Tell me about economics, Veeky Forums...

But property already is theft, friend.

The most individualistic possible application of ownership of the means of production would be mutualism in that it both allows for self-management and more intuitive market forces.

Private ownership however, whilst allowing individualistic control for the owner, forbids economic autonomy of everyone who does not own private property.

AGRARIAN JUSTICE

By that line of logic, liberation theology or Qutbism become more robust in principle when adherents are divorced from consumerism by spiritual calling? It all but undermines the bedrock of capitalist existence when your life is not determined by earned capital and maintained by commodities, rather than deeds and spiritual values. Do the means of production need to be seized if their products do not need to be owned?

It would be like interrupting socialism-in-progress by shattering the labor theory of value, and divorcing one from the other. How could you continue without basic principles?

Not always, there are plenty of capitalists who are philanthropists and make wealth for the good of the world rather than themselves.

I think you misunderstood, what I meant is that, you cannot find a common trait between all successful people in a capitalist system.

Humans are innately materialistic to some degree in their nature, for instance we all have a desire to eat.

OP asked economically, nations that take the belief that property is theft haven't historically done well.

Also, no it's not.

Yet private property remains more efficient and would become the dominant force in the economy. Without a state to enforce the socialised property there is nothing to stop this

>OP asked economically, nations that take the belief that property is theft haven't historically done well.
They mustn't have believed it too hard because they went on to keep literally all the property and run the entire country like a business.

Places like China, that are visibly not socialist are the logical conclusion of Soviet-logic. Because if it's not theft when the government owns everything, how can it be theft when private entities own some of it?
>Yet private property remains more efficient and would become the dominant force in the economy. Without a state to enforce the socialised property there is nothing to stop this
On the contrary the state is necessary also to maintain private control the means of production.

In the absence of a state there would be nothing to stop socialism.

>They mustn't have believed it too hard because they went on to keep literally all the property and run the entire country like a business.
You're equating two completely unrelated things there.

Saying that countries stole property doesn't make all property theft. Is all sex rape?

>run the entire country like a business.
Name one country ever run like a business

>the state is necessary also to maintain private control the means of production.
Is the state necessary to maintain my private control of a hammer?

>In the absence of a state there would be nothing to stop socialism.
True, but since socialist enterprises are less efficient they would be outcompeted by private ones. I don't think any capitalist would want to stop voluntary socialist enterprises anyway.

>Saying that countries stole property doesn't make all property theft.
I'm not saying nationalization is theft.
I'm saying literally all private property (aka privately owned means of production) is theft, it's a famous saying of Proudhon.

>Name one country ever run like a business
Every centrally planned economy ever, most famously the USSR.

Because in case you haven't noticed businesses are centrally planned.

>Is the state necessary to maintain my private control of a hammer?
No, but it would be necessary to maintain control of say a factory.

You actually use your own hammer, it only takes one person to use it. But the bourgeoisie seldom use their own factories and it takes a multitude of people to use that.

>but since socialist enterprises are less efficient they would be outcompeted by private ones
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying capitalism depends on force to maintain ownership of the means of production and subsequently subjugation of their employeees. In an ancap utopia say the workers decided to call a strike the owner would be absolutely fucked unless he resorted to force to break the strike up - therein becoming a kind of state in himself.

The police are the most fundamental defense of the capitalist system, without them the bourgeoisie would either be forced to make their own police or be left vulnerable to worker's organization.

You need to annihilate all religions cultures, philosophies, and schools of thought that advocate for hierarchy of social structure. You also need to physically exterminate those who put forth these ideas. Also global revolution is basically a necessity because capitalism is global, you can't let these ideas exist anywhere in earth

>Every centrally planned economy ever, most famously the USSR.
Take a business course and realise that businesses goals are to satisfy customers. There are very few businesses that use force to keep customers and employees. The USSR was run as a totalitarian state, controlling most every aspect of its citizen's lives not as a business.

>You actually use your own hammer, it only takes one person to use it.
So I can only own things that take one person to use?

