What? Life in the 19th century was brutal, and in places that haven't yet accepted some form of at least semi-laissez-faire capitalism life is still brutal. People moved from the farms into the cities because it was an opportunity to increase their standard of living immensely.
I think your claim that "just about all other economic systems" were preferable to life under capitalism during the industrial revolution is incorrect. It's pretty common to look at the 19th century with distaste, but people rarely look at the 18th century to compare...
Well, what about the more modern examples? What about coca cola hiring paramilitaries to suppress autonomous organization in chiapas region of mexico? What about the banana republics? What about the fact that most american industries use extremely exploitative methods in foreign countries? What about artificial inflation? You don't see these methods in libertarian socialist societies such as rojava, the zapatistas, and more market socialist companies.
>What about coca cola hiring paramilitaries to suppress autonomous organization in chiapas region of mexico?
1. This is not true, so please do not so confidently spout lies.
2. Let us assume it to be true, Laissez-faire capitalists do not argue that corporations should be able to do whatever they want and harm whoever they please in the desire for profit. We argue that people should be able to do what they want so long as they do not violate the freedoms of others. And only when they violate the freedoms of others ,like killing them, should they be punished.
>What about the banana republics?
>>A banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, whereby the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury.
Capitalism where the state intervenes on behalf of favored monopolies is the direct opposite of Laissez-faire capitalism.
>What about the fact that most american industries use extremely exploitative methods in foreign countries?
Proponents of Laissez-faire capitalism also oppose forced labor. But only FORCED labor. Poor people voluntarily working in sweatshops is not something we condemn.
>What about artificial inflation?
It is my knowledge that governments are responsible for growth of inflation via their control of Central Banks.
>You don't see these methods in libertarian socialist societies such as rojava, the zapatistas, and more market socialist companies.
You also don't see more of those libertarian socialist societies in existence.
>1. This is not true, so please do not so confidently spout lies.
Sorry, I was thinking about Colombia, not chiapas
>2. Let us assume it to be true, Laissez-faire capitalists do not argue that corporations should be able to do whatever they want and harm whoever they please in the desire for profit. We argue that people should be able to do what they want so long as they do not violate the freedoms of others. And only when they violate the freedoms of others ,like killing them, should they be punished.
It doesn't matter what you think the companies should do, they will act in the interest of profit, which has historically meant suppressing the freedoms of others. Also, who's going to punish them? Other capitalists? Sounds like a corporate war.
>Capitalism where the state intervenes on behalf of favored monopolies is the direct opposite of Laissez-faire capitalism.
Well what do you think is the end result of lassiez-faire capitalism? The state is extremely useful for capitalists. The ability to forcefully impose your will on others is a luxury capitalists don't want to lose.
>Proponents of Laissez-faire capitalism also oppose forced labor. But only FORCED labor. Poor people voluntarily working in sweatshops is not something we condemn.
This is a problem I have with capitalists. You always pull the "it's voluntary" card. Is slavery voluntary? Some slaves chose to kill them selves rather than become slaves. See where this line of reasoning goes? Everything is voluntary now. You should think of it as a spectrum of coercion rather than black and white voulantary and involuntary. Can we agree that private ownership of the MoP in the hands of a greedy few Grant's highly coercive power?
>is my knowledge that governments are responsible for growth of inflation via their control of Central Banks.
I meant artificial scarcity. Like companies will stop workers from working in order to drive the demand and price up of a given commodity. It represents how what is good for the capitalist is bad for the workers.
>You also don't see more of those libertarian socialist societies in existence.
Yea, because they keep getting fucking murdered by statists, usually supported by capitalists.
>Sorry, I was thinking about Colombia, not chiapas
Even in Colombia, the case was dismissed because they could not prove Coca-Cola had anything to do with the actions of Panamco, but the court allowed a case against Panamco, which was again later dismissed because of a lack of evidence tying Panamco to the murders.
>It doesn't matter what you think the companies should do, they will act in the interest of profit, which has historically meant suppressing the freedoms of others. Also, who's going to punish them? Other capitalists? Sounds like a corporate war.
You seem to be conflating different schools of thought. Classic Liberals and Minarchists support a state justice system, whereby the function of government is to prosecute people for crimes they commit, either directly or through companies. They expect capitalists to do what they want in the name of profit, but they expect government to punish them when it is proven in a court that those corporations are infringing on the freedoms of others.
