Table
of Contents
1.
Redistribution of Grades is Not “Socialism in Education”
2.
Fascism is Not a Form of Socialism
3. The Definition of Socialism
Does Not Necessarily Imply a Government or State
4. Rigged
Markets: Not All Free Market Proponents Support Capitalism
5.
Free-Market Anti-Capitalism, Georgism, and Mutualism Are All Valid
Critiques of Anarcho-Capitalist and Political Libertarian Thought
6.
Mixed Economies and China
7.
Achieving Socialism Without the State
8.
Unequal Distribution of Wealth, and Corporate Taxation
9.
Minimum Wage Laws Are Bad, But Enslaving Children to Mammon is
Worse
10. Stalin Didn't Kill Sixty Million People, You're Thinking
of Hitler
11. Conclusion
Content
1.
Redistribution of Grades is Not “Socialism in Education”
Defenders
of capitalism often cite the fact that school classes often grade on
a curve, as an example of socialism, because it's a “redistribution
of grades”. I wouldn't call this socialism, however; because what's
being redistributed is grades, not resources. Socialism aims to
redistribute resources. Second, it's certainly not full socialism
because it doesn't involve all of society, it only involves select
classrooms, or one aspect of society (education).
Additionally,
limitations on how many people are allowed to fail, are motivated by
the fact that there's supposed to be a fair and mutually beneficial
relationship and negotiation between students and teachers. If
teachers are free to fail everyone who doesn't learn enough, then
teachers are also
free
to refuse
to
teach them, to justify flunking them and making them come back (and
pay) again next year.
Too
many students failing, is not necessarily a sign of low achievement;
it could be a sign of unskilled or uncaring teaching staff, or
unreasonable grading standards. Just like when an employee is fired,
it's not always his performance; it's that firing a trainee halfway
through his training period is a way to get cheap labor that
maximizes short-term profits (but also turnover).
Also,
nobody is demanding more socialized grading in American schools. But
there are people
who describe free federal lunches for students as “socialism”.
That is what I'm concerned about; that the desire to fully rid the
educational system of “socialism” could lead to more reports
about public school students being denied school lunches because
their parents forgot to put enough money on their lunch cards.
Federal
school lunches may be unconstitutional and fiscally improper (and
they are), but a society that only feeds hungry children if they have
the ability to pay, is a morally depraved society. Children can't
learn well at school if they aren't properly fed and don't know where
their next meal is coming from. People need enough shelter and sleep,
and work and food security, to be able to contribute enough at work.
Europe
is arguably more “socialist” than America, but America's
education arguably does more
“grade
redistribution” than the Europeans do. That's because Americans
give their students a “handout” by asking them multiple-choice
questions (in which the answer is already written somewhere on the
page), while the Europeans actually teach the kid until he remembers
the answer without
it being laid out in front of him like he's an idiot. I wouldn't call
that socialism. I wouldn't call it fair either; especially not to
European students, who work harder to learn the material, as they
should.
2.
Fascism is Not a Form of Socialism
I
walked in ten minutes late to see on the screen “Examples of
socialism: socialism, communism, and fascism”. I don't agree with
the notion that fascism is an example of socialism, or a variety of
socialism, simply because the Nazis called themselves National
Socialists. The Nazis were not true socialists, and there have been
other fascist regimes besides the Nazis, which had varying degrees of
both ultra-nationalism, and nationalism in the name of collectivism.
One
could argue that fascism and Nazism are collectivist, but not
socialist, and I would argue that that is true. Like communism and
socialism, Nazism and fascism are collectivist because they put “the
nation” (and the people in charge of it) ahead of the interests of
individuals and free markets. Fascists are certainly not Marxist,
anyway, because the Nazis banned Marxism in 1933.
Granted,
there are varieties of socialism besides Marxism, and earlier visions
of German collectivism did
influence
the Nazis, but the Nazis were in favor of German capitalist industry,
and the “privatization” it did was actually a government takeover
of business. That government takeover of business, however, was not
socialistic,
because 1) although German capitalists were taken over, they were
also rewarded with business protections and privileges; and 2) those
privileges included privileges from competition against the Jews, who
were being murdered, which means that Nazism certainly wasn't full
socialism because it didn't include all of society.
