/freedu/ - Free Education

>>67

>oh no i have to pay a small amount of money so that poor people don't live in poverty

let's see what your reaction is when we're paying 50%+ in taxes for people who piss it away.

>>325

I'm not trying to say that the current tax system has it right, but in principle I agree with being taxed for the benefit of the society I live in, and that includes providing education so that I can live in a society of well-educated human beings, hopefully useful ones too.

>>794

What are you talking about

>>795

Not that anon (or OP), but I think I know where they were going.

Leftism is mostly based upon ideology and theory whereas conservatism/rightism is based upon observed patterns and human nature (e.g. greed).

That is to say, leftism may not necessarily be correct if it does not take observed patterns and human nature into account (which it often fails to do, see: Karl Marx).

>>57

Democracy a shit, run your board how you please. It's good to know what you meant in the banner, though.

>>322

Food isn't a right. Saying it is a right implies that you have the right to the product of another individual's labor, which is incorrect in nearly every political ideology.

We may have a large abundance of food, but that doesn't mean that there is a superabundance in nature. We usually have to create food for ourselves in one manner or another, be it through forging, cooking, hunting, etc.

I personally want more informed and educated people, but I don't believe that the proper way to achieve that is through state compulsory education.

>>67

oh no charity doesn't exist

society can only exist through socialism, muh poors won't live if the gubmint doesn't take the products of my labor at gunpoint

>>840

Sorry my friend, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Near every leftist I've ever seen has ignored fundamental human nature; they normally scorn the rich while believing that giving power to others in order to tax the rich will do much better. They trade one evil for another and believe they're addressing human nature – which they've failed to do in nearly every possible instance.

>>842

The number of times you've mentioned "human nature" makes me think you're a troll. But I'll bite.

Human nature is not fixed. Human nature depends on material experience, real world conditions. Human nature changes dependent on social, economic and political situations.

The left wing does not believe in "giving power to others in order to tax the rich". It believes in workers' democracy, in peoples' democracy, and in collective ownership and collective power.

Maybe you should try and do some reading while you're here.

>>843

I only want a legitimate answer.

Would you say that no matter material experience and world conditions, there will always be selfish people? Would you say there are men of low morals, even in cases where they have more than enough resources to subsist and thrive upon?

We must be talking about two different types of leftists. I'm speaking primarily on the topic of the economic left; not necessarily the cultural or social left.

I disbelieve in the power or efficiency of collectivism much of the time; I see no problem, however, in workers voluntarily joining unions and making voluntary exchanges with employers or contractors.

Also, I've gotten horribly bored nearly every time I've tried to read leftist literature.

Marx is boring and dry; Chomsky can be a headache; politicians are often too idealistic and simplistic in their argumentation. Do you have any recommendations as to where I should start?

>>844

> Would you say that no matter material experience and world conditions, there will always be selfish people?

I would say that we are entirely formed by our material experience, so no, not no matter them - but I agree that it is near impossible to create material conditions that ensure that nobody is ever selfish, sure.

> Would you say there are men of low morals, even in cases where they have more than enough resources to subsist and thrive upon?

Sure, but resources are not all we mean by material conditions.

> I'm speaking primarily on the topic of the economic left; not necessarily the cultural or social left.

Economics and culture are intrinsically linked. I think you could benefit from studying some history, I don't mean that to sound patronizing or rude. When you look at the history of human societies, you will find that economic situations determine cultural situations, and vice versa. Any leftist who thinks they are only "an economic leftist" or only a "cultural leftist" is a stupid leftist. And leftist economic policy is, as I say, not about "taxing the rich". It is about collective ownership of the means of production, of the economy.

If you're getting bored reading leftist literature from the "greats" maybe it might be worth trying to find some more accessible breakdowns of their work, something for beginners? Where to "start" is a hard question, as you're not "starting", really - you already have knowledge and ideas, even if some of them are incorrect. Where to "start" depends on where you are right now. Check out the leftist literature thread and see if there is anything there that takes your fancy - I understand that jumping straight into Marx can be a little tough.

