4 ms·

The Capitalist order was created with the closure of the commons, creating large masses of people with nothing to sell but their labor. The resulting 'Enclosure

The Capitalist order was created with the closure of the commons, creating large masses of people with nothing to sell but their labor. The resulting 'Enclosure Riots' where put down with great force. As a consequence, 'Free exchange' then consists of people with massively unequal bargaining powers coming to an agreement. To see this arrangement as fair, one has to twist their sight up quite a bit. A defense of the free market without redistribution to counter the effects of this and other historical crimes is a defense of oligarchical privilege.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
I'm pretty sure that if the commons had been divided up equally among the people who previously had the right to use them, we would be exactly where we are now. Capitalism results in inequality regardless of initial conditions, because people differ in their abilities, and in their luck. A much more powerful argument for redistribution than capitalism original sin, is that (1) we all live in a society, where we rely on the state to provide the security and infrastructure in which the free market is even possible, and (2) redistribution is the least intrusive, least restrictive method of improving societal wellbeing. It is (potentially) completely indifferent and blind to everything a person is and does, except for their total income. I know this argument seems weaker because it involves utilitarian aspects, but it is really a more powerful argument because it doesn't rely on an accident of history.
- kingraoul3 13y ago
  I agree with you (excepting that the violence evidenced in primitive capital accumulation is a historical accident), but the thrust of my argument was to demonstrate that Libertarian philosophy is wrong on it's own terms. There are a variety of other arguments you could advance against it - for example that the self is social fiction with no scientific basis, the increasing communality of all labor, the inherent instability of Capitalism evidenced by the Long Wave cycle, the sociological fact that people's consciousness is shaped by their relationship to the means of production (evidenced, on their part, by their almost uniformly advantaged upbringings)... Speaking for myself, I have lost my taste for extended intellectual debate on the internet, and all of these vectors of criticism would (if I were being intellectually honest) lead to extended debate. It may not be fair of me, but as a Marxist I do believe that the material world will change much more workers minds than some logic arguments arrayed in an online discussion.
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    I don't have the stamina to debate with libertarians, but I also have found that "beating them at their own game" is not a useful strategy. Suppose, for example, you manage to prove to a libertarian that the current distribution of wealth is the result of unfair actions in the past. Then for them, the next best option would probably be to redistribute wealth, and then press "play". Which isn't what you wanted to argue for in the first place, so why make that argument? You say you have lost your taste for intellectual debate online, but I think you would regain it if you were to engage in real debate rather than point-scoring. Your starting point is that you know the truth, and it is "material" factors that prevent others from knowing this truth. But to have this point of view underestimates the power of debate and reason. But of course I can't really convince you that I haven't been subconsciously made blind to the intellectual power of Marxism by my comfortable middle class lifestyle.
    - kingraoul3 13y ago
      >I don't have the stamina to debate with libertarians... Probably true; I guess my comment can thought of more as counter-propaganda. >Suppose, for example... I imagine if I could get someone to question the premises of their hateful, retrograde philosophy I could get them to engage in further inquiry, which might open their eyes. >You say you have lost your taste for intellectual debate online... True, but I could also cultivate other interests. I'm sure eventually it will entice me again, >Your starting point is that you know the truth Marxists don't believe in absolute truth. Do 'debate and reason' derive their power from the material world? It seems to me that they only exercise power in shaping one's consciousness to the degree that they reflect facts about the material world. Following on the heels of that, what facts about a humans physical presence in the world carry more import for every other facet of their life than their economic position (position meaning, in particular, class)? For what it's worth, people can and do argue against economic determinism. The degree of success that they have in that regard is a matter of continuing debate.
Artistry121 13y ago
My argument is practicality as well as theory. First - who had "the commons" before it was closed? From what I understand there has always been someone who had more control over property than another. Who will redistribute in a practical way? Who watches that person to make sure they are both efficient and fair? Also - look at a list of the richest people in America. You'll notice that most came from middle or low class backgrounds. It seems like redistribution occurs fairly rapidly (within one or two generations) compared with other times. Also - please explain who in America has massively unequal bargaining powers? In another comment you said you needed to use "counter propoganda". The internet and forums are largely dominated by your way of thinking. Maybe it's because people who hold your view would rather type about issues than do solid work. And I've also been thinking about this practically. It is right that claims on property, the foundation of many forms of capitalist forms of economies, are not inherent. However couldn't powerful property taxes be useful as this? If we defined property well and taxed ownership then redistribution would be built in and taxes would fall on the richest (those who use the most resources)? I'm just playing with that idea. Also - there is one prominent example of someone living on $7,000 a year comfortably (early retirement extreme) which is far below the minimum wage. This person lives a lifestyle far better than almost anyone two generations ago and most a generation ago.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

