News Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[Cyrus]

Sorry to interrupt, but I just have to comment on the title of this thread:

Libertarian Socialism

This is an oxymoron. Libertarians are for fiscally small governments. This is like saying Big government Republicans.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I say no. This cannot be, because the people who do all of the work get paid flat salaries and don't receive any of the profits that are linked directly to productivity enhancements, while the absentee owners who receive the profits don't do any of the work. It would be a spooky action-at-a-distance, it would be voodoo, for the method of dividends and capital gains to be the inspiration for the salaried workers.

I agree with most of what you've written before this so I'll start here. This is not true at all... many companies employ R&D people for the sole purpose of selling new products. It's obvious that the drive for cash has caused many innovations and new inventions. It's also not true that the people doing this inventing don't see any money for their efforts; lots of start up companies make the inventors fabulously wealthy, and even at larger corporations you'll have stock options and bonuses for completing things in a timely fashion.

The only thing that people need to have the incentive to create new inventions is a way to formally declare the policy that the personnel are made aware of. In one case, a capitalist system, the memo says that we are going to get started making a faster computer chip, because the stockholders want to sell it and become billionaires. In another case, a socialist system, the memo says we are going to get started making a faster computer chip, because this direction has been democratically adopted as a public policy. Either way, workers will choose that career if they enjoy it, and will usually work to the best of their ability.

You can tell people to do whatever you want, but that doesn't mean they're going to do it. They need to have some incentive to make those faster computer chips.

The official poverty line is meaningless anyway. With the cost of living today, a family could have an annual income close to $100,000 and still be in poverty, depending on how many bills they have to pay.

If you're making 100,000 dollars and in poverty it's because of poor money management, not because of the cost of living

There is nothing in my lifetime of observations that resembles your idea of an "imposed" system. Reality is always in a particular condition. We find it that way when we are born into the world and grow up. Either we like it or we can propose changing it. To change the system is no more of an imposition than not changing it.

If that's your objective, you have the conclusion backwards. When the industries are operated with a nonprofit charter, that's when people will, for the first time, be able to receive the full equivalent of their labor. If a company will only give a worker a job on the condition that it can expropriate a profit from that worker, then the worker gets robbed every payday. Every time your employer places a paycheck into your hand, you just got mugged.

Companies lose money all the time, and they certainly don't take back the paychecks for that quarter. This idea that all companies extract more value from every employee than they pay that employee is obviously false, so the argument over whether that's moral is moot.

 

[mheslep]

Deaths of USSR residents attributable to the government, either directly killed or for which it was responsible

There's quite a bit written about this subject by historians, and before the KGB files were opened by Yeltsin after the USSR's collapse there was heated debate producing widely varying figures. Now (post 1990) there are several well respected, if not undisputed, studies based on examination of those files. The most generally accepted figure appears to be about 20 million killed by the government in the Stalin era.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/...reviewA/#reader_0195071328"&tag=pfamazon01-20
by Robert Conquest

The Great Terror [original 1960's version] was only peripherally concerned with the total casualties of the Stalin epoch. But it reckoned the dead as no fewer than 20 million. This figure is now given in the USSR. And the general total of "repressed" is now stated (e.g., in the new high-school textbooks) as around 40 million, about half of them in the peasant terror of 1929 to 1933 and the other half from 1937 to 1953.
[...]
For example, Sergo Mikoyan, son of the Politburo member, has recently given from his father's unpublished memoirs a figure reported to the Politburo by the KGB on Khrushchev's orders in the 1960s: of, between 1 January 1935 and 22 June 1941, just under 20 million arrests and 7 million deaths.

http://books.google.com/books?id=f-...AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Perhaps 20 million&f=false"
By Simon Sebag Montefiore

[...][At the time of Stalin's death] Perhaps 20 million had been killed; 28 million deported, of whom 18 million had slaved in the Gulags [...]

 

[vici10]

mheslep,

Unfortunately, it is true that Russia has some very polluted place. Rapid Industrialization and self-reliance are probably the reasons. To blame it on communism is not to find the real reasons.
England during Industrial Revolution was the most polluted country in the world. But now with de-industrialization and outsourcing, trees and parks grow again in England. I suspect the similar thing is also correct for USA. So the problem of pollution is outsourced to Third World Countries together with many industries.

Regarding the most polluted places, your link to CNN 10 Most Polluted Places contains La Oroya,Peru:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661020,00.html"

In La Oroya, a mining town in the Peruvian Andes, 99% of children have blood levels that exceed acceptable limits, thanks to an American-owned smelter that has been polluting the city since 1922. The average lead level, according to a 1999 survey, was triple the WHO limit.

Another place from 10th most polluted places is Kabwe, Zambia.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661025,00.html"

When rich deposits of lead were discovered near Kabwe in 1902, Zambia was a British colony called Northern Rhodesia, and little concern was given for the impact that the toxic metal might have on native Zambians. Sadly, there's been almost no improvement in the decades since, and though the mines and smelter are no longer operating, lead levels in Kabwe are astronomical. On average, lead concentrations in children are five to 10 times the permissible U.S. Environmental Protection Agency levels, and can even be high enough to kill.

So the reason for pollution in Kabwe is British Imperialism.

Now, regarding pollution in US. I made a graph of Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions based on the data from US Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics and analysis http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipd...=8&cid=UR,US,&syid=1980&eyid=1991&unit=MMTCD"

In the graph and data per capita instead of Million Metric Tons should be just metric tons (Sorry, my mistake)

One can see that USA has almost double of Carbon Dioxide Emission per Capita than USSR.

Regarding your data of natural resources. You do not mention the fact that most territory of Russia is Siberia and getting those natural resources is much more costly.

Historically, agriculture was also a problem for Russia. You have not mention all the data regarding land that may distort the picture.

USA
Total land: 9,629.091 sq.km
Agricultural land:4,111,580 sq.km
Arable land 1,685,747 sq.km

Russia
Total land: 17,098,242 sq.km
Agricultural land: 2,154,630 sq.km
Arable land 1,206,5,592
So most of the land in Russia is not suitable for agriculture. Historically it created quite serious problems for Russians.

The data is from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/Questionnaires/country_snapshots.htm"

I find that the former Soviet political system was one of the most evil catastrophes ever to befall mankind.

Yes, Soviet political system was probably a catastrophe for business community worldwide. It stopped their globalization. First time in history third world country was able to protect itself from capitalist markets expansion. It could even industrialize rapidly without any support from outside, although at high cost. Probably the single example of independent industrialization in history. Indirectly,
by its fact of existence, USSR helped to rise living standards of workers in Western countries, since there was an example that things can be done differently.

Now, regarding your concern about Russian people and the evils of Communism that they had to live under.
Just a little bit of statistics:
In Russian Empire , life expectancy according to the census 1896—1897 was 32 years. Less than 10 years after the revolution life expectancy increased in 12 years and in 1926—1927 it was 44 years. At the end of 60s it already was around 70.

With restoration of capitalism in Russia there is a sharp decline in life expectancy. I have already cited the following quote in another thread, but I will cite it again.
It is from "Autopsy On An Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union" Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 1—Winter 2005—Pages 107–130
http://www.williams.edu/Economics/br...pers/jep05.pdf"

The 1990s were a decade of turmoil for the formerly socialist countries. Besides the
political, economic and social upheavals endured by these populations, many of these countries
also experienced a demographic disaster in the form of sharply rising death rates. In Russia,
male life expectancy at birth fell from 64.2 years in 1989 to 57.6 years in 1994, a decline of 6.6
years in just half a decade. Female life expectancy at birth fell by 3.3 years over the same time
period. To put this in perspective, it took the past 30 years for the United States to increase life
expectancy by this much. Russia’s life expectancy today ranks 122nd in the world, at the same
level as North Korea and Guyana.
The mortality crisis is not limited to Russia. Across the western countries of the former
Soviet Union – the countries which we term ‘the mortality belt’ and which range from Estonia in
the north to Ukraine in the south – there have been significant declines in male life expectancy at
birth, ranging from 3.3 years (Belarus) to nearly 5 years in Estonia and Latvia (see Figure 1).
Life expectancy for women fell substantially as well.

Just looking at this statistics one would think that capitalism is a disaster for people of former Soviet Union.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sorry to interrupt, but I just have to comment on the title of this thread:



This is an oxymoron. Libertarians are for fiscally small governments. This is like saying Big government Republicans.

As I noted earlier it is not really an oxymoron. People who believe in Libertarian Socialism (or Anarchism) figure that "citizens" will naturally do what is best for the whole of their society and do not need to be "coerced" into it so large government is not necessary. It certainly does not seem practicable in the long run or on any large scale but it is not really an oxymoron.

 

[Cyrus]

As I noted earlier it is not really an oxymoron. People who believe in Libertarian Socialism (or Anarchism) figure that "citizens" will naturally do what is best for the whole of their society and do not need to be "coerced" into it so large government is not necessary. It certainly does not seem practicable in the long run or on any large scale but it is not really an oxymoron.

Socialism is the government giving handouts of peoples money for large scale programs. This is fundamentally apposed to what you just wrote above. Libertarianism is smaller government, and less government intervention in moral authority, more individual rights and state rights.