>But the bourgeoisie seldom use their own factories and it takes a multitude of people to use that.
Who do you think manages the factories finances, business deals, brand management, new products, new machines, employment?
It's mostly the owners.
Who gives the investment to build the factory? Employing all of those people.
Again, the owners. If you take away the ability to gain wealth people don't risk their own wealth to do build factories.

>In an ancap utopia say the workers decided to call a strike the owner would be absolutely fucked
Yes, capitalism is about voluntary interaction. If an owner treats his workers poorly they can stop working for him, organise, buy the factory. I've not once suggested the idea that workers should be forced to work where they don't want to.

>The police are the most fundamental defense of the capitalist system, without them the bourgeoisie would either be forced to make their own police or be left vulnerable to worker's organization.
Again that's not what capitalism is, that's statism, mercantilism, and cronyism. Not the free market. State control is capitalism.

>State control is capitalism.
*is not

Commie kikes get in the oven

This is the thing about monopoly.

If one business owned all the property, all the the security forces, if basically everything that could be privatized was owned by one entity that business could and would control most every aspect of civilian life. We can see this in Pullman town where a privately owned town was built in the US and wound up being totalitarian as fuck.

The USSR was run for profit, it just spent those profits on weapons and a massive military rather rather than funding the lavish lifestyle of whoever is in charge (tho it did that too).

> one person to use?
In anarchism? Yes, use-by-ownership is basically the rule of thumb as to who owns what. Say you own a toothbrush, obviously only you is using it or even could use it. However say you and your partner share a car, you essentially own that car in common with each other.

>Again, the owners
Well this is like saying if you take away the ability of lords to gain wealth then they won't risk their wealth to expand their baronies fields.

Fundamentally it's workers who build the factory, and if workers elsewhere thought it would be beneficial to expand their workforce to another factory there's no reason they couldn't contract construction workers to do so. And if in the absence of someone at the top to accrue massive amounts of profit it wouldn't be beneficial for anyone? Then what would be the point?

This is an actually free market, people own the fullest value of what they produce and are free to spend it or pool it together for whatever they like. And if the free market rejects building new factories? Then so be it.

1/2

>. If an owner
I don't think that's realistic. If you work for a living then you're going to have a hard time just quitting your job and moving elsewhere since there's such a thing as transaction costs. You are going to need to be able to support yourself in the mean time of searching for a new job, and possibly even put money into something as costly as moving home.

The 19th century happened, and that's definite proof that if an owner treats his workers poorly it's not as simple as just quitting.

>Again that's not what capitalism is
There's lots of different varieties of capitalism but it's wrong to say free-market capitalism is the only capitalism. And it's even more wrong to say the Austrian school is the only authority on what is and isn't capitalism.

Most economists would agree with this point, the police and other state instruments are important to capitalism.

2/2

>This is the thing about monopoly.
Give an example of a free market monopoly that was bad for the consumer.

>The USSR was run for profit
You could apply that logic to any country, if it was truly run for profit it would have generated profit.
You can't call profit an end and a means.
The USSR was run to build a super state
Businesses are run to generate profit for the sake of profit.

>use-by-ownership is basically the rule of thumb as to who owns what.
The problem is human wants are infinite while resources are not.

>However say you and your partner share a car, you essentially own that car in common with each other.
Yes, but we don't also own it with our neighbours or anyone else. We both own it it because we voluntarily decided to share the cost.

>Well this is like saying if you take away the ability of lords to gain wealth then they won't risk their wealth to expand their baronies fields.
Well they won't.

>Fundamentally it's workers who build the factory
They are compensated to do so and agree to do so. If they can build it and run it themselves why do they let someone pay them to work and run it?

>And if in the absence of someone at the top to accrue massive amounts of profit it wouldn't be beneficial for anyone?
Bill gates has generated far more for society and the world than you or I, even as a percentage he has taken a fraction of the wealth he has generated for himself. Without people like him the world would be a far poorer place.

>The 19th century happened,
You mean the greatest advancement of wealth for the poorest people in society that has ever occurred?
People were far worse off for all of history before the 19th century.

