5arguments against capitalism, yes I am now a full commie

[assasin7]

anarcho communism vs anarcho capitalism:

1. private property is just decentralized statism, the owner(s) of property are the government almost worse than the current government

2. I would not force my views on you, but innate in capitalism is a need to expand capital, that's why corporations privatize government property, so a free market will need to expand (read: invade non free market areas) for wealth, it can't survive otherwise.

3. Waged labor is as good as slavery, work for me or you'll starve, now I won't stop workers from being hired, but dammit I will protest them.

4. Without a state to protect it private property will naturally die off as the logic of property by occupancy and use is enacted.

5. Capitalist firms are state socialist dictatorships: the leaders on top decide who gets what, and rule, no citizen (employee) can have private property inside the state (firm)

[Centinel]

anarcho communism vs anarcho capitalism:

1. private property is just decentralized statism, the owner(s) of property are the government almost worse than the current government

2. I would not force my views on you, but innate in capitalism is a need to expand capital, that's why corporations privatize government property, so a free market will need to expand (read: invade non free market areas) for wealth, it can't survive otherwise.

3. Waged labor is as good as slavery, work for me or you'll starve, now I won't stop workers from being hired, but dammit I will protest them.

4. Without a state to protect it private property will naturally die off as the logic of property by occupancy and use is enacted.

5. Capitalist firms are state socialist dictatorships: the leaders on top decide who gets what, and rule, no citizen (employee) can have private property inside the state (firm)

1. private property is just decentralized statism, the owner(s) of property are the government almost worse than the current government --assassin7

You miss the point --- with private ownership only the individual owner or firm suffers from bad management.  Within a centralized system, there is the destructive non-voluntary consequences to all of society.  Hence, collective responsibility (nobody cares, nobody is accountable, et al) and collective suffering (everybody suffers including those who have no input )

2. I would not force my views on you, but innate in capitalism is a need to expand capital, that's why corporations privatize government property, so a free market will need to expand (read: invade non free market areas) for wealth, it can't survive otherwise.--assissin7

Wrong, capitalism is the maximization of capital or the rationing of capital and resources in an effort to produce more with less resources by the process of increased productivity.   That is why we will never run out of water, oil, food, et al under a capitalist system.   The less supply, the more investment, the more productivity, the more production, the increase supply, the lower the costs.

Within a statist or communist system -- shortages are the norm because free market mechanisms are denied by politicians and their cronies.

Indeed, within the former soviet union -- they had more engineers and scientists per capita than just about every nation AND they had more trees.  Yet they couldnt produce enough toilet paper to wipe their dependent asses.

Moreover, capitalist (within a liberal democracy) can only acquire capital by voluntary means.   If you dont want to sell, you dont have to.  Try telling your collectivist governor you dont want to sell your house that is in the path of a rail line.

3. Waged labor is as good as slavery, work for me or you'll starve, now I won't stop workers from being hired, but dammit I will protest them.--assiss7

The absence of waged labor = death.

Moreover, it is all voluntary.  You think you are worth more than what a company is paying you, start your own company, pay workers what you think they are worth and let the free market and consumer decide if you are justified. 

In many cases, a firm that under pays workers will inspire the above and the offending firm will be driven out of business due to a decrease in service quality from lower skilled, lower paid workers.

In many cases, workers who think that they are getting 'slave wages' are just spoiled pussies who think society owes them a living.

The bottom line is that when you entrust government to decide these issues -- you get neither prosperity, freedom, or equality.   You get screwed.

4. Without a state to protect it private property will naturally die off as the logic of property by occupancy and use is enacted. -- assissin7

There must be a mechanism within society to decentralize, balance, limit, and make transparent the elements of armed force and political power in society.  hence, this should be the only responsibility of government.  And an effective system like constitutional federal republicanism can be reasonably expected to protect private property rights, at least more effectively than purely anarchist free markets or any communist society.