Libertarianism, is not anarchism. Anarchism is an extreme form of it, as Nazi-ism is an extreme form of Republicanism, or Dicatoriship is an extreme form of popularism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Socialism is the government giving handouts of peoples money for large scale programs. This is fundamentally apposed to what you just wrote above. Libertarianism is smaller government, and less government intervention in moral authority, more individual rights and state rights.

Libertarianism, is not anarchism. Anarchism is an extreme form of it, as Nazi-ism is an extreme form of Republicanism, or Dicatoriship is an extreme form of popularism.

If you read the earlier portion of the thread you will see where "Libertarian Socialism" is a term apparently used to describe Anarchistic style "government".

You also give an odd description of Socialism. Socialism is a political philosophy based on the idea of communal ownership/management of resources. It is not in fact "government giving handouts".

 

[Cyrus]

If you read the earlier portion of the thread you will see where "Libertarian Socialism" is a term apparently used to describe Anarchistic style "government".

And as I said, that is a misuse/abuse of the term libertarian.

You also give an odd description of Socialism. Socialism is a political philosophy based on the idea of communal ownership/management of resources. It is not in fact "government giving handouts".

As per wikipedia:

Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

That's exactly government giving handouts. You are redistributing wealth.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And as I said, that is a misuse/abuse of the term libertarian.

The term is "Libertarian Socialism".

That's exactly government giving handouts. You are redistributing wealth.

Perhaps by your own perception. If a group of people have all decided as a whole that they will share and collectively manage their resources then it is not being redistributed. And even if you wish to define it as redistributing wealth it does not necessarily require "big government" to accomplish. The idea of "Libertarian Socialism" is that the people will supposedly decide naturally amongst themselves to manage their resources in this fashion. You may figure that this is not a practical likelihood and "big government" would be required to maintain such a system but that still does not make for an "oxymoron".

 

[Cyrus]

The term is "Libertarian Socialism".

I don't know - I suppose.

Perhaps by your own perception. If a group of people have all decided as a whole that they will share and collectively manage their resources then it is not being redistributed. And even if you wish to define it as redistributing wealth it does not necessarily require "big government" to accomplish. The idea of "Libertarian Socialism" is that the people will supposedly decide naturally amongst themselves to manage their resources in this fashion. You may figure that this is not a practical likelihood and "big government" would be required to maintain such a system but that still does not make for an "oxymoron".

I think that is a better explanation. I'm having a hard time differentiating that from communism though.

 

[mheslep]

One can see that USA has almost double of Carbon Dioxide Emission per Capita than USSR.

Good for the USA, as that's an indication of cheap energy available to the common man, and in the 20th century fossil CO2 emissions didn't kill anyone, cause birth defects, wipe out inland seas and rivers, and generally denude the landscape. BTW, in 2008-9 CO2 per capita fell in the USA.

 

[mikelepore]

Some explanation for those of you who indicated that you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "libertarian socialism":

The term is used by various groups and individuals, with some overlap of the following characteristics.

(1) All libertarian socialists say that assemblies of workers, sometimes directly, sometimes through committees of recallable delegates, should perform the workplace management role, without any top-down appointees, and without any involvement of the legal system or the political system.

There is almost universal agreement among people who call themselves libertarian socialists that there is nothing socialist, and nothing seen as a step in the direction of socialism, about the government nationalizing anything, taking control of anything, regulating anything, or passing a reform of anything. A system is socialist only if an organization of workers, not government-affiliated, independently forms and runs the administration that gets installed as the management. When government runs something, it's usually called "state capitalism."

For example, there is nothing socialist about the government-owned educational system, evidence for which can be seen immediately in the ways in which the school principal and superintendent got their jobs and keep their jobs. If the local teachers were to elect the principal and superintendent, that would be a socialist measure. Furthermore, the state that owns the educational system also has the general power to enact laws, therefore it isn't purely a workplace planning body, and therefore there is no socialism in it.

(2) Pursuant to the fact that the word "libertarian" simply means "a supporter of liberty", a term which no particular sect can ever own, libertarian socialists are the strongest supporters of personal liberty. They condemn and oppose the so-called "socialist" totalitarian states in which individuals are denied freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other basic rights.

Here, Lenin is generally viewed as the starting point of the abandonment of true principles. Some trace the blame back to Marx refusing to take some good advice from Bakunin.

(3) Many libertarian socialists, perhaps a majority of them, making what I consider to be a serious error, argue that there should be no government at all, that there should be _only_ economic administration. These are usually the ones that use the name "anarchism." Try to explain to them that even the best society will occasionally have to jail murderers, etc., and therefore the role of law maker and enforcer cannot be completely eliminated, and they will accuse you of having a "ahistorical" view that "human nature is fixed." Those who have this last characteristic tend to identify all "authority" and "coercion" as the objects that need to be abolished.

This anti-government attitude has its roots in Marx and Engels, who wrote about "an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism ... there will be no more political power ..." [1] "the government of persons is replaced by the administrations of things, and by the conduct of processes of production" [2], "the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear ... public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions ..." [3]

[1] Marx, 'The Poverty of Philosophy'
[2] Engels, 'Anti-Duhring' and 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific'
[3] Engels, 'On Authority'

 

[Galteeth]

If you read the earlier portion of the thread you will see where "Libertarian Socialism" is a term apparently used to describe Anarchistic style "government".

You also give an odd description of Socialism. Socialism is a political philosophy based on the idea of communal ownership/management of resources. It is not in fact "government giving handouts".

Correct, however, it's worth noting: All Libertarian Socialists are anarchists, whereas not all anarchists are libertarian socialists.

 

[mheslep]

Socialism is a political philosophy based on the idea of communal ownership/management of resources.

Yes, which unless you propose socialism under anarchy, inescapably leads to redistribution by government, or in other words

[...] "government giving handouts".

is correct.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't know - I suppose.

I believe that a major interest in using this as a term for Anarchism was to give Anarchism a more credible face as most people see it as only a fantasy of rebellious teenagers. In some cases it might also be an admittance that some very limited form of government may be necessary.

I think that is a better explanation. I'm having a hard time differentiating that from communism though.

I think that is somewhat the idea. There are plenty of people with their own ideas of how to institute a communist like government and of course they are want to distinguish themselves from one another on certain points of philosophy.

Yes, which unless you propose socialism under anarchy, inescapably leads to redistribution by government, or in other words

is correct.

And we are discussing an anarchist type arrangement.

 

[Al68]

Wealth is created when human activity, both mental and physical, is combined with nature's raw materials, modifying those materials to put them into a form that has a use, such as providing sustentance, comfort, convenience.

Economic transaction is a very general term related to taking money out of one person's pocket and putting it into someone else's pocket. By itself it doesn't create anything.

Of course it does, because the product being sold has more value to the buyer than to the seller. That's the only reason for any transaction to occur in a free market.

You add modifiers to differentiate between the capitalism that can really exist in the physical world and an imaginary form that would be truer to some principle that you call the free market.

The modifier (free market) I added is to differentiate between voluntary capitalist activity and the type of economic system Marx fraudulently describes as "capitalist". Voluntary capitalist activity by workers isn't "imaginary" just because Marxists think that all workers are also Marxists.

In reality, capitalism just means the de facto situation in which a small segment of the population owns the tools but doesn't perform any labor, the majority of population performs the labor but never acquires ownership of the tools, and production gets accomplished through the unavoidable arrangement between those two demographic groups that have diametrically opposite interests, those who own but don't work, and those who work but don't own.

That's not what I've used the word capitalism to mean in any of my posts.

There is a segment in our society that wants to turn back the hand of the clock and return to 19th century laissez faire capitalism, which they call the more "authentic" or "free market" form of capitalism.

Just yesterday afternoon, someone on another website asked, "What would happen if there were free markets without state intervention?"

I replied:

Little children working in factory sweatshops and down in the mines. In the absense of government inspectors, many lethal "accidents" where employers don't have fire exits, don't have safety covers on machines, etc. Unhealthy conditions in meatpacking plants and in the kitchens of restaurants. The rivers, lakes and ground water poisoned by cancer-causing chemicals. Without codes and inspections, buildings collapsing on people. Without labelling requirements, no ability to tell the difference between medicine and snake-oil potions.

You forgot murder and rape, since they also occurred historically in capitalist countries. Seriously, laws against pollution, endangering children, and fraud, like laws against murder and rape, do not constitute an imposed economic system.

I say no. This cannot be, because the people who do all of the work get paid flat salaries and don't receive any of the profits that are linked directly to productivity enhancements, while the absentee owners who receive the profits don't do any of the work. It would be a spooky action-at-a-distance, it would be voodoo, for the method of dividends and capital gains to be the inspiration for the salaried workers.

I don't even know how any of this applies to what I said. I only pointed out the obvious fact that most inventions were invented for profit. I didn't say they were invented by business owners.

The only thing that people need to have the incentive to create new inventions is a way to formally declare the policy that the personnel are made aware of. In one case, a capitalist system, the memo says that we are going to get started making a faster computer chip, because the stockholders want to sell it and become billionaires. In another case, a socialist system, the memo says we are going to get started making a faster computer chip, because this direction has been democratically adopted as a public policy. Either way, workers will choose that career if they enjoy it, and will usually work to the best of their ability.