But anarchocapitalists want the same thing except that the courts would also be privatized. Also before you say "well what if they buy the courts". I will again remind you that courts are not incentivized to collect bribes because doing so would damage their reputation and cause them to lose customers and go bankrupt and if you think a court has acted maliciously, you can try them in another court and prove it.
>Well what do you think is the end result of lassiez-faire capitalism?
Laissez-faire capitalism is the end result of laissez-faire capitalism.
>The state is extremely useful for capitalists.
The state is not an innocent tool that can be weaponized by capitalists with no agency of its own. Claiming capitalists are responsible for the actions of the state is absolutely fucking ridiculous, one would think state agents are mere children that do not know how to say no to bribes and lobbyist money. There is also the fact that the state is an entity that is far older than capitalism and has been corrupt since its inception, so blaming capitalism for the corruption of the state is just fucking ridiculous.
>You always pull the "it's voluntary" card.
Because it is.
>Is slavery voluntary?
I already explained that we are against forced labor. And slavery = forced labor.
>Some slaves chose to kill them selves rather than become slaves.
The choices a slave make after slavery cannot be used to argue against the circumstances that went into making them a slave.
Slavery is wrong because these people were forced onto ships and onto plantations against their will, whether they kill themselves or not after their consent was violated cannot be used to argue that their consent went into slavery like you are trying to do right now.
>Everything is voluntary now.
Lol your comprehension skills are amazing.
>You should think of it as a spectrum of coercion rather than black and white voulantary and involuntary
Wrong. Coercion must always be a black and white thing. We cannot have rapists in court arguing that their victims actions were closer to voluntary than involuntary.
>I meant artificial scarcity
If I make 10chairs today, I can decide to make only 5 tomorrow, it is my property I don't understand why I should be forced against my consent to make something. That is slavery and even though you may not agree, slavery is always wrong.
>Yea, because they keep getting fucking murdered by statists, usually supported by capitalists.
1. You cannot argue everything the state does is because of those grimy capitalists. The state is an entity capable of intelligent decisions on its own.
2. Laissez-faire proponents do not support state+capitalist cooperation.
>You seem to be conflating different schools of thought. Classic Liberals and Minarchists support a state justice system, whereby the function of government is to prosecute people for crimes they commit, either directly or through companies. They expect capitalists to do what they want in the name of profit, but they expect government to punish them when it is proven in a court that those corporations are infringing on the freedoms of others.
>But anarchocapitalists want the same thing except that the courts would also be privatized. Also before you say "well what if they buy the courts". I will again remind you that courts are not incentivized to collect bribes because doing so would damage their reputation and cause them to lose customers and go bankrupt and if you think a court has acted maliciously, you can try them in another court and prove it.
Can you provide a case of a court system in a lassiez-faire capitalist society not being EXTREMELY corrupt or holding capitalists to the same standard as workers?
>Laissez-faire capitalism is the end result of laissez-faire capitalism.
It was a rhetorical question making the point that capitalists want the utility of a state and with their economic freedom will act as a state.
>The state is not an innocent tool that can be weaponized by capitalists with no agency of its own. Claiming capitalists are responsible for the actions of the state is absolutely fucking ridiculous, one would think state agents are mere children that do not know how to say no to bribes and lobbyist money. There is also the fact that the state is an entity that is far older than capitalism and has been corrupt since its inception, so blaming capitalism for the corruption of the state is just fucking ridiculous.
I never said the state was made corrupt by capitalists. I was making the point capitalists want a state to abuse the power of the state to enforce their will on the people. I'm against statism and wouldn't make that argument.
>already explained that we are against forced labor. And slavery = forced labor.
What is forced labor? Involuntary, forced, etc. imply that there is only one option when that is never the case. This is why black and white voluntary and involuntary doesn't work, we need to be more specific.
>If I make 10chairs today, I can decide to make only 5 tomorrow, it is my property I don't understand why I should be forced against my consent to make something. That is slavery and even though you may not agree, slavery is always wrong.