True
socialism would not involve murdering 20% of society, but rather,
re-educating people to abolish intrinsically exploitative industries
so that nobody can be employed in those industries ever again.
The
only thing “socialist” or “Marxist” about the Nazis and
fascists, are that they all promoted the idea of economic parasitism.
The idea that the least productive people should be liquidated, was
used by Marx (and, later, Mao) against capitalists, but Nazi
propagandists used the idea against Jews too, to dehumanize them. Many conservatives call
socialists and welfare recipients “parasites” today, which I think is shameful.
It's
a shame that Marx, Lenin, and Mao used language like this,
considering how dehumanizing it is. But they did it to back up their
argument that sole owners and traders tend to take advantage of
shortages, exploit natural resources, and exploit the local need for
work, to gain profit off of workers, who often have to work hard to
support themselves even before becoming
employed. And that was certainly a valid point.
The
communists' concern is that if a society produces too much (i.e.,
more than it needs), and sells it to the outside world, then foreign
markets will expect and demand that much production the next year,
and the next, and thereby grow dependent on a country (like Ukraine
and its farms) to produce an excess from which outside markets can
profit. It's kind of like how having a lot of natural resources which
could be exploited, is called a “resource curse”. So capitalists
can behave parasitically too, even without
conscripting
the government to steal taxpayers' money and give it to them.
3.
The Definition of Socialism Does Not Necessarily Imply a Government
or State
I
feel that defenders of capitalism often define socialism incorrectly,
and take liberties with their definition of socialism while
explaining it. Most importantly, they tend to assume that socialism
is a form of government
(and government management of resources), rather than solely an
economic system (like capitalism, free market systems, or mutualism).
Socialism
does not necessarily have to involve the management of resources by
government; we could have equal control of resource management be
performed by communities, communes, cooperatives, charities,
non-profits, and consumer organizations; anything that's non-profit
and not subsidized by the government. That's how we can achieve a
more real, and permanent, “privatization” (i.e.,
separation
of resource management from government) without succumbing to either
for-profit privatization, or privatization in the form of selling
government assets to the lowest (or highest) bidder. The bid should
go to the bidder whom is most likely to be able to function as an
adequate caretaker of the assets they acquire.
Socialism
is the worker ownership, or societal management, of the means of
production. To me, that means it is an economic system, not
necessarily a political one. Defenders of capitalism say that
socialism requires a government, but social anarchist Emma Goldman
and anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker would tell you that socialism
doesn't
require
a government (and their lives and writing attest to that).
In
fact, Marx and Engels never promoted “the state” as we know it
today. When pressed, they always clarified that they intended
communities
–
not the state (especially not this
current
bourgeois capitalist state, and the 192 others, which have been
common over the last 250 years) – to make most of the decisions in
society.
This,
in my opinion, means that socialism compatible with capitalism, as
long as there is no state to perform redistribution or force people
to use one economic system or another. Communities should have the
full right to interact with other communities on the principles of
local autonomy, as long as they do not physically obstruct the flow
of commerce, labor, capital, and travel/locomotion. This is possible
through making the now rigged market system into an actually free one
(with no subsidies, business privileges, or protections), and then
increasing the percentage of assets which are cooperatively owned
(and also, increasing the number of companies which are cooperatively
owned).
It
is not necessary to create a government or state, in order to consult
all of society in decisions about how to manage resources. If
communities and cities and counties are allowed to freely associate,
they will find freer and more equal ways of managing interstate trade
for mutual benefit, than the federal government (and their fiefdom,
the hundred million people who live near the Bos-Wash corridor) has
thus far given us.
4.
Rigged Markets: Not All Free Market Proponents Support Capitalism
It
was inspired by Andy Craig, who ran for Wisconsin Secretary of State
as a Libertarian. Andy's idea was to run to abolish
the
position, which was then occupied by progressive hero Robert M.