LOL. You forgot the not so unimportant fact that in capitalism, companies actually pay cash for useful inventions. Cold hard cash as incentive trumps "socialist public policy memos" in the real world.

To change the system is no more of an imposition than not changing it.

It is if the specific change being advocated is to impose by force instead of not impose by force. Using force against fellow humans isn't equivalent to failure to use force against fellow humans.

If people are happy with that condition, fine. If they don't think that it's optimal, they can try to change it. But to feel inhibited from "imposing" any system has no meaning to me.

The current situation is that some are happy with it and some aren't. The libertarian solution is for those unhappy with it to change it for themselves while leaving people alone that want to be left alone.

Whether it has meaning to you or not, imposing such a system by force on those that don't want anything to do with it is "anti-libertarian", which was the point of this thread.

If a company will only give a worker a job on the condition that it can expropriate a profit from that worker, then the worker gets robbed every payday. Every time your employer places a paycheck into your hand, you just got mugged.

Using words like "robbed" and "mugged" to describe voluntary transactions doesn't help your cause.

 

[Galteeth]

I believe that a major interest in using this as a term for Anarchism was to give Anarchism a more credible face as most people see it as only a fantasy of rebellious teenagers. In some cases it might also be an admittance that some very limited form of government may be necessary.


I think that is somewhat the idea. There are plenty of people with their own ideas of how to institute a communist like government and of course they are want to distinguish themselves from one another on certain points of philosophy.


And we are discussing an anarchist type arrangement.

That is incorrect. The different variants of anarchism emerged historically. Anarchists originally were not seen as dangerous teenagers, but a radical threat. The term "libertarian" was originally synonymous with anarchism. The modern, American meaning of the term is a more recent development.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

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

 

[mikelepore]

Al68, I'll let you have the last word on the parts preceding the following two sentences, and challenge these only.

Whether it has meaning to you or not, imposing such a system by force on those that don't want anything to do with it is "anti-libertarian", which was the point of this thread.

In any decision-making event in a world full of people, there are exactly two options: either the majority gets its way and the minority are disappointed, or the minority gets its way and the majority are disappointed. There is no additional option called everyone having the reality and social environment of their choice. You can't both have a bridge going across the river and also not have it. If you have it, those who didn't want it are overpowered, and if you don't have it, those who wanted it are overpowered. This is true for everything that a civilization does. It is likewise true of choosing which economic system to have, which always requires the individual either to live obedient to its rules, or to kill oneself, or to change the system into a different one, there existing no other options. Your concept of not imposing a system on those who don't want it has no parallel in my understanding of what the real world is. When the day comes that at least 51 percent of the people want a socialist reconstruction of society, there should be one, and there will be one. I consider that result to be personal liberty, and, therefore, it's adjective form, libertarian.

Using words like "robbed" and "mugged" to describe voluntary transactions doesn't help your cause.

I use that language because it is most fundamental in any socialist theory, as fundamental as a chemistry course defining an element, or a physics course defining mass, that the standard employment relationship is not voluntary. The employer population group owns the means for sustaining the lives of the worker population group. This relationship is about as voluntary as calling out to a drowning person the offer to throw a floatation device only if the person in the water will say "I agree" to a certain list of conditions. I accept the fact that you don't agree with me on this, but no paraphrase of the case for socialism can omit this point, because if anyone here wishes to understand the concept of socialism then that fact is one of the first principles of lesson number one.

 

[Galteeth]

Al68, I'll let you have the last word on the parts preceding the following two sentences, and challenge these only.
In any decision-making event in a world full of people, there are exactly two options: either the majority gets its way and the minority are disappointed, or the minority gets its way and the majority are disappointed. There is no additional option called everyone having the reality and social environment of their choice. You can't both have a bridge going across the river and also not have it. If you have it, those who didn't want it are overpowered, and if you don't have it, those who wanted it are overpowered. This is true for everything that a civilization does. It is likewise true of choosing which economic system to have, which always requires the individual either to live obedient to its rules, or to kill oneself, or to change the system into a different one, there existing no other options. Your concept of not imposing a system on those who don't want it has no parallel in my understanding of what the real world is. When the day comes that at least 51 percent of the people want a socialist reconstruction of society, there should be one, and there will be one. I consider that result to be personal liberty, and, therefore, it's adjective form, libertarian.
I use that language because it is most fundamental in any socialist theory, as fundamental as a chemistry course defining an element, or a physics course defining mass, that the standard employment relationship is not voluntary. The employer population group owns the means for sustaining the lives of the worker population group. This relationship is about as voluntary as calling out to a drowning person the offer to throw a floatation device only if the person in the water will say "I agree" to a certain list of conditions. I accept the fact that you don't agree with me on this, but no paraphrase of the case for socialism can omit this point, because if anyone here wishes to understand the concept of socialism then that fact is one of the first principles of lesson number one.

What you are missing out with is how dissension is dealt with. A system where people who refuse to go along with the will of the majority is not "libertarian."

The example you give of the drowning man is a little bit silly, but the difference is choices determined by necessity or perceived necessity versus those created by force. Libertarianism in the american, non-socialist sense includes the right of defence of property, and I agree with you, under such a situation, economic relationships are not strictly voluntary. But keep in mind, overly broad terms can lead to confusion, and let's not conflate right libertarianism with left libertarianism with the broad umbrella of anarchism.

There are anarchist schools of thought that hold the idea of private property is important, but it should only be respected voluntarily.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I use that language because it is most fundamental in any socialist theory, as fundamental as a chemistry course defining an element, or a physics course defining mass, that the standard employment relationship is not voluntary.

The terms are standard to rhetoric and disingenuous debate tactics. There is no easier way to make your opponent appear in the wrong and yourself appear ethically superior than to simply describe all those things you are arguing against as "theft", "stealing", "mugging", "coercion", "oppression", ect. If your audience eats it up then you do not even have to argue the logic of your position because it is obviously evident that "theft" and "oppression" are "wrong".

And you can always say that if your opponent will not accept the "truth" of these things then you see no reason to continue discussing this with them. In short, it does not get you anywhere. If you would like a real two way discussion where you may learn from one another then you ought to consider more dispassionate terms for your arguments.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That is incorrect. The different variants of anarchism emerged historically. Anarchists originally were not seen as dangerous teenagers, but a radical threat. The term "libertarian" was originally synonymous with anarchism. The modern, American meaning of the term is a more recent development.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

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

Thank you. I had never really looked into the history of the term.

 

[Al68]

In any decision-making event in a world full of people, there are exactly two options: either the majority gets its way and the minority are disappointed, or the minority gets its way and the majority are disappointed. There is no additional option called everyone having the reality and social environment of their choice.

That's right. But my side's agenda doesn't include obtaining a "reality and social environment" of our choice. It's specifically about not trying to control the "reality and social environment".

You can't both have a bridge going across the river and also not have it. If you have it, those who didn't want it are overpowered, and if you don't have it, those who wanted it are overpowered. This is true for everything that a civilization does.

But it is not true for things that individuals do in the absence of forceful objection. Capitalism is something that individuals do, not that a civilization does as a whole.

It is likewise true of choosing which economic system to have, which always requires the individual either to live obedient to its rules, or to kill oneself, or to change the system into a different one, there existing no other options.

That's why I'm against any economic system being politically chosen. Not choosing an economic system politically is the other option.

Why is libertarianism so often discounted as an option? Your "two option" analysis is like claiming there are only two options in the abortion debate: choose abortion for the pregnant woman or choose for her to have the child? Not making the choice for her at all isn't a third option?

Your concept of not imposing a system on those who don't want it has no parallel in my understanding of what the real world is.

The real world is a place where people routinely make personal decisions on their own, with no need for a system imposed by society for that purpose. Capitalism was never imposed in the U.S. In fact, historically, and currently, voluntary socialism is practiced in the U.S. by many.

When the day comes that at least 51 percent of the people want a socialist reconstruction of society, there should be one, and there will be one. I consider that result to be personal liberty, and, therefore, it's adjective form, libertarian.

That's not what the word libertarian means. The word liberty doesn't mean getting what one wants. It certainly doesn't mean getting to choose what the rest of society does. It means the opposite of that.

What do you propose to do about the minority who refuse to participate? What would the penalty be for practicing capitalism after such a "socialist reconstruction"?

I put that in bold because it's the most important aspect of the issue given the penalties imposed historically by Marxist governments. And it's the question most avoided by those advocating Marxism.

Note that there is no penalty in the U.S. for practicing (voluntary) socialism or communism. It's perfectly legal and is practiced by many groups.

I use that language because it is most fundamental in any socialist theory, as fundamental as a chemistry course defining an element, or a physics course defining mass, that the standard employment relationship is not voluntary.

It's voluntary by the standard definition of the word voluntary, because the employment relationship exists as a result of mutual agreement. Why is it fundamental in socialist theory to define words differently than their standard definition? Marx did it for the purpose of "bait and switch" tactics to avoid honest debate.

The employer population group owns the means for sustaining the lives of the worker population group. This relationship is about as voluntary as calling out to a drowning person the offer to throw a floatation device only if the person in the water will say "I agree" to a certain list of conditions.