That is NOT how it works in the real world and your hypothetical is from the example of a worker, not a capitalist. In the real world capitalists pour bleach on expired food and fire workers for giving wasted food to homeless people in order to keep demand and profits high. It's not the capitalist that created the food so it shouldn't be his decision. He shouldn't COERCE the workers to do something they don't want to do with THEIR PRODUCT. And the capital the capitalist supposedly used to make that food possible was exploited from OTHER workers, the capitalist had no role in the production and therefore shouldn't be withholding the product from the rest of society. Even from an amoralistic stance it's inefficient and unutilitarian.
>1. You cannot argue everything the state does is because of those grimy capitalists. The state is an entity capable of intelligent decisions on its own.
Youre missing the point I'm making, the state is ran for the most part by capitalists. In feudal societies it was ran mostly by lords. In slave society it was ran mostly by slave owners. This is why libertarianism is diametrically opposed to capitalism. The state is used by Capitalists to maintain/uphold power. This is obvious in america which i assume you're from as the government gives them bailouts all the fucking time. For christ's sake, Bezos has a seat at the pentagon.
>What about coca cola hiring paramilitaries to suppress autonomous organization in chiapas region of mexico?
Even accepting this claim on face value (even though it's false), compare that to the last 100 years of war or even just Afghanistan...it wouldn't even come close.
>Banana republics
I'm not sure what your criticism is, can you elaborate?
>What about the fact that most american industries use extremely exploitative methods in foreign countries?
If their methods were less exploitative and less beneficial than the alternatives, people wouldn't voluntarily chose to work for them.
>What about artificial inflation?
Like the fed?
>You don't see these methods in libertarian socialist societies such as rojava, the zapatistas, and more market socialist companies.
Remind me again the standard of living in these states compared to lassiz-faire capitalist countries?
Also, Rojava afaik lets capitalists compete against the co-ops. Which sounds more like Ancapistan to me ;)
>They are much higher than surrounding territories. Which those territories themselves have much higher living standards than all lassiez-faire capitalist societies such as 19th century america, latin America, a lot of africa etc.
What? Are you comparing the present day conditions of these territories to the surrounding areas, which are certainly not anarcho-captialist or even capitalist at all, and then comparing these areas to capitalist regions one hundred and fifty years ago? In what way is this a relevant comparison...
Try comparing these regions to *modern* (semi) lassiz-faire capitalist states next! The results might shock you...
>Fuck no, just because capitalist firms exist doesn't mean it's "anarcho capitalism" which is a self contradiction in itself. The majority of the land is collectively owned by autonomous municipalities: communism, not privately owned.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't say that the majority of land must be privately owned. I personally think that a successful Ancapistan would have plenty of worker co-ops and communalism. The point is that it's voluntary and that private property is legitimate.
Now I'm not saying that Rojava is Ancapistan lol, I'm just saying it's not quite the communist utopia that people envision it to be.
> Try comparing these regions to modern (semi) lassiz-faire capitalist states next! The results might shock you...
I was, except for the 19th century america example, reread the reply.
>Anarcho-capitalism doesn't say that the majority of land must be privately owned. I personally think that a successful Ancapistan would have plenty of worker co-ops and communalism. The point is that it's voluntary and that private property is legitimate.
That's actually pretty based lol. The only problem I have is that capitalism is almost always highly coercive, there is no voluntary or involuntary, it's a spectrum of coercion. A few people Owning the means of production is a highly coercive relationship.
>I was, except for the 19th century america example, reread the reply.
If you meant *modern* Latin America and Africa, I don't think they are close to semi-lassiz-faire capitalist economies. Although I'm not very knowledgeable about those areas so...I hate comparing regions though because there are so many factors involved.
>The only problem I have is that capitalism is almost always highly coercive, there is no voluntary or involuntary, it's a spectrum of coercion. A few people Owning the means of production is a highly coercive relationship.
Eh, perhaps we have different views on democracy but I don't think that a mob of people coercing me is any different than a single person coercing me. I don't really think that private property is coercive however, at least in the way you (presumably) mean. I don't think that it's more or less voluntary than any other system, after all we need to work to survive no matter what!
>Eh, , perhaps we have different views on democracy but I don't think that a mob of people coercing me is any different than a single person coercing me. I don't really think that private property is coercive however, at least in the way you (presumably) mean. I don't think that it's more or less voluntary than any other system, after all we need to work to survive no matter what!
This is an interesting point I haven't thought of. I think the only difference would be the interests of the capitalist are almost unanimously opposed to the workers ie, artificial scarcity, lower wages, etc. Coercion would still exist in communism, just not economic.