5. Capitalist firms are state socialist dictatorships: the leaders on top decide who gets what, and rule, no citizen (employee) can have private property inside the state (firm)--assissin7

Wrong, employees, investors, customers, et al use free will to decide whether to temporarily surrender an aspect of their personal life to a company.  This is voluntary, competitive and free -- in contrast, no such individual rights existed in a statist society.


In sum, nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do with their own capital and wealth within a free society so long as they dont force their will on anybody else.  Of course, externalities must be addressed and paid for -- but within a mutually agreed upon and voluntary legal framework.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

1. private property is just decentralized statism

I govern myself.

the owner(s) of property are the government almost worse than the current government

Worse? Please...don't.

2. I would not force my views on you, but innate in capitalism is a need to expand capital, that's why corporations privatize government property, so a free market will need to expand (read: invade non free market areas) for wealth, it can't survive otherwise.

Wow. That's straight out of the communist playbook. Throw a couple of economics words together that you don't understand and pretend it supports your conclusion. What does "expanding capital" mean? Why does it have to happen? I can tell you've been on ancom sites recently, because you are starting to sound just like them.

3. Waged labor is as good as slavery, work for me or you'll starve, now I won't stop workers from being hired, but dammit I will protest them.

Now you're just trolling us. There's no way in hell you buy that.

4. Without a state to protect it private property will naturally die off as the logic of property by occupancy and use is enacted.

I use my private property all the time.

5. Capitalist firms are state socialist dictatorships: the leaders on top decide who gets what, and rule, no citizen (employee) can have private property inside the state (firm)

This is not an argument. Just words. I might give them credit as being claims, but it's so childish I'm embarrassed for you right now. For someone who's been on this forum as long as you have, you know better than this. In fact, almost nothing in your post was an argument.

[assasin7]

1. private property is just decentralized statism

I govern myself.

the owner(s) of property are the government almost worse than the current government

Worse? Please...don't.

2. I would not force my views on you, but innate in capitalism is a need to expand capital, that's why corporations privatize government property, so a free market will need to expand (read: invade non free market areas) for wealth, it can't survive otherwise.

Wow. That's straight out of the communist playbook. Throw a couple of economics words together that you don't understand and pretend it supports your conclusion. What does "expanding capital" mean? Why does it have to happen? I can tell you've been on ancom sites recently, because you are starting to sound just like them.

3. Waged labor is as good as slavery, work for me or you'll starve, now I won't stop workers from being hired, but dammit I will protest them.

Now you're just trolling us. There's no way in hell you buy that.

4. Without a state to protect it private property will naturally die off as the logic of property by occupancy and use is enacted.

I use my private property all the time.

5. Capitalist firms are state socialist dictatorships: the leaders on top decide who gets what, and rule, no citizen (employee) can have private property inside the state (firm)

This is not an argument. Just words. I might give them credit as being claims, but it's so childish I'm embarrassed for you right now. For someone who's been on this forum as long as you have, you know better than this. In fact, almost nothing in your post was an argument.

1. Rothbard said it, not me: a.. social order (where)...would be collecting taxes in the form of unilaterally imposed "rent."

2. An example: In my area their were 5 bagel shops, this was unsustainable under capitalism, as each shop had to get its own resources, and capital to reinvest in production, very quickly one shop bought out the rest, then it collapsed and now we have no bagels (I can't explain it well)

3. Ok not as bad as slavery, its more like fraud. Again I won't force it, but education will be practiced

4. Your living in statism

5. ok that was weak

[JustSayNoToStatism]

1. Rothbard said it, not me: a.. social order (where)...would be collecting taxes in the form of unilaterally imposed "rent."

Rothbard isn't god.

2. An example: In my area their were 5 bagel shops, this was unsustainable under capitalism, as each shop had to get its own resources, and capital to reinvest in production, very quickly one shop bought out the rest, then it collapsed and now we have no bagels (I can't explain it well)

The last 5 words explain it all.