This is simply not true. My labor is the means to sustain my life, and I own it. Workers have what employers need: labor. Does that mean employers are at the mercy of the "worker population group"?

According to simple logic, each party entering an agreement does so because it serves their needs. That's what voluntary means.

 

[Galteeth]

That's right. But my side's agenda doesn't include obtaining a "reality and social environment" of our choice. It's specifically about not trying to control the "reality and social environment".
But it is not true for things that individuals do in the absence of forceful objection. Capitalism is something that individuals do, not that a civilization does as a whole.That's why I'm against any economic system being politically chosen. Not choosing an economic system politically is the other option.

Why is libertarianism so often discounted as an option? Your "two option" analysis is like claiming there are only two options in the abortion debate: choose abortion for the pregnant woman or choose for her to have the child? Not making the choice for her at all isn't a third option?The real world is a place where people routinely make personal decisions on their own, with no need for a system imposed by society for that purpose. Capitalism was never imposed in the U.S. In fact, historically, and currently, voluntary socialism is practiced in the U.S. by many.That's not what the word libertarian means. The word liberty doesn't mean getting what one wants. It certainly doesn't mean getting to choose what the rest of society does. It means the opposite of that.

What do you propose to do about the minority who refuse to participate? What would the penalty be for practicing capitalism after such a "socialist reconstruction"?

I put that in bold because it's the most important aspect of the issue given the penalties imposed historically by Marxist governments. And it's the question most avoided by those advocating Marxism.

Note that there is no penalty in the U.S. for practicing (voluntary) socialism or communism. It's perfectly legal and is practiced by many groups.It's voluntary by the standard definition of the word voluntary, because the employment relationship exists as a result of mutual agreement. Why is it fundamental in socialist theory to define words differently than their standard definition? Marx did it for the purpose of "bait and switch" tactics to avoid honest debate.This is simply not true. My labor is the means to sustain my life, and I own it. Workers have what employers need: labor. Does that mean employers are at the mercy of the "worker population group"?

According to simple logic, each party entering an agreement does so because it serves their needs. That's what voluntary means.

The distinction here again is what "choice" means. In the libertarian point of view, as AL86 is recognizing, "free choice" means choice without the threat of coercive force. It obvioulsy does not mean having whatever one wishes come true.

 

[vici10]

The most generally accepted figure appears to be about 20 million killed by the government in the Stalin era.

So you only talk about crimes under one crazy man Stalin. USSR existed before Stalin came to power and after him too.
I do not know where did you take that most acceptable figure is 20 millions. Acceptable by whom?
Robert Conquest that you cite based his research mostly on stories of emigres. He did not have access to the archives, and hence his figure that he made in 60's is purely speculative.

Regarding Simon Sebag Montefiore, it seems from the reviews that being a journalist, he primary concentrated on the personal character of Stalin and his entourage. I do not have an access to his book, to see how he compiled the number 20,000,000. It was said in one of the reviews that he used NKVD archives in some new 'original' way. But according to
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/in-tolstoys-footsteps/story-e6frg8nf-1111116325533"
he even does not speak Russian language.

Now regarding NKVD archives in GARF (former TsGAOR) that was open in 1990. The first people who published data from the archives were Russian historians A.N Dugin, V.N Zemskov, Xlevnjuk and others.
One can find publication of V.N Zemskov here http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA371426"
published by Academy of Science.

J. Arts Getty, T. Ritterbersporn and V.N. Zemskov published the numbers from the archives in “Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years.” in American Historical Review October 1993.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA371426"

According to NKVD archives:
number of people convicted for anti-revolutionary and other anti-goverment activities for the period of 1921 по 1953 are:
- executed – 799,455
- prisons, labour camps and jails – 2,634,397
- exile – 413,512
- other measures – 215,942
Total – 4060306
Source: ГАРФ, ф.9401, оп.1, д.4157, л.201-205 (Garf f. 9401, op 1)

There is a criticism of this statistics. The criticism says that it does not consider people as executed who died after they were released from the camps. Also not all that were convicted under criminal charges were guilty. One can see the criticism and discussion in EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 54, No. 7, 2002, 1151–1172
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/SovietCrimes.pdf"

In any case, numbers are much much smaller than 20,000,000 that you cite.

According to you, mheslep,

asserting that imagination is in fact a reality upon which one builds an argument is very much a lie, and a not uncommon one in my experience.

Conquest did not have data to support his claims since the archives were closed, but he still constructed his theory. According to your definition (that you used to claim that Veblen is a fraud) Conquest lied. I disagree with your definition of lie, it is not a dictionary definition.

In any case number above are still big. Stalin's crimes cannot be justified.

Now back to 20,000,000 number. This is number of Soviet citizens that were killed during German-Fascist invasion of USSR. This is also the number that went through justice system in Soviet Union during twenty years between 1930's and 1950's.
Just to put things into perspective, according to USA Bureau of Justice Statistics,

In 2008, over 7.3 million people were under some form of correctional supervision

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/corr2.gif


Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys
(The Annual Probation Survey, National Prisoner Statistics
Program, Annual Survey of Jails, and Annual Parole Survey)
as presented inCorrectional Populations in the United States, anuual,
Prisoners in 2008, and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/corr2.cfm"

 

[mikelepore]

The terms are standard to rhetoric and disingenuous debate tactics. There is no easier way to make your opponent appear in the wrong and yourself appear ethically superior than to simply describe all those things you are arguing against as "theft", "stealing", "mugging", "coercion", "oppression", ect. If your audience eats it up then you do not even have to argue the logic of your position because it is obviously evident that "theft" and "oppression" are "wrong".

And you can always say that if your opponent will not accept the "truth" of these things then you see no reason to continue discussing this with them. In short, it does not get you anywhere. If you would like a real two way discussion where you may learn from one another then you ought to consider more dispassionate terms for your arguments.

Politics is all about preferences and value judgements. In a factual subject, say, physical science, we don't have any references to fighting injustice, but in politics no debate will avoid it. I appear to be doing it excessively only because my viewpoints are extreme relative to this historical period, just as in medieval times anyone who thought that society could get along without having a monarch was a crackpot. But if this were a less radical subject of political conversation, say, a town budget proposal or a requested zoning variance, people would still make the leap right away from discussing facts to what they perceive to be fighting injustice. It's the same here, with the exception that my position stands out as a more radical one.

When you say the logic of a position, which question do you mean? There are some factual matters involved. It is a fact that someone who inherits a billion dollars, as some of the Gettys, Fords and Hearsts have, will not be performing any activities that produce wealth, such as planting seeds, digging ore, assembling units, driving trucks, etc. So we have the situation that John Stuart Mill cited in his "Principles of Political Economy" (1865), "... that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labour, the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work grows harder and more disagreeable..." That the situation is unjust and should be discontinued is only my moral judgment; that the situation exists is a fact.

 

[mikelepore]

Al68, this is the part of your post that is new, in the sense that we haven't already covered it:

What do you propose to do about the minority who refuse to participate? What would the penalty be for practicing capitalism after such a "socialist reconstruction"?

What do you mean by "refuse to participate"?

The workers in every industry would have the right to elect their own managers and supervisors. Those who don't wish to vote can decide not to vote. By this decision not to vote, they would be saying by default that those who vote may make the election, as in our present political system.

In a nonprofit economic system, workers would be entitled to the full equivalent of their labor, not a mere fraction as under capitalism. If someone doesn't want to receive the full proceeds of their labor, and they would prefer to receive only a fraction of it, they may, if they wish, take most of their weekly income and throw it into the garbage. If they do that, they would be right back in the identical situation that they were in under capitalism, receiving only a small fraction of the equivalent of their labor. However, I don't believe that anyone would do that.

I put that in bold because it's the most important aspect of the issue given the penalties imposed historically by Marxist governments. And it's the question most avoided by those advocating Marxism.

The political movement where I have my origins explains that there have never existed any Marxist governments, that is, democratic control of the industries by the working people, in a non-hierarchical system of self-management, where the office holders are not bosses but rather easily-revocable delegates. Every governments that has claimed to be Marxist has had a private organization in power, a particular political party, and there were no contested elections to permit challenges to the rule of that private organization. These governments were actually Leninist, although it is customary to call them Marxist.

The USSR style of society was a new kind of class rule, for which there is no name in Marxism because it was invented 34 years after Marx died. De Leonists call the USSR type of class rule "bureaucratic state despotism", although Trotskyists call it by the more approving name, a "degenerated and deformed workers' state." Anarchists and syndicalists usually call the USSR system "state capitalism", a name which accurately conveys the point that that the workers were denied any democratic participation in the administration process.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Politics is all about preferences and value judgements. In a factual subject, say, physical science, we don't have any references to fighting injustice, but in politics no debate will avoid it. I appear to be doing it excessively only because my viewpoints are extreme relative to this historical period, just as in medieval times anyone who thought that society could get along without having a monarch was a crackpot. But if this were a less radical subject of political conversation, say, a town budget proposal or a requested zoning variance, people would still make the leap right away from discussing facts to what they perceive to be fighting injustice. It's the same here, with the exception that my position stands out as a more radical one.