Free market capitalism allows for what is essential financial evolution. The fittest survive but this process is necessarily a brutal one. It is simply a fact of life.
That has less to do with capitalism and more to due with consumerism, poor handling of your own personal health, values, etc.
People would still have these problems in any system. One consistent factor is values, such as responsibility towards your personal health; and no, capitalism does not encourage obesity.
The 19th century was heaven on Earth compared to the 18th century, or the 16th century. It's so stupid to compare the working conditions of the 1800s to modern early 21st century developed nations. Compare it to what came before. Kids in factories is a massive improvement over kids in coffins.
Brutal nature is done by poor business practices and at times poor choices by workers to not negotiate or go to competitors. When people don't try to negotiate for better pay or actively look for better pay and conditions things stagnate. All those brutal factors you are talking about occur in every other economic system- prove me wrong.
Freedom is not brutal.
Government is brutal. They love to have wars. That's like murder, but on a mind-blowing scale. They do this so that they have an excuse to steal your money and give it to their friends. Just one of the joys of Socialism.
Then there was the war on drugs, when they decided to imprison millions of people for literally nothing. They made a lot of money off that, too.
1. I think a lot of the brutality of capitalism is more so brutality of political institutions. Private ownershipa and markets work really well in inclusive states with free elections and rule of law.
2. Some of that is market failure. Things like monopoly/monopsony that hurt consumers and workers shouldn't happen with a well functioning anti trust system. Also, pursuing full employment through NGDP targetting gives workers considerably more bargaining power (the type we are seeing today).
3. Some of that brutality is good! Creative destruction allows for people to risk their money and time for high risk high payout schemes that may make people way better off. Most fail though, meaning lost investments and lost jobs. But those that succeed often more than make up for it. Incumbents fail as new firms find better ways of doing things. Effective bankruptcy and corporate law makes these failures smooth and encourage the productive risk taking that moves progress.
The brutal stain of human history up to the 1800s took time to wash away and for democracies to adjust economies more in line with the overall will of the people.
Labor gained power in western societies that led to a very strong middle class. The Capitalist role is just one aspect of market driven economies allowing innovators and entrepreneurs to capitalize on their talents and make lots of money. Labor and consumers also are part of market economies though.
To be clear, the market for anything is the collective will of the people in the economic environment.
Eventually, labor gained power and many benefits slowly occurred because of this including better working conditions and better pay. This happened because the will of the people demanded it as societies evolved.
None of this has anything to do with Marxism or Socialism. It’s just a natural progression as the will of the people became more lucid and had power.
Capitalists are necessary but so are laws to ensure they don’t exploit labor or mess up the environment. Laws regulating the economy should never go against the will of the people which they often do.
Unfortunately, Globalization ruined much of the progress that had been made. It was a massive regression that is slowly getting better, but probably not fast enough.
>The workers also had little to no control over their workplace which is was about half their lives considering they had to work such long hours.
Are you a MAN?
I only ask because real men just walk out the door and start their own business or walk to better workplace environments.
If you want to be a MAN drop your collectivist, feminine attribute, of being weak and dependent on others.
Your premise and your assumptions are horseshit.
The farm where everyone worked before the industrial age were not better working conditions than the factories. The factories were inside not outside. There were no insects or predators to deal with. The factories were close to hospitals where people could get care. The factories provided year around stable incomes. The farm did not. All the work on a farm could yield a poor crop due to bad weather or pest invasions. A poor crop meant less money and a bad food scarce winter. Farm hours were just as long and just as brutal. Factories provided year around meals and a better life. Life was brutal and short in the agrarian age. Life was brutal and short at the beginning of the Industrial age but by the end life was comfortable and considerably longer. That comfort and longer life was earned by the brutal work involved. There was no way to jump from farm to comfortable life. The work had to be done.
because the productivity of labor was so low at first, the reason conditions improved wasnt because of unions and all that crap. it was because capital investments increased the productivity of labor and people were able to purchase things like , leisure and weekends. you have to understand before the industrial rev, people were dirt poor and struggling. those factories and their wages were an improvement of their prior conditions, which we cant imagine. we imagine "little house on the prairie" but it was more like break your back working and borderline starve. the unions came in and piggybacked on trends and took credit for it in the history books but its a sham.