>>848

There's something of a language barrier here. It's far easier to understand those who agree with you when they use certain language than those who are diametrically opposed. (For reference, I consider myself something of a Rothbardian.) Given that, please forgive any blatant contradictions on my part.

When you say material experience, are you making reference to dialectical materialism, or is there other terminology associated with that?

You're correct to say that economics determines culture and vice versa, though I would argue that cultural situations don't have as much of an impact on economic policy.

When I said economic left, I had meant the prominent economic left in the west. Market socialists, social democrats, and the like. I disagree with the far left for a number of different reasons than the more "moderate" left.

I've picked up Marx for Beginners, a pamphlet on Marxist economics, that one Maoist economics textbook, and I'm trying to read Trotsky's summary of dialectical materialism now. I'll be sure to grab more whenever I'm done with those.

>>849

Agreed re. the language barrier, it's amazing how much terminology can seep in. Apologies if anything isn't clear.

When I say material experience I mean literally my experience of the physical/material world. And, being a materialist (a dialectical materialist, yes, but the "dialectical" part is not primarily relevant just here) being a materialist I think that the physical/material world is all that there really is - all that exists. So my experience = my material experience.

I agree (and as should all Marxists, really) that economics determines culture more than the other way around, but there is some feedback. Shifts in human ideas do alter the technological or productive forces of an economy, or the political organizations of it, etc. This theory is actually a Marxist theory (and arguably a Hegelian one, but you'd have to ask someone who knows more about Hegel than me) - it's the base-superstructure relationship. And it's a dialectical (that is, "interactive", or "two-way" - "dialectic" coming from the same root as words like "dialogue", so a "conversation") relationship between the base (the socio-political-economic foundations of a society) and the superstructure (the ideas, the culture of a society).

With regards to the point about the economic left, yes - the mainstream Western "left-wing" are Soc Dems and do espouse the ideology you correctly summed up as "tax the rich". Marxists are a little further left than that, and ultimately see soft-left reformism (Soc Dem) as a failure. It's a complicated question, why reformism (Soc Dem) is doomed, if you are interested I can try to answer it.

Enjoy the reading.

>>849

And by the way, that piece on Dialectical Materialism by Trotsky is really good, I think. If there's anything you want to talk over about the text I'd love to

>>850

I'd be more than happy to continue this conversation – but this may not be the best medium, considering this board is primarily meant for educational materials rather than political debate and discussion. If you want to email or something, feel free to.

Considering where I stand on the political spectrum, I already have a couple of my own theories as to why the moderate left won't succeed. But it'd be interesting to hear a Marxist's/communist's perspective on it.

>>852

… it ends with .org (not sure why it cut off)

>>852

>>853

I'm not sure what it is you're referring to that ends in .org but I think that so long as we keep saging our posts to avoid de-railing the board this should be an okay place to discuss? I'm happy to keep coming back here to reply, if you are.

To put it quite bluntly, the general argument from a Marxist perspective as to why the moderate left (often called simply "reformism" in left literature) won't ever ultimately succeed is because it's aims are contradictory.

Reformism, the soft-left - the mainstream "left" parties of developed Western democracies - make demands that in general we find positive; free healthcare, free education, affordable housing and necessary goods (e.g. food), provision of effective and affordable (ideally free-at-the-point-of-contact) social services, etc. However, without breaking from capitalism, the moderate left will never be able to actually fulfill these demands. It is utopian to think that within a capitalist, profit-driven economy there can ever be free universal healthcare, education, etc. Reformist governments can win successes like this, but they are always ultimately forced to go back on them. Reforms like this can be taken away as easily as they were granted. Look at the way the NHS in the UK (free-at-the-point-of-contact healthcare) is being increasingly privatized and turned into a profit-driven organization since capitalism's latest crisis of 2008-2010.