3. Ok not as bad as slavery, its more like fraud. Again I won't force it, but education will be practiced

Fraud? I'm pretty sure everyone knows what they're getting into. There's nothing deceptive about $x/hour.

4. Your living in statism

Touche!

5. ok that was weak

No, I'm standing by this one. Until you explain it better, it has no meaning to me.

[assasin7]

1. Rothbard said it, not me: a.. social order (where)...would be collecting taxes in the form of unilaterally imposed "rent."

Rothbard isn't god.

2. An example: In my area their were 5 bagel shops, this was unsustainable under capitalism, as each shop had to get its own resources, and capital to reinvest in production, very quickly one shop bought out the rest, then it collapsed and now we have no bagels (I can't explain it well)

The last 5 words explain it all.

3. Ok not as bad as slavery, its more like fraud. Again I won't force it, but education will be practiced

Fraud? I'm pretty sure everyone knows what they're getting into. There's nothing deceptive about $x/hour.

4. Your living in statism

Touche!

5. ok that was weak

No, I'm standing by this one. Until you explain it better, it has no meaning to me.

1. I know, but I had said the same thing

2.  they explain it better than I can (how do I hyperlink): http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-introduction

3. Its black mail

5. I meant my argument was weak

[ff42]

2. An example: In my area their were 5 bagel shops, this was unsustainable under capitalism, as each shop had to get its own resources, and capital to reinvest in production, very quickly one shop bought out the rest, then it collapsed and now we have no bagels (I can't explain it well)

5 people (or more if they had investors) BELIEVE they could make a profit selling bagels to the public.  I would hazard a guess that they terribly underestimated the costs of GOVERNMENT regulations, but nevertheless found they could not make a profit.  This realization is not a failure, but a smart reallocation of resources (driven but an understanding of capitalism).  if someone else can do something faster/better/cheaper than me then we will both be richer if I do something else.   The collapse of the last remaining bagel shop could be explained by a number of reasons (increased government regulation, tax increases, or simply a change of taste in the consuming public).  This is not at all a failure of the free market.

PS.  Where is your evidence that "corporations privatize government property"?

[JustSayNoToStatism]

2. From the site...

Furthermore, because of long hours, productivity improvements etc, we produce much more than necessary to keep us going as workers. The wages we get roughly match the cost of the products necessary to keep us alive and able to work each day (which is why, at the end of each month, our bank balance rarely looks that different to the month before). The difference between the wages we are paid and the value we create is how capital is accumulated, or profit is made.

These people don't understand how wages work. The reason real median income has lagged real productivity is....you guessed it, taxation and inflation. You are getting robbed by the state. In free markets, wages increase with productivity. The work week should be 4 days by now, given the productivity increases of the past 50 years. But no. And don't tell me the "capitalists just pay the workers whatever they want, so it's a small amount so they can make profit." The ignorance of this stuff, and the site you linked is too much for me to stomach.

[assasin7]

2. An example: In my area their were 5 bagel shops, this was unsustainable under capitalism, as each shop had to get its own resources, and capital to reinvest in production, very quickly one shop bought out the rest, then it collapsed and now we have no bagels (I can't explain it well)

5 people (or more if they had investors) BELIEVE they could make a profit selling bagels to the public.  I would hazard a guess that they terribly underestimated the costs of GOVERNMENT regulations, but nevertheless found they could not make a profit.  This realization is not a failure, but a smart reallocation of resources (driven but an understanding of capitalism).  if someone else can do something faster/better/cheaper than me then we will both be richer if I do something else.   The collapse of the last remaining bagel shop could be explained by a number of reasons (increased government regulation, tax increases, or simply a change of taste in the consuming public).  This is not at all a failure of the free market.

PS.  Where is your evidence that "corporations privatize government property"?