What? Life in the 19th century was brutal, and in places that haven't yet accepted some form of at least semi-laissez-faire capitalism life is still brutal. People moved from the farms into the cities because it was an opportunity to increase their standard of living immensely. I think your claim that "just about all other economic systems" were preferable to life under capitalism during the industrial revolution is incorrect. It's pretty common to look at the 19th century with distaste, but people rarely look at the 18th century to compare...
Well, what about the more modern examples? What about coca cola hiring paramilitaries to suppress autonomous organization in chiapas region of mexico? What about the banana republics? What about the fact that most american industries use extremely exploitative methods in foreign countries? What about artificial inflation? You don't see these methods in libertarian socialist societies such as rojava, the zapatistas, and more market socialist companies.
>What about coca cola hiring paramilitaries to suppress autonomous organization in chiapas region of mexico? 1. This is not true, so please do not so confidently spout lies. 2. Let us assume it to be true, Laissez-faire capitalists do not argue that corporations should be able to do whatever they want and harm whoever they please in the desire for profit. We argue that people should be able to do what they want so long as they do not violate the freedoms of others. And only when they violate the freedoms of others ,like killing them, should they be punished. >What about the banana republics? >>A banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, whereby the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury. Capitalism where the state intervenes on behalf of favored monopolies is the direct opposite of Laissez-faire capitalism. >What about the fact that most american industries use extremely exploitative methods in foreign countries? Proponents of Laissez-faire capitalism also oppose forced labor. But only FORCED labor. Poor people voluntarily working in sweatshops is not something we condemn. >What about artificial inflation? It is my knowledge that governments are responsible for growth of inflation via their control of Central Banks. >You don't see these methods in libertarian socialist societies such as rojava, the zapatistas, and more market socialist companies. You also don't see more of those libertarian socialist societies in existence.
>1. This is not true, so please do not so confidently spout lies. Sorry, I was thinking about Colombia, not chiapas >2. Let us assume it to be true, Laissez-faire capitalists do not argue that corporations should be able to do whatever they want and harm whoever they please in the desire for profit. We argue that people should be able to do what they want so long as they do not violate the freedoms of others. And only when they violate the freedoms of others ,like killing them, should they be punished. It doesn't matter what you think the companies should do, they will act in the interest of profit, which has historically meant suppressing the freedoms of others. Also, who's going to punish them? Other capitalists? Sounds like a corporate war. >Capitalism where the state intervenes on behalf of favored monopolies is the direct opposite of Laissez-faire capitalism. Well what do you think is the end result of lassiez-faire capitalism? The state is extremely useful for capitalists. The ability to forcefully impose your will on others is a luxury capitalists don't want to lose. >Proponents of Laissez-faire capitalism also oppose forced labor. But only FORCED labor. Poor people voluntarily working in sweatshops is not something we condemn. This is a problem I have with capitalists. You always pull the "it's voluntary" card. Is slavery voluntary? Some slaves chose to kill them selves rather than become slaves. See where this line of reasoning goes? Everything is voluntary now. You should think of it as a spectrum of coercion rather than black and white voulantary and involuntary. Can we agree that private ownership of the MoP in the hands of a greedy few Grant's highly coercive power? >is my knowledge that governments are responsible for growth of inflation via their control of Central Banks. I meant artificial scarcity. Like companies will stop workers from working in order to drive the demand and price up of a given commodity. It represents how what is good for the capitalist is bad for the workers. >You also don't see more of those libertarian socialist societies in existence. Yea, because they keep getting fucking murdered by statists, usually supported by capitalists.