In order to achieve its' goals, the moderate left must break with capitalism as an economic system. It must abandon reformism, and become the revolutionary left that can achieve these ends for people. Otherwise, it is doomed to fail, every time.

How did you enjoy Trotsky on Dialectical Materialism?

>>855

I tried using my email in the email field in a way that a spider wouldn't be able to harvest the address. Turns out that 8chan decided to cut off the "org" at the end.

That type of criticism makes sense. Indeed, the reason isn't wholly dissimilar as to why a number of Austrian economists would say reformists/moderates would fail (though they'd go in the opposite direction).

I think I understood most of what he was saying in that pamphlet. From what I got out of it, much of Marxist sociological analysis is based around the concept that society evolves just as creatures do (and that sociological evolution can be definitely predicted), correct? It's quite a bit to try to understand all at once, considering I've also never read Hegel (and had no idea what his logic was).

I feel that I have fundamental disagreements with Marxist and general communist thought (e.g. the exploitation theory, "scientific socialism", etc.), but I do find it interesting.

>>857

>accidentally click something and it deletes my sage

damnit

>>857

Sounds like you've got a good grasp of the text. I think it's really important to highlight that "vulgar logic" (the logic of mathematics) is still vitally useful, but is ultimately an abstraction from reality, and only dialectical logic can reveal the true, changing and interactive, nature of reality.

I'd be curious to hear what disagreements you have with the concepts of exploitation and scientific socialism.

>>860

Thanks for making the position on mathematical logic a bit more clear.

I'll do my best to summarize my understanding of Marx's idea of exploitation before going into why I disagree with it.

Marx began with Smith's proposition that since an employer would make a profit from the employee's labor, they must be stealing the worth of the employee's labor, and therefore the employer must be stealing that in the form of the employee's wages, correct? Or, more concisely: the employer must only be able to profit from the work of the employee because he takes from the employee's wage?

I feel that this type of criticism is incorrect; it assumes that what the employee would have made for themselves would have necessarily been a wage. Instead, what they would have made would have been a mere product of their labor; not necessarily a wage, as a wage is paid for labor provided.

Instead, I happen to view wages as the product of profits on the part of employers. It is because of capitalists that invest in means of production that employees may be able to make the products of their labor efficiently, thereby making their labor worth more in terms of production (since innovations would mean you can make the same amount of products with less labor). So, because of this investment on the part of employers, they should be able to make a profit while still providing the employee a wage for the labor they've provided.

Admittedly, I'm stealing this argument from George Reisman; look over his post about it, since I'm likely not doing it the justice it deserves: http://www.georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/reismans-remarks-at-conferral-of-his.html

However, I do have another (far less sophisticated) argument regarding this. It is that, ultimately, the laborer would normally create their own products and then trade with others for things that they want or need (assuming they are within a market or barter system). Given that, it is also somewhat probable that they are specialized in one field or another; for example, they may be some sort of chef. Because of this specialization, however, they may not always be able to trade with others for the things that they want or need. So, they work for an employer for a (normally fixed) wage, in order to be able to trade more easily with others.

So, when they work for a capitalist or employer, they are not being exploited (assuming they still have the option of working for themselves and bartering). They are, instead, trading their possibly unsteady/unpredictable income in forms of barter for a steadier income in the form of a wage.

My disagreement with scientific socialism is twofold: theory and practice.

My disagreement with the theory of a scientific form of socialism is mostly because I disbelieve that social sciences are exact sciences; many times you may be able to predict certain outcomes given a number of variables (e.g. general culture of a society), but I fail to believe it is possible to absolutely determine the outcome of certain situations unless we have absolutely perfect knowledge of all variables involved (including individuals). My disagreement with Marxist sociological analysis isn't for reason all to dissimilar (as a society is no more than the sum of its parts, so we must have perfect knowledge of all individuals in order to definitely predict the outcome of its sociological evolution).