I'm pretty sure that if the commons had been divided up equally among the people who previously had the right to use them, we would be exactly where we are now. Capitalism results in inequality regardless of initial conditions, because people differ in their abilities, and in their luck. A much more powerful argument for redistribution than capitalism original sin, is that (1) we all live in a society, where we rely on the state to provide the security and infrastructure in which the free market is even possible, and (2) redistribution is the least intrusive, least restrictive method of improving societal wellbeing. It is (potentially) completely indifferent and blind to everything a person is and does, except for their total income. I know this argument seems weaker because it involves utilitarian aspects, but it is really a more powerful argument because it doesn't rely on an accident of history.

kingraoul3 13y ago
I agree with you (excepting that the violence evidenced in primitive capital accumulation is a historical accident), but the thrust of my argument was to demonstrate that Libertarian philosophy is wrong on it's own terms. There are a variety of other arguments you could advance against it - for example that the self is social fiction with no scientific basis, the increasing communality of all labor, the inherent instability of Capitalism evidenced by the Long Wave cycle, the sociological fact that people's consciousness is shaped by their relationship to the means of production (evidenced, on their part, by their almost uniformly advantaged upbringings)... Speaking for myself, I have lost my taste for extended intellectual debate on the internet, and all of these vectors of criticism would (if I were being intellectually honest) lead to extended debate. It may not be fair of me, but as a Marxist I do believe that the material world will change much more workers minds than some logic arguments arrayed in an online discussion.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I don't have the stamina to debate with libertarians, but I also have found that "beating them at their own game" is not a useful strategy. Suppose, for example, you manage to prove to a libertarian that the current distribution of wealth is the result of unfair actions in the past. Then for them, the next best option would probably be to redistribute wealth, and then press "play". Which isn't what you wanted to argue for in the first place, so why make that argument? You say you have lost your taste for intellectual debate online, but I think you would regain it if you were to engage in real debate rather than point-scoring. Your starting point is that you know the truth, and it is "material" factors that prevent others from knowing this truth. But to have this point of view underestimates the power of debate and reason. But of course I can't really convince you that I haven't been subconsciously made blind to the intellectual power of Marxism by my comfortable middle class lifestyle.
  - kingraoul3 13y ago
    >I don't have the stamina to debate with libertarians... Probably true; I guess my comment can thought of more as counter-propaganda. >Suppose, for example... I imagine if I could get someone to question the premises of their hateful, retrograde philosophy I could get them to engage in further inquiry, which might open their eyes. >You say you have lost your taste for intellectual debate online... True, but I could also cultivate other interests. I'm sure eventually it will entice me again, >Your starting point is that you know the truth Marxists don't believe in absolute truth. Do 'debate and reason' derive their power from the material world? It seems to me that they only exercise power in shaping one's consciousness to the degree that they reflect facts about the material world. Following on the heels of that, what facts about a humans physical presence in the world carry more import for every other facet of their life than their economic position (position meaning, in particular, class)? For what it's worth, people can and do argue against economic determinism. The degree of success that they have in that regard is a matter of continuing debate.

Artistry121 13y ago

My argument is practicality as well as theory. First - who had "the commons" before it was closed? From what I understand there has always been someone who had more control over property than another. Who will redistribute in a practical way? Who watches that person to make sure they are both efficient and fair? Also - look at a list of the richest people in America. You'll notice that most came from middle or low class backgrounds. It seems like redistribution occurs fairly rapidly (within one or two generations) compared with other times. Also - please explain who in America has massively unequal bargaining powers? In another comment you said you needed to use "counter propoganda". The internet and forums are largely dominated by your way of thinking. Maybe it's because people who hold your view would rather type about issues than do solid work. And I've also been thinking about this practically. It is right that claims on property, the foundation of many forms of capitalist forms of economies, are not inherent. However couldn't powerful property taxes be useful as this? If we defined property well and taxed ownership then redistribution would be built in and taxes would fall on the richest (those who use the most resources)? I'm just playing with that idea. Also - there is one prominent example of someone living on $7,000 a year comfortably (early retirement extreme) which is far below the minimum wage. This person lives a lifestyle far better than almost anyone two generations ago and most a generation ago.