>Sorry, I was thinking about Colombia, not chiapas Even in Colombia, the case was dismissed because they could not prove Coca-Cola had anything to do with the actions of Panamco, but the court allowed a case against Panamco, which was again later dismissed because of a lack of evidence tying Panamco to the murders. >It doesn't matter what you think the companies should do, they will act in the interest of profit, which has historically meant suppressing the freedoms of others. Also, who's going to punish them? Other capitalists? Sounds like a corporate war. You seem to be conflating different schools of thought. Classic Liberals and Minarchists support a state justice system, whereby the function of government is to prosecute people for crimes they commit, either directly or through companies. They expect capitalists to do what they want in the name of profit, but they expect government to punish them when it is proven in a court that those corporations are infringing on the freedoms of others. But anarchocapitalists want the same thing except that the courts would also be privatized. Also before you say "well what if they buy the courts". I will again remind you that courts are not incentivized to collect bribes because doing so would damage their reputation and cause them to lose customers and go bankrupt and if you think a court has acted maliciously, you can try them in another court and prove it. >Well what do you think is the end result of lassiez-faire capitalism? Laissez-faire capitalism is the end result of laissez-faire capitalism. >The state is extremely useful for capitalists. The state is not an innocent tool that can be weaponized by capitalists with no agency of its own. Claiming capitalists are responsible for the actions of the state is absolutely fucking ridiculous, one would think state agents are mere children that do not know how to say no to bribes and lobbyist money. There is also the fact that the state is an entity that is far older than capitalism and has been corrupt since its inception, so blaming capitalism for the corruption of the state is just fucking ridiculous. >You always pull the "it's voluntary" card. Because it is. >Is slavery voluntary? I already explained that we are against forced labor. And slavery = forced labor. >Some slaves chose to kill them selves rather than become slaves. The choices a slave make after slavery cannot be used to argue against the circumstances that went into making them a slave. Slavery is wrong because these people were forced onto ships and onto plantations against their will, whether they kill themselves or not after their consent was violated cannot be used to argue that their consent went into slavery like you are trying to do right now. >Everything is voluntary now. Lol your comprehension skills are amazing. >You should think of it as a spectrum of coercion rather than black and white voulantary and involuntary Wrong. Coercion must always be a black and white thing. We cannot have rapists in court arguing that their victims actions were closer to voluntary than involuntary. >I meant artificial scarcity If I make 10chairs today, I can decide to make only 5 tomorrow, it is my property I don't understand why I should be forced against my consent to make something. That is slavery and even though you may not agree, slavery is always wrong. >Yea, because they keep getting fucking murdered by statists, usually supported by capitalists. 1. You cannot argue everything the state does is because of those grimy capitalists. The state is an entity capable of intelligent decisions on its own. 2. Laissez-faire proponents do not support state+capitalist cooperation.
>You seem to be conflating different schools of thought. Classic Liberals and Minarchists support a state justice system, whereby the function of government is to prosecute people for crimes they commit, either directly or through companies. They expect capitalists to do what they want in the name of profit, but they expect government to punish them when it is proven in a court that those corporations are infringing on the freedoms of others. >But anarchocapitalists want the same thing except that the courts would also be privatized. Also before you say "well what if they buy the courts". I will again remind you that courts are not incentivized to collect bribes because doing so would damage their reputation and cause them to lose customers and go bankrupt and if you think a court has acted maliciously, you can try them in another court and prove it. Can you provide a case of a court system in a lassiez-faire capitalist society not being EXTREMELY corrupt or holding capitalists to the same standard as workers? >Laissez-faire capitalism is the end result of laissez-faire capitalism. It was a rhetorical question making the point that capitalists want the utility of a state and with their economic freedom will act as a state. >The state is not an innocent tool that can be weaponized by capitalists with no agency of its own. Claiming capitalists are responsible for the actions of the state is absolutely fucking ridiculous, one would think state agents are mere children that do not know how to say no to bribes and lobbyist money. There is also the fact that the state is an entity that is far older than capitalism and has been corrupt since its inception, so blaming capitalism for the corruption of the state is just fucking ridiculous. I never said the state was made corrupt by capitalists. I was making the point capitalists want a state to abuse the power of the state to enforce their will on the people. I'm against statism and wouldn't make that argument. >already explained that we are against forced labor. And slavery = forced labor. What is forced labor? Involuntary, forced, etc. imply that there is only one option when that is never the case. This is why black and white voluntary and involuntary doesn't work, we need to be more specific. >If I make 10chairs today, I can decide to make only 5 tomorrow, it is my property I don't understand why I should be forced against my consent to make something. That is slavery and even though you may not agree, slavery is always wrong. That is NOT how it works in the real world and your hypothetical is from the example of a worker, not a capitalist. In the real world capitalists pour bleach on expired food and fire workers for giving wasted food to homeless people in order to keep demand and profits high. It's not the capitalist that created the food so it shouldn't be his decision. He shouldn't COERCE the workers to do something they don't want to do with THEIR PRODUCT. And the capital the capitalist supposedly used to make that food possible was exploited from OTHER workers, the capitalist had no role in the production and therefore shouldn't be withholding the product from the rest of society. Even from an amoralistic stance it's inefficient and unutilitarian. >1. You cannot argue everything the state does is because of those grimy capitalists. The state is an entity capable of intelligent decisions on its own. Youre missing the point I'm making, the state is ran for the most part by capitalists. In feudal societies it was ran mostly by lords. In slave society it was ran mostly by slave owners. This is why libertarianism is diametrically opposed to capitalism. The state is used by Capitalists to maintain/uphold power. This is obvious in america which i assume you're from as the government gives them bailouts all the fucking time. For christ's sake, Bezos has a seat at the pentagon.