Admittedly, my disagreement with the practice of scientific socialism also isn't an argument that I've made on my own. I'm mostly borrowing it from Bastiat (namely from The Law). But I do think he has a great point; his point was that, logically, a scientific form of socialism must be applied by a state or entity in the same way that an individual would mold and shape pottery, and to use such an economic system would mean that such an entity would need to be divorced from the economic system and have perfect knowledge of it. So, in order for this to be a possibility, the state would need to be omnipotent and divorced from the individuals within the system (to some degree), which isn't too likely considering a state is made up of a group of individuals as well.

I may not be making much sense here; apologies if that's the case. I'm normally not the best with wording my arguments, so feel free to ask for clarification if anything isn't clear. Also feel free to critique or correct me on anything I'm incorrect on.

>>862

I'll be sure to read that soon. I'll probably get into some of it tonight and finish up most of the rest of it tomorrow. That being said, I'd recommend that post by Reisman if you haven't looked over it.

You're correct to say that price is necessarily higher than the wage paid to the worker producing the good. No one bids down; if it cost an employer ~$10 to produce a good, it's pretty unlikely that they'll sell that good for under $10 (unless they're desperate to get rid of it). But honestly, I feel you're overlooking a decent number of variables; things like what people are producing (as the profits made on products will influence wages), the hours they work, the effort and time it takes to produce a good, what sort of bonuses they may get (e.g. time-and-a-half for overtime), etc.

When all of these variables are considered, a great number of individuals (perhaps even a majority) are undoubtedly left off better than how they started. Again, people don't bid down; if an employee is working for an employer, it can be implied that they wanted the money/goods more than their time, and the employer wanted the employee's labor more than their money/goods.

But just for the sake of argument, I'll make another point regarding employers/capitalists.

I only see it as fair to say that, in many cases (perhaps not most in the "capitalist", i.e. corporate-capitalist, countries today), the money earned by capitalists is earned. As I've previously stated, they have invested in means of production in order to more efficiently produce the goods which laborers will create. As such, since they have (likely) voluntarily traded with another individual for such means, be it machinery or whatever else, and own such means, it is their right to trade with others for their time and labor so long as both parties consent. And, still assuming that any individual would have the right to work for themselves, I fail to see how it can effectively be exploitation.

But, even putting that aside, there is another reason for it. What of the work put into building a business: investing in capital, finding buyers for produced goods, renovating workplaces, attempting to minimize the cost of production through innovation, etc.?

>>864

I'm sure my points are deteriorating as I get more tired. Bleh

>>864

I'm reading through the Reisman and it is interesting stuff and he is making some valid points, but already I must admit I find myself saying "he's not really understood Marx's ideas properly". Of course capitalists can be workers too, in their idea generation. If a human being invests time and energy into inventing something new, even if only conceptually, and others build it, they are a worker. But the point is, that a capitalist, a business-owner, an "idea generator" - they are not some superior level of worker to the manual worker, to the worker who builds the concepts. They are workers just the same. I will articulate a proper response to the article in a moment.

Regarding your statement:"if an employee is working for an employer, it can be implied that they wanted the money/goods more than their time, and the employer wanted the employee's labor more than their money/goods" - this sounds a lot like a "rational choice theory" approach to human behaviour, and honestly that's an approach we Marxists consider grossly misguided. People are not free, rational agents, unburdened by society or by biological need, floating around in a vacuum of imaginary society. I don't say that to sound derisive. People exist in their material world. In this society, I have to work for a wage from an employer in order to survive. That wage feeds me and keeps me in a house - to imply that "I want that money more than my time" is to imply that I could have any time without that money; that money is what allows me to stay alive, essentially. It's not a "rational choice" - it's barely even a choice at all. I might be able to choose between a handful of different employers, but they will all pay a similar wage for similar work. To frame workers as people holding any kind of proper agency or power over their own economic lives is demonstrably false. Even with bonuses as you describe, even if I am "better off than how I started" given this wage - workers are still necessarily earning less than the average price level, and capitalists still get to dictate my wage level.