>There's lots of different varieties of capitalism but it's wrong to say free-market capitalism is the only capitalism.
Capitalism has been mixed with other systems but pure capitalism is free voluntary exchange.

1/2

>Most economists would agree with this point, the police and other state instruments are important to capitalism.
Appeal to authority. The police and other state instruments are important to state capitalism. The free market is able to provide fairer alternatives to all state instruments

2/2

That is not what materialistic means

>Give an example of a free market monopoly that was bad for the consumer.
As I said, Pullman Town.

>You could apply that logic to any country, if it was truly run for profit it would have generated profit.
It did generate profit. It just invested that profit straight into buying weapons.

Where do you think they got the money to pay for all those nukes?

>The problem is human wants are infinite while resources are not.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here.

>Yes, but we don't also own it with our neighbours or anyone
That's true, because only the two of you are using it. This is the point of use-by-ownership.

> If they can build it
Because they can't afford to do so by virtue of the capitalist system exploiting the labour.

On rare occassions they do, and thus far co-ops seem to work pretty well.

>Bill gates has generated far more for society
I don't think you understood my point.

I was talking about market incentive in this specific instance of building a factory. If there is no incentive for workers to pool together to expand their workforce to a factory so they don't then what's the problem?

>You mean the greatest advancement of wealth for the poorest people in society that has ever occurred?
If you're interested in learning more about the 19th century I advise you to read this book.

Or any contemporary book for that matter.

>pure capitalism is free voluntary exchange.
It isn't, this is free-market dogmatism. Capitalism is as follows
>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5]

>fairer alternatives to all state instruments
Yes, like causing captialism to collapse into socialism without state intervention to preserve it. This is my point - without a state capitalism cannot survive.

One more thing.

>Appeal to authority.
Economist's opinions on capitalism is not an appeal to authority anymore than a doctor's opinions on why you should vaccinate kids is an appeal to authority.

>Pullman Town
An entire town owned by an individual is not a free market. He also never forced anyone to stay in his town and people were free to leave.

>It did generate profit.
The USSR used profit as a means
A business uses profit as an end

Otherwise you could say all countries are run like businesses.

>I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here.
You can't let people take whatever they want because people want an infinite amount, there isn't an infinite amount of resources so people can't have an infinite amount. So ownership-by-use is fundamentally flawed because people can use more than they can produce.

>Use-by-ownership
You realise that advocates private property rights, yes?

>Because they can't afford to do so by virtue of the capitalist system exploiting the labour.
Except they are not exploited, they voluntarily agree to build it for money. A voluntary agreement is by definition not exploitation.

>I don't think you understood my point.
Your point
>And if in the absence of someone at the top to accrue massive amounts of profit it wouldn't be beneficial for anyone?
Has nothing to do with workers getting together to not build a factory.

>If there is no incentive for workers to pool together to expand their workforce to a factory so they don't then what's the problem?
No problem, that's why most also don't do it. But if no one built factories people would ultimately be poorer.

>If you're interested in learning more about the 19th century I advise you to read this book.
So you don't have an argument? Can you name a time when the poorest in society saw greater economic growth?

>It isn't, this is free-market dogmatism. Capitalism is as follows
See how that list includes voluntary exchange? And no other item conflicts with voluntary exchange?

1/2

>without a state capitalism cannot survive.
Historical evidence for that where? Your argument seems to be
>Capitalism would just become socialism therefore it is bad. But socialism is the only way to organise society
My point is that in a free society the most efficient system will prevail, which is capitalism. It is not hard to imagine private security companies protecting people's private property. Much like exist today.

>Economist's opinions on capitalism is not an appeal to authority anymore than a doctor's opinions on why you should vaccinate kids is an appeal to authority.
That is an appeal to authority. An argument needs evidence and reason to be made. Doctors have given bad advice in the past as has every group of professionals.

2/2

>An entire town owned by an individual is not a free market.
Yes it is, it just so happens that this one individual was so successful on the free market he was able to monopolize an entire town.

Not to mention your question was a free market monopoly that was bad for the consumer, which this decidedly was.

