==================
Masebrock (6 days ago)
One of the underlying themes of the concept of "wage slavery" is the idea that some contracts are acceptable and others are "slavery", even if they are accepted on a voluntary basis. When Libertarian Socialists talk about eliminating "wage slavery", how do you suppose they want to go about doing such a thing? By assuming a position of authority to determine what voluntary contracts are "slavery" and what voluntary contracts are fair.
Chomsky is a supporter of taxation as well, like most LS
.==================
ZiggyZen (6 days ago)
By offering an option that isn't wage slavery, IE by directly controlling the means production by workers. Not the state, not some corporation, but the workers. He never said people couldn't still choose to work for a wage, just that most probably wouldn't want to when a better option presents itself.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
actually no law outlawing wage slavery would be needed. you just would have no law saying workers can't take over the means of production themselves.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
A group of workers enter the boss's office and tell him that they have just taken over the factory. "You can't", says the boss. "I own it"
"And how did you come to own it?" ask workers.
"It was left to me by my father", says the boss.
"How did he get it?" asks the worker.
"He got it from his father", says the boss.
"And he?" asks the worker.
"He fought for it", says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride.
"Well", say the workers, all together this time, "We'll fight you for it".
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
If the someone who runs a factory acquired it by violently taking it from someone else, it cannot be said to by owned by him. It is stolen property.
But it would be unjustifiable to assume that every factory was obtained through violent means. You cannot assume guilt.
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
A more likely response from the boss would be:
"'He BUILT it' , says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride."
.==================
Tuppington (19 hours ago)
1. If stolen property is not ownership then most of the U.S. is not legally owned by people.
2. The most likely case: "He had OTHERS build it for him!"
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
1. I agree. Do you think that stolen property IS ownership? But once again you can't just assume guilt...
2. If it was built by others, and he STOLE it, then he does not own it. If it was built by others under contract that he retains ownership of the building, then it is legitimately owned.
.==================
Tuppington (16 hours ago)
1. according to Karl Marx, stolen property is ownership.. but he put it the other way around... "property is theft"
2. libertarian socialists would say he doesn't legitimately own it unless the workers are paid for the full value of their work. as most people were not paid the full value, that is, the capital generated from their construction, then no he doesn't own it legitimately. a fair wage would be to pay someone a wage for their work and then give them stock and executive decisions
.==================
Masebrock (15 hours ago)
To say that failing to pay wages equal to the capital generated would negate ownership is ridiculous. Only force or fraud can negate ownership, not failing to make contracts that fit your standards of "fair".
People don't lose their rights because they fail to abide by your definition of "fair".
1. Do you really believe that might makes right? So if I posses the means to steal a resource, then I rightfully own the resource?
2. If the laborers were not paid the "full value" of their work as specified in the terms of the contract, then they would have a case. But there you go again assuming guilt. The "value" of their labor is whatever someone is willing to pay them, not the capital generated.
.==================
Tuppington (15 hours ago)
might doesn't make right. workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it. and why does might make right when the so-called owner of a factory uses his power to bend the contract in his favor?
if the planet were filled with only ugly people, would the best looking one be beautiful? no. value, like beauty, is absolute. from the so-called owner's point of view, the worker is only as valuable as the cost of his replacement. but from the universal point of view, value is production
.==================
Tuppington (14 hours ago)
failing to abide by my definition of fair would not make anyone lose their rights, since having power doesn't give you the right to steal. however, contracts written free from courts and regulations could force workers to forfeit rights.
by withholding from workers the true value of their work, a so-called owner is defrauding them and therefore forfeits his ownership by your definition.
"Originally, all things were common and undivided; they were the
property of all." - Hugo Grotius
.==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
A contract that uses force is not a legitimate one. Legitimate contracts must be voluntary accepted by both parties. I'm glad you've decided to not invalidate contracts because you don't deem them "fair'.
"Defraud" implies a falsehood. That would mean someone said one thing but acted another way. If in the contract it specified that the workers would not be paid equal to the amount of capital generated, it cannot be said to be fraudulent. "Unfair" does not equal fraudulent.
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
Hugo Grotiius apparently has no clue how property is justified, or even where it comes from.
"workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it."
This implies that the means of production in question was originally owned by the workers. You don't know that. And even if you found a case where it was, it also implies that it was taken from them through force or fraud. And you don't know that either. So many assumptions...
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
The boss has the right to make contracts by virtue of his right to be free from violence. So you don't think people don't should have the right to negotiate contracts? Just what sort of violent means do you suppose to use to keep people from making these contracts?
Value is not based on production. Proof: No matter how much time and energy someone spends making mud pies, they will still be worthless. And if someone stumbles across a diamond on the sidewalk, it is worth millions.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Contracts are only de-legitimatized through force or fraud, not your personal definition of "fairness".
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
i'm assuming you extend the right to be free from violence to the worker. yet the boss can use the threat of violence to get a job, such as a private security company who wishes to be hired to stop an invasion or one who exploits a starving man to keep him free from mother nature's wrath.
mud pies are not valuable to society. they still wouldn't be even if people paid money for them. and about diamonds, you are forgetting that nature is doing most of the work. it doesn't just magically appear.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
You got me: I should have specified that everyone (boss, worker) has the right to be free from the INITIATION of violence. I am not at all for pacifism. Private security companies stopping invasions if fine by me. I don't understand the starving man example though...who initiates the violence here, Mother Nature? I guess I also should have specified that I think non-human objects don't fit into any system of morality.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Re mud pies: I was just going by your claim that value is based on production ;) So now what inherent characteristic of the object do you say value based on? We've already knocked production off the shelf...
Re property is theft: I'm talking about justified property, not "legal" property. "Legal" property is whatever the hell the government declares. Do you really want to follow that precedent of property though theft?
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
"as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud."
You have some understanding of the labor theory of property, and that is good. But he would only be a fraud if he was claiming UNOWNED property that he didn't apply labor to. Once property has been claimed, you can exchange it and become the new owner, even though you didn't apply labor to it. Example: If I own a shirt, I can give it to my brother, and the shirt is then legitimately his.
==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
if all you are making is a mud pie then you really aren't producing anything. but i do stand corrected. what i meant to say is that the true value of your creation is the benefit it gives society at large. most people agree with this system, even if they don't know it. it is why we have high taxes on cigarettes.
marx would probably have a good laugh reading your sentence. it's like saying do you really want to follow that precedent of theft through theft?
==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
someone controlling a factory can be indirect violence, so its a good analogy. say the private security firm has extra guns but will not give you any, and decides that you are not worth saving. do you have the right to steal a gun to protect yourself? is it even really stealing? or say they bought a piece of land that gives good protection, and if you are anywhere else you will be killed. do they still own the land? why should taking a factory from a boss be any different?
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
hunter-gatherers stole animals from their families.. yet they believed in repayment, albeit a very kooky kind involving animal and sometimes human sacrifice... anyway, we got an assload of trade secrets from Germany after WW2, most land in America was stolen from Indians. and then there's the stolen profit taken from the workers and given to the capitalist who did nothing but sit on his hindquarters handing out pieces of paper. so there's a precedent of people possessing property through theft.
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud. therefore the factory "owner" cannot make a legitimate contract under your own definition.
if a boss decides to use someones desperation (such as starving if he cannot find work) as a means to further his own selfish goals by haggling a lower wage he is taking advantage of the forces of nature, therefore de-legitimizing his contract. regulations would prohibit this.
No comments:
Post a Comment