With regards to your final paragraph; I think you should consider what "investing in capital" really means. It means having existing wealth, paying workers a wage of some kind for something (building new machinery, building a new factory, etc - even if it's by proxy, via the stock market) and then earning profit again on that wealth.

The work put into building a business, the actual work put into it - finding buyers for produced goods, renovating workplaces, attempting to minimize the cost of production through innovation - yes, that is all work. A person who does all that, is a worker. They are investing their time and energy in production, and should be compensated fairly, no doubt.

(cont.)

>>864

>>866

Okay, so I've read the Reisman article.

Overall, I think it's based on some serious misunderstandings and flawed reasonings. I actually think I addressed some of it already in my previous two posts.

I want to draw attention to three quotes in particular from the article:

"the profits of capitalists are a fully earned income, attributable to their labor by virtue of their providing the goals of their firms and the highest level of guiding and directing intelligence required to achieve those goals."

As I said previously, yes - the capitalists deserve to earn a democratically decided wage for their work put into the business, just like any other worker.

"the profit motive and competition that drives the capitalists, the output of goods per worker under capitalism tends continually to increase."

This question of motivation, of the profit-motive and what drives us, is answered beautifully by this video. This is not even a Marxist perspective, here, this is just current research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

"They pay wages and use their wealth in the production of ever more and better products that the wage earners can afford to buy"

The reason the capitalists can use their wealth to invest in and produce greater technologies, more than the individual wages of workers, is because they are paying workers small wages in order to have great wealth. It is not hard to see how this problem would be overcome, if profits are instead turned towards public goods, and society democratically decides how that money should be spent - on research and development, invested in new infrastructure, etc.

Fundamentally I found the article unconvincing on every point. Some interesting contentions were raised, they are not stupid contentions, but they are grounded in some seriously flawed understandings of human beings, of economics, and of Marxist theory itself.

"In the early years of the Industrial Revolution it was necessary for many people to work 80 hours a week to earn enough to be able to live. (Before that, many such people didn’t live. They died of malnutrition and accompanying disease.) A generation or two later, after the output per worker had doubled or tripled, thanks to the capitalists, the average worker came to be in a position in which he could afford to accept the lower earnings of a shorter work week. In fact, he could afford to accept wages lower in greater proportion than his hours were reduced."

As I've said - we do not think that capitalism made life worse for anyone than before. We just think that now, we have the knowledge and the technology, to make it better. Because quite frankly, for billions around the world, it's still not exactly great, is it?

>>866

Sorry to take so long to respond. Homework and family shit has kept me busy.

I don't disagree with your point that idea generation doesn't necessarily put them above other workers. But I don't think that most capitalist theorists would attempt to reason that such a reason by itself constitutes putting one worker above another.

My point is that capitalists/employers have a legal right to what they have traded for. As such, they have a right to say who may and may not use their property; I do not believe that anyone has any particular claim to a piece of property just because they've used it.

Also, regarding your point on investing in capital: I understand exactly what investment is (i.e. using existing wealth to gain capital, etc.), but I don't think you're giving proper respect to the work that may have been required for that investment. For example, do they have proper claim to the profit generated by that capital if they had to put extensive research into what they should invest in?

I think you misunderstand what I meant with my time/money exchange. I had merely meant that you would prefer the money to what you can otherwise do with your time – and one does not necessarily need unlimited time to make the axiom work.

Does the axiom have a few flaws? Sure. But, in general, it works.

Capitalists do generally keep prices higher than wages. But it should be noted that many capitalists model most of the wages they pay after the revenue that a worker generates on average (though, still less than the actual revenue that the worker generates, since that is the only economically sane way to pay wages).

I also think you should consider that a lot of profits made are put back into investing in more materials for production (at least in industries that require production of physical goods/services).

