world countries have a certain kind of economic relationship with the west (exploitative is a subjective judgement, but in my opinion, it applies) that is kept in play by currency controls, international economic bodies, and in the most extreme cases, direct intervention in countries' political affairs by intelligence agencies.


By the way, I didn't realize you were a Bad Religion fan. My absolute favorite band.

 

[vici10]

TheStatutoryApe,

I typed quite a long answer for you, but alas it was lost during submittion. I do not have time now to type it again, I have urgent work to do now. But I will answer you tomorrow, I should have more time tomorrow.

 

[Nebula815]

TheStatutoryApe,

I typed quite a long answer for you, but alas it was lost during submittion. I do not have time now to type it again, I have urgent work to do now. But I will answer you tomorrow, I should have more time tomorrow.

Always type long answers in a separate file and save it then copy-paste it to post it. This way if the computer or website messes up and the post doesn't get through and is lost, you just need to copy-paste again.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The current neo-mercantilism I was describing is different in nature then the formal British system. It is a world economic system where third world countries have a certain kind of economic relationship with the west (exploitative is a subjective judgement, but in my opinion, it applies) that is kept in play by currency controls, international economic bodies, and in the most extreme cases, direct intervention in countries' political affairs by intelligence agencies.

I'll leave alone the topic of militarist and black ops intervention. I am certainly aware that it has happened and there is proof but many such allegations seem to be, at the least, over inflated by conspiracy theorists.
As far as the mark of corporatism left on third world countries I am somewhat torn. I have an aversion to corporatism but I can not deny that it can have, and has had, positive effects despite its rather poor track record in the industrialist era. Starbucks for instance, despite their resistance to the general global trend towards "Fair Trade" practices, builds schools and hospitals and generally attempts to renovate and improve the local communities that they rely upon. The investment of corporations can help third world countries become more developed and stimulate their economies. They can also destroy the environment, exploit local resources, and simply cut and run after completely mutilating any hope for local sustainability.
The US government does not exactly sanction this but they facilitate it through corporate protectionism and turning a blind eye to the practices of corporations that do not directly effect the US keeping an eye on the economic "bottom line".

By the way, I didn't realize you were a Bad Religion fan. My absolute favorite band.

Yes. One of my absolute favourites as well. It may seem odd considering some of my arguments but I am actually far more of a "pinko" liberal than I usually come across. I am really just often more critical of those whom I principally agree with.

 

[Al68]

Firstly, I didn't misspell 'labour'. You are using the Americanised spelling.

LOL, I was joking.

I understand your point and it does make some sense. But at the same time, you do not have access to the products of your own labour (unless you're self employed), your employer owns it and you get a wage instead.

The employer doesn't own it originally. Of course the employer owns it after the worker sells it to him.

For a socialist, having access to your own labour means collectively owning a factory so that the workers genuinely own the products of their labour.

"Genuinely own" means the right to sell as they see fit, not as seen fit by others (socialists).

A factory worker certainly does not have the right to control, sell or trade the products of their labour under capitalism.

Yes, they do, socialists seem very confused about this. You can't claim that the fact that the worker is free to sell his labor product to another (genuinely owns) means that the buyer "really" owns it because he owns it after he bought it from the original owner. That's just faulty logic.

 

[Al68]

The only way for a libertarian socialism to work is for members of the collective to adopt willingly socialism. Otherwise, it collapses on its own weight because there is no way to enforce socialism while remaining true to libertarian ideology. It's possible, but I sincerely doubt it would remain cohesive as people who work hard would willingly leave the collective and allow the lazy to fend for themselves, which they are not inclined to do. There would of course be no way to force the hardworking to stay because that would be authoritarian rather than libertarian.

It's currently practiced in the U.S. by many groups, with no objections from anyone. The real issue seems to be that many use the term "libertarian socialism" to refer to socialism that is clearly not libertarian just to mislead people.

 

[Al68]

Remember that the utopian communism imagined by Marx was a stateless society.

Yes, Marx imagined that everyone in the world would do exactly what he wanted completely voluntarily, once every single person only realized how right he was about everything. Then they wouldn't have to be forced against their will anymore. How do you spell "delusional" in the UK?

I'll have to repeat myself - this is all only true within a capitalist framework. Protection of property rights are considered by socialists as detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population.

Yes, socialists believe that using collective force to usurp the individual decisions free people make for themselves enhances their "freedom". And protecting the right of individuals to own their own labor (transfer property) is, as you say, "detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population".

They believe they can make up for the stolen liberty by providing privileges, and take advantage of the fact that the word freedom can be used as a synonym for either 'privilege' or 'liberty' in order to claim that freedom is increased. In fact, they are just using a bait and switch tactic by switching between one definition and another. (Or switching between "negative" and "positive" freedom as some would say.)

It's like giving someone a package of golf balls after castrating them, then claiming they increased the number of balls they have. Technically true, but painfully misleading.