When you say the logic of a position, which question do you mean? There are some factual matters involved. It is a fact that someone who inherits a billion dollars, as some of the Gettys, Fords and Hearsts have, will not be performing any activities that produce wealth, such as planting seeds, digging ore, assembling units, driving trucks, etc. So we have the situation that John Stuart Mill cited in his "Principles of Political Economy" (1865), "... that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labour, the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work grows harder and more disagreeable..." That the situation is unjust and should be discontinued is only my moral judgment; that the situation exists is a fact.

I am certainly guilty myself of using charged rhetoric to lay out my opinions. In discussing copyright issues I have referred to corporations as "fats cats holding our culture hostage". When I am not making pronouncements of my opinion, but rather discussion the logic of my position, I remove the inflammatory and try to use neutral terms that will be more agreeable to those with whom I am making discussion.

Your post here is rather devoid of terms such as "ruling class", "oppressors", and even the common term "bourgeoisie" often taken as an epithet . It makes the discussion more approachable. The person with whom you are discussing these ideas needs not wrangle over any obvious value judgments inherent in your terms.

On the matter you mention of accrued wealth, if you would mind discussing it, I am wondering what safeguards there would be to prevent accrued wealth? If I am reimbursed, in whatever fashion, for my work and I decide to cinch my belt and set aside currency for later use I will be accruing wealth yes? I would not imagine that you would be averse to one spending currency on one's own family and friends to assist them or for some gift. If I have the right to save and I have the right to do with my "wealth" as I see fit then is there not the probability that we will find ourselves with the same outcome of amassed wealth and inheritances?

 

[mikelepore]

The distinction here again is what "choice" means. In the libertarian point of view, as AL86 is recognizing, "free choice" means choice without the threat of coercive force. It obvioulsy does not mean having whatever one wishes come true.

In some cases the coercive force that prevents a choice from being a free one is originated by one of the parties to the negotiation, as in the case of saying "If you will confess to withcraft, then I won't put you on the rack." In other cases, the coercive force that prevents the choice from being a free one is originated elsewhere in the environment, and it is simply found by one of the parties, who can then take advantage of it, as in the case where I encounter a person dangling over a cliff, and I tell that person "I will lower a rope to you if you will agree to be my servant." People making the pro-capitalist argument only recognize the case where the coercion is introduced by one of the parties. They don't recognize the case where the coercion is found as-is and someone who comes along can take advantage of it. The class-based coersion that exists under capitalism is of the latter type. The capitalist doesn't force the worker to enter into employment. It is only a found situation that is to be exploited. We are not the kind of animal that has the means of survival as part of our own bodies, as in the case of the eagle's wings and talons, the bear's claws, or the cheetah's fast legs. We are the kind of animal that has the means of survival located outside of ouselves in the tools that have been developed. The tools have become too large and complex to be supplied spontaneously without a huge amount of capital; for example, the role that used to be the village blacksmith is now the role of a few giant steel corporations. The modern capitalist finds this historical trend and takes advantage of it. Although the capitalist hasn't used an force personally, this historical result makes the people who own the tools the rulers over the lives of the people who don't own the tools.

 

[mikelepore]

On the matter you mention of accrued wealth, if you would mind discussing it, I am wondering what safeguards there would be to prevent accrued wealth? If I am reimbursed, in whatever fashion, for my work and I decide to cinch my belt and set aside currency for later use I will be accruing wealth yes? I would not imagine that you would be averse to one spending currency on one's own family and friends to assist them or for some gift. If I have the right to save and I have the right to do with my "wealth" as I see fit then is there not the probability that we will find ourselves with the same outcome of amassed wealth and inheritances?

I see no problem with amassed wealth in the form of a saving account and spending power. I'm in favor of owning a home and bequeathing it to one's children. I'm also in favor of private trade in the kinds of goods that can be produced with simple tools that are available to anyone: the baker's utensils, the barber's scissors, the musician's violin.

The only kinds of private property that form a problem to society are the property that other people must depend on having access to if they are going to survive, which means the industries and services, and the land that supplies the raw materials and the locations for placing the industries. Certain things should not be acquired by individuals, and those things should not be up for sale for individual consideration, regardless of how much money someone has saved. House: up for sale. Coal mine: not up for sale. Some reasonable amount of land circumscribing a house, for use in making a private yard: up for sale. A large lot suitable for building a factory: not up for sale.

The land question is the main problem. I have never seen a good proposal by any socialist on how to manage land distribution. I see two main problems related to land distribution, and for these problems I don't have any suggestions or preferences on how to handle them:

(1) There is no rational way to put a price on land. If we had a system in which products are assigned prices according to the amount of labor required to produce them, and land isn't produced at all, then the algorithm offers no solution.

(2) There would have to be some threshold that causes private residential land to revert back to public ownership if the inheritance of residential-sized areas after many generations causes a concentration into an industrial-sized area.

 

[Al68]

What do you mean by "refuse to participate"?

I mean refusal to allow socialists to take ownership of one's labor. But you didn't answer my "new" question: What would the penalty be for practicing capitalism after such a "socialist reconstruction"?

In a nonprofit economic system, workers would be entitled to the full equivalent of their labor, not a mere fraction as under capitalism.

That's just not how capitalism works. Marx ignores the fact that the employment itself (capitalism) increases the value of the labor from having less value than what is paid to having more value than what is paid. The labor has more value than the wages to the employer and the wages have more value than the labor to the worker. That's why the employment agreement is mutually beneficial.

Should employers use Marxist logic to demand a rebate on all wages paid because the wages paid exceeded the value the labor to the worker? Is an employer "entitled" to that difference?

In other cases, the coercive force that prevents the choice from being a free one is originated elsewhere in the environment, and it is simply found by one of the parties, who can then take advantage of it, as in the case where I encounter a person dangling over a cliff, and I tell that person "I will lower a rope to you if you will agree to be my servant." People making the pro-capitalist argument only recognize the case where the coercion is introduced by one of the parties. They don't recognize the case where the coercion is found as-is and someone who comes along can take advantage of it.

This is simply not true. In free market capitalism, agreements made under duress, or coerced, are not considered valid agreements, regardless of whether or not the duress or coercion is caused by a party to the contract.

But being subject to the human condition, vastly improved to one far better than 99.99% of humans who ever lived, just doesn't qualify as coercion.

The class-based coersion that exists under capitalism is of the latter type. The capitalist doesn't force the worker to enter into employment. It is only a found situation that is to be exploited.

Again, you are using the word coercion as a synonym for economic liberty and labor self-ownership. And you're using the word exploited to mean entering a mutually beneficial relationship. By that definition, each worker "exploits" his employer, since the employer is coerced by virtue of the fact that he would benefit from the deal.

I'll close this post with two questions:

Can you accurately portray your, or Marx's, objections to capitalism without using any words figuratively (such as hyperbole), using words only with their standard definitions (or supplying the definition for non-standard words), and not making any factual claims without supplying evidence that they are true? (I'm not saying that any of those things are wrong, just that a valid objection should be capable of explanation without them.)

What would or should the penalty be for practicing capitalism after a "socialist reconstruction"?

 

[Galteeth]

In some cases the coercive force that prevents a choice from being a free one is originated by one of the parties to the negotiation, as in the case of saying "If you will confess to withcraft, then I won't put you on the rack." In other cases, the coercive force that prevents the choice from being a free one is originated elsewhere in the environment, and it is simply found by one of the parties, who can then take advantage of it, as in the case where I encounter a person dangling over a cliff, and I tell that person "I will lower a rope to you if you will agree to be my servant." People making the pro-capitalist argument only recognize the case where the coercion is introduced by one of the parties. They don't recognize the case where the coercion is found as-is and someone who comes along can take advantage of it. The class-based coersion that exists under capitalism is of the latter type. The capitalist doesn't force the worker to enter into employment. It is only a found situation that is to be exploited. We are not the kind of animal that has the means of survival as part of our own bodies, as in the case of the eagle's wings and talons, the bear's claws, or the cheetah's fast legs. We are the kind of animal that has the means of survival located outside of ouselves in the tools that have been developed. The tools have become too large and complex to be supplied spontaneously without a huge amount of capital; for example, the role that used to be the village blacksmith is now the role of a few giant steel corporations. The modern capitalist finds this historical trend and takes advantage of it. Although the capitalist hasn't used an force personally, this historical result makes the people who own the tools the rulers over the lives of the people who don't own the tools.

Fair enough. I don't agree but I understan what you are saying. I personally see a moral difference between coercion through direct force and indirect coercion through the circumstances of the environment or society. I don't think, for example, social pressures to conform are absolutely immoral unless they are backed with direct coercive force.

EDIT: Thinking about it further, free choice is meaningless without consequence, whether intended or unintended.

 

[Al68]

Fair enough. I don't agree but I understan what you are saying. I personally see a moral difference between coercion through direct force and indirect coercion through the circumstances of the environment or society. I don't think, for example, social pressures to conform are absolutely immoral unless they are backed with direct coercive force.

EDIT: Thinking about it further, free choice is meaningless without consequence, whether intended or unintended.

That last statement is a key point. The word coercion (or duress) doesn't mean simply that a decision has consequences.