>>867

Even as a capitalist theorist, I have no real problem with the idea of collective ownership and cooperative businesses. My only real problem with (the perceived) communist applications of these things is that they would be enforced. If people were to voluntarily invest in co-ops with property they've traded for, then I'd have no problem – however, if there's coercion involved, I have to begin to disagree. The same thing largely goes for things like democratically voting for wages.

But I disagree with your assertion that we can't determine the profits/revenue that an individual produces. We can, without much doubt, say that someone that works to put together computers would generate more wealth for a company than someone who cleans the floors. Profits may be largely achieved through collective action, but we can still assess an individual's work and compare it to the worth of another person's work in terms of the business.

Don't get me wrong. Even as a capitalist theorist (specifically, an Austrian Economist), I'm vastly against the so-called "1%". I find that much of their wealth is not generated due to actual work, but due to state interventions in the economy (largely in things like "intellectual property" legislation and other protectionist laws).

I don't particularly know how to respond to your third reply. But to your final point: I know that many people in the world are not having their standards of living raised. But I normally also find that many of the countries with worse living conditions are deviating further from laissez-faire capitalist principles; examples: much of the middle east, most of Africa, a number of Asian countries (including DPRK, the Philippines, etc.). Part of the reason that many of these countries can also be demonstrably seen as being exploited by capitalists (mostly the "1%") is because of the greater amounts of intervention on the part of the state (e.g. intrusive workplace laws, minimum wage laws, etc.).

If you'd be interested in a relatively concise guide to laissez-faire economics, feel free to download one of the pdfs. (Be warned – the second is poorly formatted, probably epub > pdf. The actual physical book is only ~210 pages. But the second one is also the updated version.)

>>882

No worries about taking time to respond, I check back on this board most days so that's no issue.

My point is that capitalists are placed as more important than other workers, in their idea generation. Of course investment can be hard work - you're right, there is extensive research and meetings and paperwork to do. But the reality is that most capitalists pay other people to do those things for them. Of course a wage is deserved for that work - probably quite a high wage, if those working in the company democratically conclude that said work is worthy of a high wage. My point is that what they do not deserve is unchecked profits, regardless of how much actual work they put in.

I suppose the real difference here, is that I see human production, human beings themselves, as social creatures and social interactions. Human society is a collective, and as such I believe that everyone gets an equal, democratic say in the distribution of the profits (or surplus value, we would call it in a socialist society or business) earned by that society. This is the case for me on a matter of principle, as well as the matter of practice - as we discussed, the existence of private profit leads to poverty for many, as they are forced to live on wages below the average price level.

Your contentions around coercion in a co-operative workplace are really interesting; precisely because I agree, the application of these ideas becomes a problem when it is coerced. We would want these reforms - we would want all socialist change - to happen because people are calling for it, because people want it. In fact, the application of any socio-economic system becomes a problem, for me - and I assume for you too - when it is coercive. And that's exactly why I have such a problem with capitalism as a socio-economic system. It is fundamentally a coercive system. We have to work for a wage, set by one of x number of capitalists (and market forces ensures their collusion) in order to eat, pay rent, live. We are coerced into working for them, because we have no other options, by and large.

Of course there are states around the world that enforce laws badly upon their citizens. I don't think that it is factually correct to say that minimum wage laws in particular open a place up for exploitation though - quite the opposite - the absence of minimum wage laws is precisely why capitalist enterprise has redirected to some of these poorer parts of the world.

I think we all saw the demonstrable failings of a laissez-faire approach to the finance sector in 2008, but I understand that that doesn't negate or rule out the concept of a laissez-faire approach (although I must admit that from the reading I have already done on it in the past, I'm evidently unconvinced thus far and still a Marxist and a socialist) but I will look at these papers anyway.

I'm enjoying our debate very much.

>>882

By the way, did you watch the youtube video I linked you to in response to Reisman, and the issue of motivation and drive?

>>886

Shit, forgot to sage, apologies.

>>886

Getting back to you really quickly; not here to debate at the moment (don't have the time to, in the middle of a couple of things).