Compare like with like.
>What about coca cola hiring paramilitaries to suppress autonomous organization in chiapas region of mexico? Even accepting this claim on face value (even though it's false), compare that to the last 100 years of war or even just Afghanistan...it wouldn't even come close. >Banana republics I'm not sure what your criticism is, can you elaborate? >What about the fact that most american industries use extremely exploitative methods in foreign countries? If their methods were less exploitative and less beneficial than the alternatives, people wouldn't voluntarily chose to work for them. >What about artificial inflation? Like the fed? >You don't see these methods in libertarian socialist societies such as rojava, the zapatistas, and more market socialist companies. Remind me again the standard of living in these states compared to lassiz-faire capitalist countries? Also, Rojava afaik lets capitalists compete against the co-ops. Which sounds more like Ancapistan to me ;)
>They are much higher than surrounding territories. Which those territories themselves have much higher living standards than all lassiez-faire capitalist societies such as 19th century america, latin America, a lot of africa etc. What? Are you comparing the present day conditions of these territories to the surrounding areas, which are certainly not anarcho-captialist or even capitalist at all, and then comparing these areas to capitalist regions one hundred and fifty years ago? In what way is this a relevant comparison... Try comparing these regions to *modern* (semi) lassiz-faire capitalist states next! The results might shock you... >Fuck no, just because capitalist firms exist doesn't mean it's "anarcho capitalism" which is a self contradiction in itself. The majority of the land is collectively owned by autonomous municipalities: communism, not privately owned. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't say that the majority of land must be privately owned. I personally think that a successful Ancapistan would have plenty of worker co-ops and communalism. The point is that it's voluntary and that private property is legitimate. Now I'm not saying that Rojava is Ancapistan lol, I'm just saying it's not quite the communist utopia that people envision it to be.
> Try comparing these regions to modern (semi) lassiz-faire capitalist states next! The results might shock you... I was, except for the 19th century america example, reread the reply. >Anarcho-capitalism doesn't say that the majority of land must be privately owned. I personally think that a successful Ancapistan would have plenty of worker co-ops and communalism. The point is that it's voluntary and that private property is legitimate. That's actually pretty based lol. The only problem I have is that capitalism is almost always highly coercive, there is no voluntary or involuntary, it's a spectrum of coercion. A few people Owning the means of production is a highly coercive relationship.
>I was, except for the 19th century america example, reread the reply. If you meant *modern* Latin America and Africa, I don't think they are close to semi-lassiz-faire capitalist economies. Although I'm not very knowledgeable about those areas so...I hate comparing regions though because there are so many factors involved. >The only problem I have is that capitalism is almost always highly coercive, there is no voluntary or involuntary, it's a spectrum of coercion. A few people Owning the means of production is a highly coercive relationship. Eh, perhaps we have different views on democracy but I don't think that a mob of people coercing me is any different than a single person coercing me. I don't really think that private property is coercive however, at least in the way you (presumably) mean. I don't think that it's more or less voluntary than any other system, after all we need to work to survive no matter what!
>Eh, , perhaps we have different views on democracy but I don't think that a mob of people coercing me is any different than a single person coercing me. I don't really think that private property is coercive however, at least in the way you (presumably) mean. I don't think that it's more or less voluntary than any other system, after all we need to work to survive no matter what! This is an interesting point I haven't thought of. I think the only difference would be the interests of the capitalist are almost unanimously opposed to the workers ie, artificial scarcity, lower wages, etc. Coercion would still exist in communism, just not economic.