But that does illustrate the standard that Marxists have for society: That adults shouldn't be free to make (or need to make) decisions that have personal financial consequences for them. The Marxist standard for adults is virtually identical to the libertarian standard for children.

 

[mheslep]

... I do not know where did you take that most acceptable figure is 20 millions. Acceptable by whom?

The historians I referenced, Montefiore and Conquest, to start. As far as I can from reading reviews, most historical scholars, certainly not all, side generally with Conquest et al. That's just my take <shrug>, but also according to Conquest the figure was standard in Russia as of 1990:

[...]reckoned the dead at no fewer than 20 million. This figure is now given in the USSR. And the general total of "repressed" is now stated (e.g. in the new high school textbooks) as around 40 million, about half of them in the peasant terror of 1929 to 1933, and the other half from 1937 to 1953.

He did not have access to the archives, and hence his figure that he made in 60's is purely speculative.

No, look again. The reference I provided was https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/...reviewA/#reader_0195071328"&tag=pfamazon01-20, (re)written in 1990. A great bit of it is available online at the link.

 

[mikelepore]

I'll close this post with two questions:

Can you accurately portray your, or Marx's, objections to capitalism without using any words figuratively (such as hyperbole), using words only with their standard definitions (or supplying the definition for non-standard words), and not making any factual claims without supplying evidence that they are true? (I'm not saying that any of those things are wrong, just that a valid objection should be capable of explanation without them.)

Marx focused on this: Capitalism is a fabulous way to take humanity out of the age of feudalism and introduce the large-scale plant with mechanized mass production for the first time. Its mission was already fulfilled a long time ago. Feudalism is completely gone. We're already in the industrial age. Now we're ready for the next historical step, introducing a conscious and rational plan to replace the chaotic randomness of the market. Discussion of this point is the topic of most of the Communist Manifesto, where it is presented more clearly than I can explain it.

However in this forum I have focused on these two approaches:

(1) The various economic trends. Capitalism is based on the systematic extraction of wealth from those who produce it by those who live on inheritances and do not contribute to production. As anyone has ever played poker knows, the inevitable effect of economic competition is always to concentrate more and more of the wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. The worker's remuneration is typically the price of a surplus generic commodity placed on the auction block and subjected to the forces of supply and demand. Although productivity in the age of automation continues to rise sharply, working don't see this trend in their wages.

(2) The hundreds of social problems caused by capitalism. Corporate money corrupts the political process. Governments prop up dictators that are friendly to business interests. The law usually gives companies that harm the environment decades to switch over to new methods. Sick people can't afford their medications. Workers get maimed in industrial "accidents" because management ignores worker reports of hazards, concentrates on cutting costs, and requires fatigued workers to work overtime. The loss of a job is one of the leading causes of suicide. Such behavioral problems such as domestic violence, school dropout, and teenage pregnancy are strongly correlated with low family income. Retired workers find that their pensions don't come close to the cost of living. Companies will only do the responsible thing when the government forces them to, as when General Electric had to be forced by court actions to dredge the Hudson River to clean up the PCB that it had poisoned the river with. One could go on making this list all day and all night -- there no end to it. The bottom line is, social problems in general are caused by one or more of these characteristics of capitalism: economic stratification, the lack of workers' democratic control, or the desire for private profits.

What would or should the penalty be for practicing capitalism after a "socialist reconstruction"?

Although it's clear to you what you mean by practicing capitalism, but you haven't said what practice you have in mind. I would guess that you're not thinking of one of the nastiest activities, like the decades of U.S. imperialism in foreign countries, the U.S. military conquest of the mines in Nicaragua and the plantations in Guatemala. The company that made the aircrafts to bomb Vietnam was practicing capitalism. The heroin pusher is practicing capitalism. But you're probably thinking of some harmless little activity like operating a lemonade stand or a popcorn stand -- because you're unable to recognize the existence of a complex and worldwide system that has many interwoven consequences. All you're able to recognize is two individuals at a time voluntarily negotiating a contract.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Although it's clear to you what you mean by practicing capitalism, but you haven't said what practice you have in mind. I would guess that you're not thinking of one of the nastiest activities, like the decades of U.S. imperialism in foreign countries, the U.S. military conquest of the mines in Nicaragua and the plantations in Guatemala. The company that made the aircrafts to bomb Vietnam was practicing capitalism. The heroin pusher is practicing capitalism. But you're probably thinking of some harmless little activity like operating a lemonade stand or a popcorn stand -- because you're unable to recognize the existence of a complex and worldwide system that has many interwoven consequences. All you're able to recognize is two individuals at a time voluntarily negotiating a contract.

So... you're suggesting firing squad at dawn, or hanging at high noon?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Now we're ready for the next historical step, introducing a conscious and rational plan to replace the chaotic randomness of the market.

...with the benevolent guidance of Brother Number One?

 

[Al68]

Capitalism is based on the systematic extraction of wealth from those who produce it by those who live on inheritances and do not contribute to production. As anyone has ever played poker knows, the inevitable effect of economic competition is always to concentrate more and more of the wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

This is simply not capitalism, for at least three reasons. First, the poker analogy illustrates quite clearly the flaw in Marxist reasoning, since unlike poker, in capitalism pre-existing wealth isn't simply transferred from one person to another. The process itself creates the resulting wealth. It's as if the act of playing poker created the money in the pot, instead of playing with pre-existing money.

Second, capitalism isn't based on any "extraction" of any pre-existing wealth. No capitalist transaction ever occurs that doesn't create wealth, ie increase the wealth of each party involved.

Transactions that don't increase the wealth of each party are by definition not capitalism. For example acts of charity, fraud, and theft are not acts of capitalism, they are exceptions to capitalism because the acts themselves only transfer instead of create wealth.

Third, the implication that capital is owned primarily by those "living on inheritances" is simply factually untrue. The majority of rich people in the U.S. are self-made. In addition, the bulk of corporate stock owned in the U.S. currently is owned by individual retirement funds, ie 401k's, IRA's, etc.

Although it's clear to you what you mean by practicing capitalism, but you haven't said what practice you have in mind. I would guess that you're not thinking of one of the nastiest activities, like the decades of U.S. imperialism in foreign countries, the U.S. military conquest of the mines in Nicaragua and the plantations in Guatemala. The company that made the aircrafts to bomb Vietnam was practicing capitalism. The heroin pusher is practicing capitalism. But you're probably thinking of some harmless little activity like operating a lemonade stand or a popcorn stand -- because you're unable to recognize the existence of a complex and worldwide system that has many interwoven consequences. All you're able to recognize is two individuals at a time voluntarily negotiating a contract.

I'm perfectly capable of recognizing all of the above, but capitalism isn't any of them by definition, except the last one.

Clearly, imperialism, conquest, building aircraft, and pushing heroin can and does co-exist with both capitalism or socialism, but aren't inherently part of the definition of either. Do you really want to compare the types of actions that have historically co-existed with different economic systems?

By capitalism, I mean the act of individuals claiming personal ownership of the product of their own labor and selling, buying, or trading it with others as they see fit, independently of any political or legally imposed "economic system".

So, if that explanation is clear enough:

What would or should the penalty be for practicing capitalism after a "socialist reconstruction"?

 

[mheslep]

Third, the implication that capital is owned primarily by those "living on inheritances" is simply factually untrue. The majority of rich people in the U.S. are self-made.

Yes, though it wasn't necessarily that way in Marx's day. Things have changed today however, and there's readily available data to show that in large part the "rich" in the US have become the "working rich", i.e. they have replaced the idle rent and dividend collectors of the last century.

The wars generated large Žscal shocks, especially in the
corporate sector that mechanically reduced distributions to stockholders.
We argue that top capital incomes were never able to
fully recover from these shocks, probably because of the dynamic
effects of progressive taxation on capital accumulation and
wealth inequality. We also show that top wage shares were at
from the 1920s until 1940 and dropped precipitously during the
war. Top wage shares have started to recover from the WorldWar
II shock in the late 1960s, and they are now higher than before
World War II. Thus, the increase in top income shares in the last
three decades is the direct consequence of the surge in top wages.
As a result, the composition of income in the top income groups
has shifted dramatically over the century: the working rich have
now replaced the coupon-clipping rentiers. We argue that both
the downturn and the upturn of top wage shares seem too sudden
to be accounted for by technical change alone. Our series suggest
that other factors, such as changes in labor market institutions,
Žscal policy, or more generally social norms regarding pay inequality
may have played important roles in the determination of
the wage structure

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1924144&postcount=3")

 

[vici10]

The historians I referenced, Montefiore and Conquest, to start. As far as I can from reading reviews, most historical scholars, certainly not all, side generally with Conquest et al. That's just my take <shrug>, but also according to Conquest the figure was standard in Russia as of 1990:No, look again. The reference I provided was https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/...reviewA/#reader_0195071328"&tag=pfamazon01-20, (re)written in 1990. A great bit of it is available online at the link.

Interestingly enough, going through the references of Conquest's book, I have not found any direct reference to primary archival material from NKVD archives (GARF).

 

[Al68]

Third, the implication that capital is owned primarily by those "living on inheritances" is simply factually untrue. The majority of rich people in the U.S. are self-made.