My bad, I hadn't gotten around to watching that video. I'll try to watch it whenever I finish up my homework tonight.

Both of those documents are the same book – it's only that the second one is poorly formatted but has a few updates from the author. I'd recommend the second over the first, but the choice is really up to you.

I forgot to sage one of the books as well. Oh well.

>>885

Watched the video. It makes a number of good points. I'm a little confused about how the incentives were supposed to work (were they given the incentive regardless of their performance?), but it was otherwise rather informative.

I see humans as social creatures as well. Even so, I don't believe that humans are a collective – I view people as individuals, no matter what type of society they may live in. They make their own choices, for the most part.

I disagree with the assertion that capitalism is a coercive system. I can see where you're coming from, to a certain degree – but I think you mistake coercion with nature to some extent.

Capitalists do not cause other individuals to starve, whereas nature does. Capitalists do not force people to be in need of shelter, whereas nature does.

Let's use a basic example to demonstrate this point. Let us say a person is stuck in a 10m deep hole and can't get out. Someone else drives by in their truck, sees the hole, and stops near it. They see the person stuck inside of the hole, and just so happen to have a 10m ladder in their truck. They offer the person in the hole to use the ladder, but only if the person in the hole gives them $5 when they get out. Is this coercive?

I would argue no. They are only asking for a return in order to use a good that they own. (I may, however, argue that the guy with the ladder is a dick.)

The man with the ladder didn't force the other person into the hole. (Had they done so, I would agree on principle that it would be coercive.)

And I feel that the same principle largely applies to capitalism: it isn't due to the fact that a person doesn't give you food that you may starve, it is rather due to biological need that you may starve. If they offer you a deal in order that you may not starve, and you refuse, then I fail to see it as a coercive act.

I agree with you partly on the minimum wage issue. I agree on the grounds that a number of capitalists do move production to other countries because those countries have no minimum wage, but I think that because of the fact that we have a minimum wage it incentivizes capitalists to move production to countries where it is cheaper. There is also the issue of larger companies and corporations advocating higher minimum wages in order to financially harm smaller companies.

This might be worth watching (short ancap analysis of minimum wage laws): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

As for the 2008 financial sector collapse, I happen to disagree that it was due to laissez-faire economic policy that the problem took place. I see it as more a problem of government encouraging bad loans that caused the problem (in fact, I see the Great Depression in a similar manner).

I'd recommend reading this analysis of it if you have the time: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/housing-finance-2008-financial-crisis

>>900

I don't have time to address your final two points, and watch the video or read the analysis right now, but I do plan to come back to them.

For now I will just say that regarding the coercive nature of capitalism; I firmly believe that capitalists do cause other individuals to starve - it is not "nature". This might sound a little crazy at first, but bear with me - I don't really think there is such a thing as "nature", that is distinct from the human systems we create. There is no raw, pure, natural "state of nature" - there is only what things are. Capitalism is "nature" in that it is a naturally occurring system of human organization. And, "naturally", it can develop into something else.

Capitalism is coercive because capitalists own all the raw material, the resources, and they pay you a wage for labour, only to sell the goods you labour to produce back to you at an inflated cost. And this is, for most of us, the only way to get access to resources at all. This is coercive, I would argue.

I'll reply further later, apologies.

>>903

I was waiting for a further response before I responded to this.

My point about nature wasn't particularly that capitalism in and of itself is a natural system. It was more that people would starve without trade unless they were to begin forging, hunting, gardening, etc.; or, that they would starve unless they were to trade (requiring them to create value, work, etc. for resources to trade).

In regards to your last point, I wouldn't argue that it's exploitative. If an individual has the resources to trade for capital, and decides to do so only to employ people by their own voluntary agreement, then I view it as a victory for both the capitalist and the worker.

It may be inefficient (indeed, I can see how co-ops would be much more efficient in a number of ways), but I think it's a bit of a stretch to outright call it exploitation when the worker likely won't work for a capitalist if they seriously think their labor is worth more than what they're getting.