 

[Al68]

Interesting, Marx was concerned exactly about this issue. He calls means of production "dead labor" (since once there was a need of somebody's labor to produce it.) In most cases people who labor to produce means of production do not own them.

In free market capitalism, the laborer does own them originally. Marx conveniently ignored the fact that the reason that the means of production are later owned by someone else is because the laborer chose to sell the product of his labor, as was his right as the original owner.

Marx rejected the right of laborers to choose to sell the product of their labor as a "commodity". The fact is that the product of a person's labor is a valuable commodity, and rightfully belongs to each laborer to sell or trade as he sees fit. That's what the word ownership means. Contrary to Marx's delusional logic, it doesn't mean "society" making the decision they think is best for each individual and using force to usurp the individual's own decision.

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, Marx imagined that everyone in the world would do exactly what he wanted completely voluntarily, once every single person only realized how right he was about everything. Then they wouldn't have to be forced against their will anymore. How do you spell "delusional" in the UK?.

It is equally "delusional" to assume that people won't use the coercive force of government for their own ends. Any political or moral philosophy posits an unrealizable ideal. People may think murder is wrong, and accept that murder will never go away. I don't think Marx's ideal is so far fetched, it's just totally alein given the current cultural context. Many of the values of modern society that we take for granted would seem absurdly idealistic to a person living in a different time period with a different cultural context.

 

[Galteeth]

I'll leave alone the topic of militarist and black ops intervention. I am certainly aware that it has happened and there is proof but many such allegations seem to be, at the least, over inflated by conspiracy theorists.

While a controversial wikipedia page, this provides good resources to start if you're interested in the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_US_regime_change_actions

 

[vici10]

Laws were instituted through the national constitution to prevent the government from exploiting and harming citizens through attainder, ex post facto laws, land takings, ect. Citizens of territories under US control are equally protected by federal law and have the ability to petition for statehood to receive full representation in government under the same formula as any other state.

Do I understand you correctly that the only difference between American and English capitalism is that America has a constitution and England does not?

Merely stating that it does not have a negative connotation does not make it true. Nor would continuing with the explanation that it is part of a "labour theory of value" seem to refute my assertion that it is a value judgment.

Ok, it seems that you judge about something that you do not know. To avoid it I suggested you to read Marx, thinking that original would be better than someones interpretation. But I understand not everyone has time to read big books. I did not want to go into details but it seems that I will have to. I apologize for the long answer but Marx used the book to describe his ideas.

My answer consists of two parts. One historical, in which one can see how originally class of capitalists (owners of means of production) and wage-workers have appeared. Second part is abstract part of Marx's labour theory of value.

Marx was not interested in abstract society of free individuals freely exchanging the product of their labour between in each other, mainly because such abstract society never existed.
He studied real, but not imaginary capitalist society. Marx wanted to understand a transition from feudalism to capitalism. How do peasants become wage-workers and what is capital? For this purpose he had to look at history of most advanced capitalist country at his time, England, also the place where he lived.

So how do peasants become wage-workers? According to Marx,first, they should be stripped off any means of subsistence and hence will have no other choice but sell their labour:

“The immediate producer, the labourer, could only dispose of his own person after he had ceased to be attached to the soil and ceased to be the slave, serf, or bondman of another. To become a free seller of labour-power, who carries his commodity wherever he finds a market, he must further have escaped from the regime of the guilds, their rules for apprentices and journeymen, and the impediments of their labour regulations. Hence, the historical movement which changes the producers into wage-workers, appears, on the one hand, as their emancipation from serfdom and from the fetters of the guilds, and this side alone exists for our bourgeois historians. But, on the other hand, these new freedmen became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and of all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.” http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA27.html#Part VIII, Chapter 27

One should remember that “serf was not only the owner, if but a tribute-paying owner, of the piece of land attached to his house, but also a co-possessor of the common land.”
And eviction of peasants from their lands by landlords happened, this process was called enclosures. During Tudors, landlords understood that they can profit more from sheep farming because of foreign demand for wool. These enclosures resulted in loss of common rights and destruction of villages.
Another big wave of enclosures happened during 18th and the beginning of 19th century. But they happened not because of demand for wool but because of revolution in agricultural methods of production. These enclosures were enforced by newly created parliamentary acts called “Inclosure Acts”. This is what Marxs say:

“To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords? “

Remark: It does remind me transition to capitalism in Russia, mainly privatization, the same pattern – stealing public property from the people.

This process of removing peasants from the land served two purposes: enriching landlords and forcing peasants to become wage-workers. So we can see how owners of means of production and wage-workers have appeared. And of course one needed a force of state for these things to happen.

Now to the abstract part. For starter: assume we have a person who worked and produce means of production(machine). Now there is a second person who used this machine to produce final product. Both of them spent the same amount of labour. How should they divide the final product? Why should owner of means of production claim a bigger part than a worker? Why not half-half?