5. capitalism is an economic system in which capital is invested to make more capital but each time it goes through the pipes its less a valuable so they have to find new areas to get capital from. So that's why Iraq and Afghanistan had private soldiers and previous wars did not, and why ancaps will have to go to war with other areas just to exist.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

5. capitalism is an economic system in which capital is invested to make more capital but each time it goes through the pipes its less a valuable so they have to find new areas to get capital from. So that's why Iraq and Afghanistan had private soldiers and previous wars did not, and why ancaps will have to go to war with other areas just to exist.

Stop. Now. You admitted you don't understand any of this, so let's leave it at that. You haven't a clue what these words mean, and neither do the people who you are repeating. I'm calling you out. I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you want to prove to me and everyone else that you understand, then explain it in a short, concise way, with none of this pseudo-jargon. Prove me wrong.

[Coltan L.]

5. capitalism is an economic system in which capital is invested to make more capital but each time it goes through the pipes its less a valuable so they have to find new areas to get capital from. So that's why Iraq and Afghanistan had private soldiers and previous wars did not, and why ancaps will have to go to war with other areas just to exist.

Bring on the mercs! War is essentially "free" for governments. Unsustainable, but I don't think White Obama or Black George Bush ever opened up their wallets while trying to purchase more brown people death and saw that it was empty and decided to wait and kill them next fiscal year.

It was easy to convince conscripts to stick around in the "olden days" because they got "3 hots and a cot". When that's enough to convince people to kill strangers, your economy sucks.

The better the economy is, the more competitive the military would have to be with wages to attract people. I'm sure this would be mitigated by technology perhaps.  I choose to be optimistic.

I actually don't understand your point very well at all.  I just think standing state armies going away will be the best damn thing ever. Remove the tax dollars, remove the jingoism, let violent well payed mercenaries fight over bullshit, if at all. Its a dramatic improvement over this righteous crusader nonsense we do now.

Also, wtf are you talking about pipes for?

[assasin7]

5. capitalism is an economic system in which capital is invested to make more capital but each time it goes through the pipes its less a valuable so they have to find new areas to get capital from. So that's why Iraq and Afghanistan had private soldiers and previous wars did not, and why ancaps will have to go to war with other areas just to exist.

Bring on the mercs! War is essentially "free" for governments. Unsustainable, but I don't think White Obama or Black George Bush ever opened up their wallets while trying to purchase more brown people death and saw that it was empty and decided to wait and kill them next fiscal year.

It was easy to convince conscripts to stick around in the "olden days" because they got "3 hots and a cot". When that's enough to convince people to kill strangers, your economy sucks.

The better the economy is, the more competitive the military would have to be with wages to attract people. I'm sure this would be mitigated by technology perhaps.  I choose to be optimistic.

I actually don't understand your point very well at all.  I just think standing state armies going away will be the best damn thing ever. Remove the tax dollars, remove the jingoism, let violent well payed mercenaries fight over bullshit, if at all. Its a dramatic improvement over this righteous crusader nonsense we do now.

Also, wtf are you talking about pipes for?

I agree, but capitalism requires new capital after the old capital is sucked dry, this is why monopolies develop. Each company uses up capital and runs out of money, the company that was saving capital the best takes over, and then uses up the capital and collapses. This why government intervenes in the economy, to stop monopolies so that multiple companies can compete and capitalism continues. In a free market wars would have to be launched to take over new areas for capitalists to exploit.

When free marketia is running out of money, the Defense Force Combined Holdings will make up an excuse to invade commie land, opening it to markets. Capitalism isn't sustainable

[JustSayNoToStatism]

5. capitalism is an economic system in which capital is invested to make more capital but each time it goes through the pipes its less a valuable so they have to find new areas to get capital from. So that's why Iraq and Afghanistan had private soldiers and previous wars did not, and why ancaps will have to go to war with other areas just to exist.

Bring on the mercs! War is essentially "free" for governments. Unsustainable, but I don't think White Obama or Black George Bush ever opened up their wallets while trying to purchase more brown people death and saw that it was empty and decided to wait and kill them next fiscal year.

It was easy to convince conscripts to stick around in the "olden days" because they got "3 hots and a cot". When that's enough to convince people to kill strangers, your economy sucks.