Yes, though it wasn't necessarily that way in Marx's day. Things have changed today however, and there's readily available data to show that in large part the "rich" in the US have become the "working rich", i.e. they have replaced the idle rent and dividend collectors of the last century.

That's a good point. In addition to that, the terms rich and poor are relative, not absolute, terms. By the standards of rich and poor in Marx's time, (almost) everyone in the U.S. is rich. And that's a huge understatement.

 

[mikelepore]

Second, capitalism isn't based on any "extraction" of any pre-existing wealth. No capitalist transaction ever occurs that doesn't create wealth, ie increase the wealth of each party involved.

It very easy to demonstrate that there is always a question of how to distribute wealth, and not merely the act of continuously creating it. When workers go into the employer's office and ask for a raise, the employer sometimes says no. There is only one possible reason for ever saying no. The employer knows that a raise for the workers would be equivalent to having less cash retained by the business. There is clearly an issue analogous to dividing a pie -- if some eaters call for larger slices then that could only be achieved by making the slices of the other eaters smaller. If this were not true, then the boss would in every cases be very happy to triple the wages of the workers at any time, this act having no effect on the wealth that the company has left over. But everyone involved knows that something finite is being divided up.

(It's inevitable here that supporters of capitalism will raise the objection to my example that the size of the pie is always changing, but I'm obviously talking about any selected instant in time, so the continuous change in the size of the pie is irrelevant.)

The following illustrious citizens are a few of those who have known a thing or two about the expropriation of wealth from the workers who produce it:

G. P. Getty, $1.9 billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
A. C. Getty Earhart, $670 million inheritance
C. E. Getty Perry, $670 million inheritance
W. C. Ford, $1.4 billion inheritance
J. Ford, $800 million inheritance
R. A. Hearst, $1.4 billion inheritance
W. R. Hearst III, $800 million inheritance
D. W. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
G. R. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
A. Hearst, $700 million inheritance
P. Hearst Cooke, $700 million inheritance
O. M. Dupont Bredin, $500 million inheritance
C. S. Du Pont Darden, $500 million inheritance
I. Du Pont, Jr., $500 million inheritance
I. S. Du Pont May, $500 million inheritance
A. F. Du Pont Mills, $515 million inheritance
J. C. Walton, $6.5 billion inheritance
H. R. Walton, $6.4 billion inheritance
A. L. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
S. R. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
J. T. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
A. K. Walton, $660 million inheritance
L. M. Walton, $660 million inheritance

(Numbers copied from an old issue of Forbes magazine, December 1997)

"Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." --- Marx, "Capital", Chapter 10

 

[mheslep]

... When workers go into the employer's office and ask for a raise, the employer sometimes says no. There is only one possible reason for ever saying no. The employer knows that a raise for the workers would be equivalent to having less cash retained by the business. There is clearly an issue analogous to dividing a pie -- if some eaters call for larger slices then that could only be achieved by making the slices of the other eaters smaller. If this were not true, then the boss would in every cases be very happy to triple the wages of the workers at any time, this act having no effect on the wealth that the company has left over. But everyone involved knows that something finite is being divided up.

I know of other reasons: the company raise budget is indeed going to be given out, but I want to give this particular slice to someone more hard working, more productive for the business (that's usually my top reason), and by doing so reinforce the message that productivity is rewarded in my outfit. Or, times may be tight now and I don't want to lay anyone off and so on.

(It's inevitable here that supporters of capitalism will raise the objection to my example that the size of the pie is always changing, but I'm obviously talking about any selected instant in time, so the continuous change in the size of the pie is irrelevant)

Then the entire proposed premise (raise not given for cash flow reasons) falls apart. A raise refers to a change in a wage which is received over time (future), the justification for which was performance (hopefully) over time (past), and predicted performance over time (future). The argument can't be based on all activity over time on the part of the employee and then insist on only an instantaneous look at the employer's cash flow for sole motivation.

The following illustrious citizens are a few of those who have known a thing or two about the expropriation of wealth from the workers who produce it:

G. P. Getty, $1.9 billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
...

Why not include Einstein (~185 IQ), Yo Yo Ma (cellist, played age 4), and Michael Jordan (4' standing vertical jump) who all inherited their gifts through genes?

 

[mikelepore]

By capitalism, I mean the act of individuals claiming personal ownership of the product of their own labor and selling, buying, or trading it with others as they see fit, independently of any political or legally imposed "economic system".

So, if that explanation is clear enough:

What would or should the penalty be for practicing capitalism after a "socialist reconstruction"?

Your definition of capitalism is the one used only among the 250,000 nationwide members of the Libertarian Party, and not even all of those, but it will have to be enough for now to clarify your question.

I already said this in my post of June 19. I'm in favor of any kind of private trade in goods and services that can be performed with the tools that are readily available to everyone, such as the cook's utensils, the painter's brushes, the barber's scissors, etc.

As for the use of the tools that are not ordinary found around the house, such as the factories, farms, mines, fishing waters, railroads and hospitals, I believe that the private ownership of these tools should be prevented by informing anyone who inquires about buying them that those things are not for sale, regardless of how much saving they may have available to spend on them.

The latter part should be clear enough, because even under capitalism people cannot buy something that hasn't been put up for sale, e.g., if you told the grocer "I don't want to buy the can of beans; I want the display case that the can of beans is sitting on" -- the grocer may say that it's not for sale. I think an economy should be set up such that, if someone says "I didn't come here for a ride on the train; I came here to buy a partial ownership in the railroad" -- the individual should be informed that it's not for sale.

The extent of private land use in a future classless society remains undefined as of today. For example, if it's routine for home owners to trade their garden vegetables, but an individual has no means to become an owner of a plantation, then there would have to be a limit on how large a backyard the home owners may find for sale, buy, and subsequently leave to their offspring, as required to differentiate between a garden and a plantation. I'm not familiar with any socialist proposals about how to settle the ambiguity about land use.

***

To change the subject a little ...

Your concept of transactions performed "independently of any political or legally imposed 'economic system'" would sound mighty strange to anyone educated in law. The world has no way to know who owns any lot except to refer to the deeds recorded at town hall. Contracts are meaningless unless they are enforced by courts and sheriffs. Every sort of piece of paper needed by business, from the investors' prospectus to the patents to the workers' time cards to granddaddy's last will and testament, are all legal documents. The only way capitalism was able to progress beyond the sole proprietor stage and enter the age of the joint stock company was to pass the law saying that the stockholders shall not be prosecuted when their company commits a crime. To identify the one thing that capitalism rests upon most basically, we would have to say it is the power of government to enact and enforce laws. Whatever the legislature creates, it may also repeal. As Benjamin Franklin observed, "Private property is a creature of society, and is subject to the calls of that society."

 

[Al68]

It very easy to demonstrate that there is always a question of how to distribute wealth, and not merely the act of continuously creating it...There is clearly an issue analogous to dividing a pie -- if some eaters call for larger slices then that could only be achieved by making the slices of the other eaters smaller.

Sure, that's an issue, but my point was that in capitalism, unlike poker, each of the people deciding how to divide up the pie helped make the pie, and that's why they must decide how to divide it. And, the agreement on how to divide the pie is made before the pie is made. And importantly, the reason the pie is made is because its makers made an agreement that ensured that each of them would benefit from their role in making the pie. The agreement resulted in the pie. That's not analogous to poker, which only decides how to divide pre-existing wealth.

And I fully realize that pies can be made without such an agreement, but if we're talking about capitalism, we're talking about pies that are the result of such an agreement.

Your definition of capitalism is the one used only among the 250,000 nationwide members of the Libertarian Party, and not even all of those, but it will have to be enough for now to clarify your question.

My definition is the relevant one here because you advocate outlawing the activity I called "capitalism", while I'm against outlawing it. It's my definition that's relevant here, since that's the activity we are disagreeing about.

We are both against the situation you call "capitalism", so that definition isn't very useful here.

As for the use of the tools that are not ordinary found around the house, such as the factories, farms, mines, fishing waters, railroads and hospitals, I believe that the private ownership of these tools should be prevented by informing anyone who inquires about buying them that those things are not for sale, regardless of how much saving they may have available to spend on them.

The latter part should be clear enough, because even under capitalism people cannot buy something that hasn't been put up for sale...

That's not clear at all, since in capitalism, people can in fact buy something after being informed by a third party that it isn't for sale.

Maybe my question wasn't clear: The seller relevant to my question is originally the person(s) who's labor creates the "tool" being sold. The buyer would inquire by asking the seller. Neither would inquire about anything with any agent of the proposed Marxist system.

In other words, what is the penalty for ignoring the Marxist system and practicing capitalism as if the Marxist system didn't exist?

I'll note that this obviously doesn't apply to unimproved land, such as the fishing waters you mentioned. Available land itself is a different issue, like it is with socialism, but I don't want to change the subject here.

Your concept of transactions performed "independently of any political or legally imposed 'economic system'" would sound mighty strange to anyone educated in law. The world has no way to know who owns any lot except to refer to the deeds recorded at town hall. Contracts are meaningless unless they are enforced by courts and sheriffs. Every sort of piece of paper needed by business, from the investors' prospectus to the patents to the workers' time cards to granddaddy's last will and testament, are all legal documents. To identify the one thing that capitalism rests upon most basically, we would have to say it is the power of government to enact and enforce laws.

Obviously, law and order is important, but the power of government to enact and enforce laws doesn't automatically constitute an "economic system". I don't think anyone educated in law would ever consider a "legal system" to automatically and necessarily constitute an "imposed economic system".

Edit: When I refer to capitalism as not being an "imposed economic system", I just mean that the relevant economic decisions that comprise capitalism aren't made by any political or legal institution, they are made individually by the parties to each transaction. In that sense, capitalism is not a "political or legal system which makes the economic decisions for society". I didn't mean that no political or legal system existed, or that one couldn't be beneficial to capitalism's success.

The only way capitalism was able to progress beyond the sole proprietor stage and enter the age of the joint stock company was to pass the law saying that the stockholders shall not be prosecuted when their company commits a crime.

I quoted this out of order to address it separately. I think you're referring to the concept of limited liability which has nothing to do with criminal law, it's about financial liability. It just means that if I own stock in GM, and GM gets sued or otherwise obtains debt, my personal financial liability is limited to the value of my stock. Nobody can sue me for my house because of something I didn't personally do, they can only get what I have invested in the company.

As far as criminal acts, no such law is needed, since no law existed allowing the criminal prosecution of a person for a crime he didn't commit or even know about.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I quoted this out of order to address it separately. I think you're referring to the concept of limited liability which has nothing to do with criminal law, it's about financial liability. It just means that if I own stock in GM, and GM gets sued or otherwise obtains debt, my personal financial liability is limited to the value of my stock. Nobody can sue me for my house because of something I didn't personally do, they can only get what I have invested in the company.

As far as criminal acts, no such law is needed, since no law existed allowing the criminal prosecution of a person for a crime he didn't commit or even know about.

If you are an owner of a business and one of your workers commits a crime while at work and in the process of operating the business, depending on the nature of the crime, you can be held liable. While that worker is on your premises and working for you their actions are your responsibility to a reasonable degree. I believe that those instances where you will be held liable only require that you should reasonably have been aware of the actions of your employee and done something about it, it does not require that you were in fact aware of the crime. In the case of a corporation all of the workers are the employees of the corporate entity, not any particular investor, and no investor will be held liable for the actions of the employees of the company that they own. The only way that they could possibly be held liable at all is if they were aware of the activity and did nothing which would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Galteeth]

I quoted this out of order to address it separately. I think you're referring to the concept of limited liability which has nothing to do with criminal law, it's about financial liability. It just means that if I own stock in GM, and GM gets sued or otherwise obtains debt, my personal financial liability is limited to the value of my stock. Nobody can sue me for my house because of something I didn't personally do, they can only get what I have invested in the company.

As far as criminal acts, no such law is needed, since no law existed allowing the criminal prosecution of a person for a crime he didn't commit or even know about.

The concept of a corporation is troubling from a right anarchist view (note the historical form of anarchism known as mutualism) as well, since collective responsibility is divorced from individual responsibility. It seems essential that some individual must ultimately be responsible for a collectively undertaken action ( a situation where any individual contribution is not per ce harmful but the totality of the action is) or a corporation becomes a means of avoiding responsibility. I think this is one of the reasons the term "corporation" has gotten such a negative modern connotation.

 

[Al68]

If you are an owner of a business and one of your workers commits a crime while at work and in the process of operating the business, depending on the nature of the crime, you can be held liable. While that worker is on your premises and working for you their actions are your responsibility to a reasonable degree. I believe that those instances where you will be held liable only require that you should reasonably have been aware of the actions of your employee and done something about it, it does not require that you were in fact aware of the crime. In the case of a corporation all of the workers are the employees of the corporate entity, not any particular investor, and no investor will be held liable for the actions of the employees of the company that they own. The only way that they could possibly be held liable at all is if they were aware of the activity and did nothing which would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure, my point was only that the concept of "limited liability" as applied to corporations referred to financial liability for the debts of the corporation.

Sure a supervisor can be criminally prosecuted for their indirect role in an employee's crime, but that's because of his supervisory role, not his ownership status. And that's true with corporations as well as unincorporated companies, and is a different issue than limited liability.

 

[Al68]

The concept of a corporation is troubling from a right anarchist view (note the historical form of anarchism known as mutualism) as well, since collective responsibility is divorced from individual responsibility. It seems essential that some individual must ultimately be responsible for a collectively undertaken action ( a situation where any individual contribution is not per ce harmful but the totality of the action is) or a corporation becomes a means of avoiding responsibility. I think this is one of the reasons the term "corporation" has gotten such a negative modern connotation.

Sure, but it's based on a popular misconception. Forming a corporation itself doesn't legally exempt anyone from responsibility for anything. The reason shareholders aren't financially responsible for the debts of a corporation is because they never agreed to be personally responsible as a condition for credit. When a creditor offers credit to a corporation, it knowingly does so in the absence of an agreement by shareholders to personally be responsible for paying it back.

As far as criminal acts, this has been discussed in other threads, and I don't want to sidetrack this one, but a criminal act can be prosecuted against any participant in it. Forming a corporation doesn't legally exempt anyone from prosecution for criminal acts.

 

[vertices]

Sure, but it's based on a popular misconception. Forming a corporation itself doesn't legally exempt anyone from responsibility for anything. The reason shareholders aren't financially responsible for the debts of a corporation is because they never agreed to be personally responsible as a condition for credit. When a creditor offers credit to a corporation, it knowingly does so in the absence of an agreement by shareholders to personally be responsible for paying it back.

As far as criminal acts, this has been discussed in other threads, and I don't want to sidetrack this one, but a criminal act can be prosecuted against any participant in it. Forming a corporation doesn't legally exempt anyone from prosecution for criminal acts.

And this is crux of the issue. Shareholders aren't liable for anything but at the same time, corporations (which have the rights of a flesh and blood person) have a legal obligation to ensure profits for these invisible shareholders are maximised.

The denial of human rights and ecocrimes are cast aside as "externalities". I raised the issue of slavery before because it is the most glaringly obvious example of the consequences of unchecked capitalism.

Examples of modern day slavery in the US include turning Mexico into a virtual sweatshop as a result of Nafta, and instituting modern-day slavery under the pretext of a "war on drugs".

 

[mikelepore]

Maybe my question wasn't clear: The seller relevant to my question is originally the person(s) who's labor creates the "tool" being sold. The buyer would inquire by asking the seller. Neither would inquire about anything with any agent of the proposed Marxist system.

In other words, what is the penalty for ignoring the Marxist system and practicing capitalism as if the Marxist system didn't exist?

Thank you for being patient enough to try to communicate with me although we have such different vocabularies and assumptions.

I don't see why you're assuming that anyone wants penalties. I'm taking the position that certain outcomes cannot arise, so to ask what is the penalty is like asking what should be the penalty for cheating at the horse races by going back to yesterday in a time machine after you find out the name of the winner. There is no penalty because the action cannot occur.

Socialists don't want to stop people from selling their labor. They want a system in which, as soon as someone begins to work at any job of their choice, they immediately acquire the rights of full partnership in the management, just as the citizens in a republic are entitled to certain participations. Socialists want the workplace to be a republic.

You said that I want to "outlaw" capitalism --you can only say that in the same sense that the U.S. Constitution doesn't provide for having any aristocracy, so you might say that the Constitution outlaws every individual aristocrat, but the situation it is better described by saying that an individual never turns out to be an aristocrat in the first place, and therefore doesn't need to be outlawed after having become one.

Note what conclusion follows from the socialist axiom that a profit-based system means that the workers receive only a fraction of the equivalent of their labor. Even if you don't accept that axiom, what does it logically imply? Under capitalism the worker searching for a job may get paid 21 percent with the xxx corporation, or 23 percent with the yyy corporation, or 17 percent with the zzz corporation. Because the worker gets less than 100 percent no matter where he or she goes, there is something called a negotiation process. However, if the system were different such that the worker receives 100 percent no matter where he or chooses to go, then there would be no negotiation, not because it forbidden to negotiate, but because an there would be no fraction to be negotiated.

I don't know where you see any possibiliity of an action that could invoke a penalty. Of course, if someone says "socialism stinks" and that thought makes them so angry that they throw a rock at somebody, then they should be prosecuted for throwing a rock at somebody, and they say "socialism stinks" and that thought makes them so angry that they commit arson, then they should be prosecuted for arson. But I can't visualize the kind of event that you're talking about, in which someone did something purely economic and it isn't tolerated.

Your newest phasing says "the person(s) who's labor creates the 'tool' being sold." People should have the right to create, use or sell any tool they wish. People should have the right to do anything whatsoever as long as they don't infringe on the enumerated rights of others. Insisting on that principle is why we're libertarians. Of course, if, in the process of creating that tool, we were to dump cancer-causing pollution into a river that some other people drink from or fish in, then we should get whatever the penalty is for attempted murder. However, you're not prepared to admit that such anti-social consequences are ordinary parts of capitalism.

You also didn't comprehend my explanation that capitalism cannot exist in an environment in which there is no legal provision to enforce contracts -- a system in which the court and sheriff just say "take your personal squabbles out of here." So it's what government doesn't do, not what it does, that abolishes capitalism.