LaFollette's grandson Doug. Andy had a “nuclear option” plan to
stop the creation of new corporations, by abolishing
the
position of state secretary of state, in order to prevent the state
government from extending new grants of Limited Liability Corporation
designation.
I
have since taken that idea and ran with it. I now oppose the complete
abolition of all
forms
of taxpayer-funded privileges for business, which in my opinion
include subsidies, bailouts, intellectual property protections,
physical property protections from the military and police, F.D.I.C.
insurance, trade protections and promotions, and other favors.
Government
contracts could
be another one too. After all - even though it's not taxpayer money,
and the government's just guaranteeing a line of credit - that line
of credit is backed up by easy-credit loans and low interest rates
set up by the Federal Reserve, with the F.D.I.C. to insure
investments with public money if anything goes wrong.
Defenders
of capitalism sometimes say that “If we had rigged markets, then we
would know, because if markets were rigged, then they would not allow
people to form companies and become billionaires in just twenty
years”. But think about it: most of those billionaires in the top
10 made their money with the help of government contracts, in
addition to their own innovation and hard work. Microsoft and Amazon
have been competing for a $10 billion Pentagon contract. Facebook was
started with the help of a C.I.A.-funded startup called In-Q-Tel,
when the C.I.A. was looking for a way to get millions of people to
voluntarily surrender personal information like their photos and
locations. So it isn't just inheritance (and protection of inherited
assets) that makes many of the top billionaires' “earnings”
questionable, it's exclusive
government contracts
too (or nearly exclusive, with the bare minimum amount of competition
required to create the illusion of real robust competition; i.e.,
oligarchy and oligopoly).
For
those reasons and others, I believe that the markets are much less
fair, and much more rigged, than defenders of capitalism tend to
suspect and admit that they are. While defenders of capitalism do
admit that there could and should be much more competition, and also
freedom of opportunity – and probably believe that the markets are
“free enough” compared to other countries – promoting more
competition than necessary is a chief problem that I feel defenders
of capitalism often overlook.
If
we promote more competition necessary – especially if the rewards
of that competition are permanent, and government protected (think
“minimal government, to protect life, liberty, and property”) -
then too much competition and property, could undermine freedom of
opportunity to acquire assets and property, leading to an overall
decrease in freedom. At least for everyone “who's just now coming
into the system” (i.e.,
the
younger half of humanity now finding itself in about ten different
slavery systems).
My
concern about libertarian minarchism (minimal government advocates),
and pragmatic Libertarian Party politics, is that political
Libertarians and defenders of capitalism tend to argue that a
“minimal government” is necessary to protect “life, liberty,
and property”. They also usually say that such a “minimal
government” would likely include “military,
courts, and police”. However, that that is only true of
“minarchists”. “Anarcho-capitalism” is feasible, but only if
people who participate in it are free to participate in socialistic
economic activity as well.
The
first “market-anarchist”, Gustave de Molinari, asked more than
150 years ago why defense and security are so often monopolized,
instead of subject to market forces like other commodities are. Not
only defense, but also justice, would have to become “free markets”
in a free economy. That's why “free enough” simply isn't enough;
total
freedom and statelessness is
possible.
However,
it would require, often, trusting foreign nationals to do things like
manufacture domestic defense and surveillance equipment. In a more
peaceful world, that will be possible; but to some degree it has
already begun (to varying degrees of success for various countries).
Of course, the risks which unsuccessful strategies regarding to whom
to award the contracts to manufacture such equipment, risks such
things as foreign spying scandals, and arms races (which have both
occurred). Therefore, it seems that more trust of foreigners is
needed before fully free markets (so free that there are no defense
contracts) can flourish.
In
the opinions of myself, and radical libertarians who study Agorism
and private law (theorists such as Robert P. Murphy, Samuel E. Konkin
III, Wally Conger, and others), the anarchists and minarchists should
not be debating, because the debate has already been settled, and the
minimum amount of government possible is zero.
“Capitalism”,
to me, connotes not free markets, but an institutional or
governmental preference for the interests of private owners of
capital, over the interests of labor (that is, workers). