It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are forgetting what happens when private industry is allowed to keep its profits. Wages will naturally rise.
What keeps people from falling into poverty is having an economy that operates at maximum efficiency. - nothing else can change this ultimate truth.
Legislation can not eliminate poverty or even reduce it.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
The only exploiting going on is by the State, which views me as a source of slave labor.
Capitalism = free market?
It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define it could not exist in one country alone—like capitalism it must be a global system of society.
It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class division—just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual benefit.
Originally posted by dawnstar
pay those nice salaries and benefits to those few lucky ones in their companies.....
which reminds me of this story:
they've passed a law, almost went unnoticed, that requires companies to start reporting payroll income to the gov't....
should prove interesting!
Capitalism does not have a monopoly on free-markets, it is nothing more than the 'private ownership of the means of production'.
Originally posted by Maslo
If you cannot own production means which you have created and/or bought, or you cannot freely lend them to other people (your employess) under conditions which you dictate, its no longer free market.
free market directly implies 'private ownership of the means of production', as it implies everything created by private entity stays private unless it wilfully chooses to donate/sell its assets to public or employees.
The workers own the production.
Profit that you produced and should rightly go to you.
No it doesn't. You are not understanding the concept correctly. You keep focusing on 'private property' when it has nothing to do with property at all. It's the concept of ownership of the means of producing what we need being used to exploit workers for the benefit of a minority group (the capitalists), that is the problem.
Free-market under capitalism is a myth, as the means to produce goods to sell on the 'free-market' are kept artificially scarce in order to maintain profits for the capitalists at the expense of the people.
You again also fail to understand what Socialism is and how it works. You assume everything will be shared and nothing will be owned, that is Communism.
Originally posted by Maslo
Only if they own the means of production.
What about profit that you produce using production means owned by another person?
Means of production are also a property, belonging to persons which created/bought them. If they are workers, so be it, a am not against voluntary socialism if it does not breach third persons property rights, and is a free agreement between workers. But if the means of production were created/payed for by those you call capitalists (privately), then they are their property, and workers cannot steal them, even if they lend them - this is where libertarianism (respecting private property rights above all) and socialism (no private ownership of means of production) come into conflict.
Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.
"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?
"But then why do we oppose them?
"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order."
[Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113]
Even if it were true, how is it not free market? If someone owns a resource in a free market, he can do whatever he wants with it, because its his property - even keep it artificialy scarce, if he wants.