Now to the labour theory of value. Marx, following Adam Smith and Ricardo, assumed that under perfect competition the commodities are exchanged according to amount of labor that is necessary to produce them. Now assume that the person has money say 100,000 that he got after exchanging of the products of his labor. On this money he hires managers to organize factory for him that will produce cloths for example. Managers hire workers and buy machines. Workers work on the machines till the machines depreciate. Final product is cloths. Marx argues that machines by themselves cannot produce value. One needs human labour for it. The value of final product is equal to the value of the machines (amount of labor of the owner) plus the labor of the workers. Now the owner sells the product, gets the money, pays to workers and managers according to amount of their labor spent. What is left? The value of the machines, the original 100,000. He could have his clothes, but capitalist did not want clothes he wants profit. So how does one make profit? He could not pay less for the machines, because everything is exchanged by its labour values, he could steal it, but it is dangerous since property is protected by law. The only way is to cheat on workers. And the way to do it according to Marx is by prolonging working day,but paying the same amount of money as for the original working day.

This is in nutshell the simplified Marx's labour theory of value. So we have seen that people did not became wage-workers voluntarily. The first capitalists did not accrue means of production by hard work, but through violence and force of the state. And the last, even if one imagine that capitalists got their capital through hard work, according labour theory of value they still have to cheat on workers to get profit.

 

[mheslep]

Remark: It does remind me transition to capitalism in Russia, mainly privatization, the same pattern – stealing public property from the people.

Though I agree privatization in Russia was poorly handled, the term of the term 'Public' property in the USSR is a euphemism. It was controlled and exploited by those in power, not the public in any real sense.

 

[mheslep]

[Marx:]“To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords? “

I find Marx misguided here; he presents an argument against socialism not capitalism. Here the government, the domain of the socialist, unfairly appropriates land (if true?) and he blames the capitalists for the wrong.

 

[vici10]

I find Marx misguided here; he presents an argument against socialism not capitalism. Here the government, the domain of the socialist, for unfairly appropriating land (if true?) and he blames the capitalists for the wrong.

So you say these laws were not created by landlords for their own benefit and that they did not become capitalists?

Capitalism cannot exist without government. It needs laws to create private property from the public one. It has to use violence to protect it. Government creates laws that benefit capitalsts. To say that government is separate from the capitalists is to live in dream world of imaginary capitalism. They are in bed with each other. Without government capitalism would never come to place. Without government spending for example capitalism would be in danger of collapsing, since it is too volatile.For all these thing one just have to look into history.

 

[mheslep]

So you say these laws there not created by landlords for their own benefit and that they did not become capitalists?

I say that over powerful governments misappropriate things all the time and it has been to the personal benefit of the commissars as well as landed interests. What we should have in place to prevent this are strong property rights preventing governments from taking, which it seems to me if they had been in this case would have prevented any 'parliamentary' games from taking those lands.

Capitalism cannot exist without government. It needs laws to create private property from the public one.

Agreed. Though to be more precise free markets and capitalism require the rule of law, not just government.

Without government spending for example capitalism would be in danger of collapsing, since it is too volatile.For all these thing one just have to look into history.

I don't accept that. Current events don't prove the case. US capitalism got along just fine for a century plus with only insignificant amounts of government spending. I assert what's dangerous (for collapse) is crony capitalism, where the government and the large wealthy private interests become too interdependent.

 

[vici10]

I say that over powerful governments misappropriate things all the time and it has been to the personal benefit of the commissars as well as landed interests.

It is true. If one looks into history, most governments represented interests of a ruling class. Capitalist society is not an exception, and capitalist government represents interests of dominant capital.

What we should have in place to prevent this are strong property rights preventing governments from taking, which it seems to me if they had been in this case would have prevented any 'parliamentary' games from taking those lands.

You forget that parliament in England was created by the demand of landlords to protect their interests. So it is not strange that landlords created laws to remove peasants from the land and declare this land their private property.

I don't accept that. Current events don't prove the case. US capitalism got along just fine for a century plus with only insignificant amounts of government spending.

Besides current events, there was great depression and robber barons.

There is a graph as a food for thought at page 4 in the following document. The graph is about role of government in volatility of capitalism.
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/254/02/nitzan_y6285_01_pe_handout_2008_9.pdf"

I did not know how to link just a graph. Is it possible?

I assert what's dangerous (for collapse) is crony capitalism, where the government and the large wealthy private interests become too interdependent.

I agree that crony capitalism is dangerous but not for collapse, it is bad for the rest of population. And it is seems to me that capitalism was always crony. It is difficult for me to think of period in history that it was not so.

 

[mheslep]

I did not know how to link just a graph. Is it possible?

Yes, but a bit cumbersome. In your PDF reader cut and copy the graphic of interest to your computer disk via pasting to paintbrush, powerpoint or similar utility. Save in a common image format (pnf,gif, etc). Then you have the option of either directly attaching the graphic to the end of your post as a thumbnail, or uploading it instead to http://tinypic.com/ or similar storage site where you can then directly insert the graphic into your post using the ... tags.