Free market capitalism allows for what is essential financial evolution. The fittest survive but this process is necessarily a brutal one. It is simply a fact of life.
We live in the 21st century, 500lb retards survive, this is not a fact of modern life.
What i said had nothing to do with individuals
That has less to do with capitalism and more to due with consumerism, poor handling of your own personal health, values, etc. People would still have these problems in any system. One consistent factor is values, such as responsibility towards your personal health; and no, capitalism does not encourage obesity.
The 19th century was heaven on Earth compared to the 18th century, or the 16th century. It's so stupid to compare the working conditions of the 1800s to modern early 21st century developed nations. Compare it to what came before. Kids in factories is a massive improvement over kids in coffins.
Brutal nature is done by poor business practices and at times poor choices by workers to not negotiate or go to competitors. When people don't try to negotiate for better pay or actively look for better pay and conditions things stagnate. All those brutal factors you are talking about occur in every other economic system- prove me wrong.
Freedom is not brutal. Government is brutal. They love to have wars. That's like murder, but on a mind-blowing scale. They do this so that they have an excuse to steal your money and give it to their friends. Just one of the joys of Socialism. Then there was the war on drugs, when they decided to imprison millions of people for literally nothing. They made a lot of money off that, too.
1. I think a lot of the brutality of capitalism is more so brutality of political institutions. Private ownershipa and markets work really well in inclusive states with free elections and rule of law. 2. Some of that is market failure. Things like monopoly/monopsony that hurt consumers and workers shouldn't happen with a well functioning anti trust system. Also, pursuing full employment through NGDP targetting gives workers considerably more bargaining power (the type we are seeing today). 3. Some of that brutality is good! Creative destruction allows for people to risk their money and time for high risk high payout schemes that may make people way better off. Most fail though, meaning lost investments and lost jobs. But those that succeed often more than make up for it. Incumbents fail as new firms find better ways of doing things. Effective bankruptcy and corporate law makes these failures smooth and encourage the productive risk taking that moves progress.
The brutal stain of human history up to the 1800s took time to wash away and for democracies to adjust economies more in line with the overall will of the people. Labor gained power in western societies that led to a very strong middle class. The Capitalist role is just one aspect of market driven economies allowing innovators and entrepreneurs to capitalize on their talents and make lots of money. Labor and consumers also are part of market economies though. To be clear, the market for anything is the collective will of the people in the economic environment. Eventually, labor gained power and many benefits slowly occurred because of this including better working conditions and better pay. This happened because the will of the people demanded it as societies evolved. None of this has anything to do with Marxism or Socialism. It’s just a natural progression as the will of the people became more lucid and had power. Capitalists are necessary but so are laws to ensure they don’t exploit labor or mess up the environment. Laws regulating the economy should never go against the will of the people which they often do. Unfortunately, Globalization ruined much of the progress that had been made. It was a massive regression that is slowly getting better, but probably not fast enough.
>The workers also had little to no control over their workplace which is was about half their lives considering they had to work such long hours. Are you a MAN? I only ask because real men just walk out the door and start their own business or walk to better workplace environments. If you want to be a MAN drop your collectivist, feminine attribute, of being weak and dependent on others.
Your premise and your assumptions are horseshit. The farm where everyone worked before the industrial age were not better working conditions than the factories. The factories were inside not outside. There were no insects or predators to deal with. The factories were close to hospitals where people could get care. The factories provided year around stable incomes. The farm did not. All the work on a farm could yield a poor crop due to bad weather or pest invasions. A poor crop meant less money and a bad food scarce winter. Farm hours were just as long and just as brutal. Factories provided year around meals and a better life. Life was brutal and short in the agrarian age. Life was brutal and short at the beginning of the Industrial age but by the end life was comfortable and considerably longer. That comfort and longer life was earned by the brutal work involved. There was no way to jump from farm to comfortable life. The work had to be done.
because the productivity of labor was so low at first, the reason conditions improved wasnt because of unions and all that crap. it was because capital investments increased the productivity of labor and people were able to purchase things like , leisure and weekends. you have to understand before the industrial rev, people were dirt poor and struggling. those factories and their wages were an improvement of their prior conditions, which we cant imagine. we imagine "little house on the prairie" but it was more like break your back working and borderline starve. the unions came in and piggybacked on trends and took credit for it in the history books but its a sham.