>A business uses profit as an end
They don't. If your goal is to just accrue money like Scrooge McDuck there's not much of a point to that profit. The general use of accruing money is to fund a nicer lifestyle and to reinvest it to further consolidate financial success.

The USSR just chose to reinvest in weapons. But the distinction between the USSR and non centrally planned countries is that they fund their armies through taxation, the USSR owned every possible shop, factory, farm or apartment in the entire country and everyone worked for them and paid their money right back into them.

>You can't let people take whatever they want because people want an infinite amount, there isn't an infinite amount of resources so people can't have an infinite amount.
I'm not saying they should just take whatever they want. As a mutualist I'm still saying market mechanisms should exist.

>people can use more than they can produce.
Excepting things like this is one of the follies of free market capitalist economics. It's modelled as if were the price of everything to be zero (not that I'm saying that) then consumption would be infinite.

Even if theoretically people could have whatever they wanted they wouldn't go "I want everything" because you simply cannot possibly consume that much as an individual. The classic example is TV. Were the price of TV to go down even to zero people wouldn't start watching more TV, they already watch all the TV they want.

And use-by-ownership undermines this kind of reckless consumption even in the theoretical, you cannot be using infinitely so you cannot be demanding ownership infinitely.

1/?

>You realise that advocates private property rights, yes?
It doesn't, the bourgeoisie do not use their private property - workers do. Even in very small businesses where they do they do not use it alone, they have employees to help them.

>Except they are not exploited, they voluntarily agree to build it for money. A voluntary agreement is by definition not exploitation.
Ancaps have this very odd definition of exploition that it only matters when violence is used (which it is to maintain private property but that's another story).

Exploition fundamentally is taking advantage of a weakness in something so that it works in your favour. Just as you can exploit legal loopholes to get away with otherwise underhanded practices you can exploit workers as you're taking advantage of their need for sustinence against your violently enforced control of private property. They get such limited options here as the bourgeoisie have all the bargaining power.

Likewise you can approach a thirsty man in the desert with a litre of water on the condition he's now in debt to you for 10 billion. Theoretically it was voluntary, but it's still exploition as you're taking advantage of his weakness for your benefit.

>Has nothing to do with workers getting together to not build a factory.
It does because the thing I'm questioning the benefits of is building a factory.

>But if no one built factories people would ultimately be poorer.
No, because I mentioned they would build a factory if that would advance their position. Were the conditions of the workers to be in question then expansion would be a legitimate option.

>Can you name a time when the poorest in society saw greater economic growth?
According to this chart we've seen our greatest decline in poverty since 1950.

>See how that list includes voluntary exchange? And no other item conflicts with voluntary exchange?
Yes. How do we not have voluntary exchange now?

Historical evidence in basically every civil war of the 20th century. When the state gets weak socialist movements get strong.

>My point is that in a free society the most efficient system will prevail, which is capitalism.
And my point is the most beneficial system would prevail in the absence of a state to mediate things.

Quantifying "efficiency" as "how much money it makes" is a very dumb way of quantifying it and a lot of people wouldn't agree. Especially since making that money requires doing so on the backs of labourers who would certainly prefer a more equitable system.

>That is an appeal to authority. An argument needs evidence and reason to be made. Doctors have given bad advice in the past as has every group of professionals.
Yes and that bad advice was consistent with contemporary medical knowledge just as support for a state is consistent with modern economics.

Oh, forgot one thing

> It is not hard to imagine private security companies protecting people's private property. Much like exist today.

Yes, those are cops and by exercising such a monopoly of violence that private entity effectively becomes a state in themselves. As I said earlier

>The police are the most fundamental defense of the capitalist system, without them the bourgeoisie would either be forced to make their own police

>Free market
>Monopoly

Wtf desu

A monopoly is not a free market
A free market requires the state to prevent/break up monopolies

>Saying that countries stole property doesn't make all property theft.
It basically does, because it matters to foreign investors. No sane investor is going to buy anything or attempt to loan to a communist country.

The moment that communism was halted was the moment the movement was over. Giving Stalin tons of shit over ethics is bad history, but him destroying Chinese relations was completely retarded.