The better the economy is, the more competitive the military would have to be with wages to attract people. I'm sure this would be mitigated by technology perhaps.  I choose to be optimistic.

I actually don't understand your point very well at all.  I just think standing state armies going away will be the best damn thing ever. Remove the tax dollars, remove the jingoism, let violent well payed mercenaries fight over bullshit, if at all. Its a dramatic improvement over this righteous crusader nonsense we do now.

Also, wtf are you talking about pipes for?

I agree, but capitalism requires new capital after the old capital is sucked dry, this is why monopolies develop. Each company uses up capital and runs out of money, the company that was saving capital the best takes over, and then uses up the capital and collapses. This why government intervenes in the economy, to stop monopolies so that multiple companies can compete and capitalism continues. In a free market wars would have to be launched to take over new areas for capitalists to exploit.

When free marketia is running out of money, the Defense Force Combined Holdings will make up an excuse to invade commie land, opening it to markets. Capitalism isn't sustainable

Do you want to continue spewing garbage, or actually address the fact that I've called you out on it?
http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1394.msg9315.html#msg9315
http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1398.msg9333.html#msg9333

[LegesNullae]

Capitalist firms are state socialist dictatorships: the leaders on top decide who gets what, and rule, no citizen (employee) can have private property inside the state (firm)

Before people start attacking this one, it's not actually incorrect. Within the traditional hierarchical firm, all of the firm's property is held by the individual who owns the firm (analogous to the government "owning" all property in a statist society). Property may be "rented" out to those below, but there is no ownership by those who use said property (like the government allowing people to drive on roads but not privately own them). I won't comment as the ethics of this or whatever, but it is a valid comparison.

Waged labor is as good as slavery, work for me or you'll starve, now I won't stop workers from being hired, but dammit I will protest them.

I've seen that the argument of "wage labor is voluntary" has already surfaced in the responses. There are some problems with that. In a truly freed market, wage labor would be voluntary. But we don't live in a freed market. We have to keep in mind that the state has limited alternatives to wage labor (like self employment or co-operatives) through coercive entry barriers, making wage labor the only alternative to starving in many cases. As such, we should examine wage labor more critically as it pertains to the current economic situation.

[Coltan L.]

Capitalist firms are state socialist dictatorships: the leaders on top decide who gets what, and rule, no citizen (employee) can have private property inside the state (firm)

Before people start attacking this one, it's not actually incorrect. Within the traditional hierarchical firm, all of the firm's property is held by the individual who owns the firm (analogous to the government "owning" all property in a statist society). Property may be "rented" out to those below, but there is no ownership by those who use said property (like the government allowing people to drive on roads but not privately own them). I won't comment as the ethics of this or whatever, but it is a valid comparison.

Waged labor is as good as slavery, work for me or you'll starve, now I won't stop workers from being hired, but dammit I will protest them.

I've seen that the argument of "wage labor is voluntary" has already surfaced in the responses. There are some problems with that. In a truly freed market, wage labor would be voluntary. But we don't live in a freed market. We have to keep in mind that the state has limited alternatives to wage labor (like self employment or co-operatives) through coercive entry barriers, making wage labor the only alternative to starving in many cases. As such, we should examine wage labor more critically as it pertains to the current economic situation.

I don't really buy either premise. If you're working at my dictatorship, its because you *applied* to be there and we have a contract of some kind. I still may not kill you wantonly, I may fire you though for exposing yourself to the secretary. I don't think its valid. Or at least its meaningless. Families become Socialist Dictatorships. Hell, some romantic relationships do. I think its meaningless to call both Arby's and the US government state socialist dictatorships. One will shoot you in your face the other will ask you to leave. It has call the government to get your face shot, for the most part. I won't get into coercion.

If any ancap is talking about "wage slavery" being voluntary they are not defending anything about the current system. So its not valid. Though you still can leave here too. Here as in the US.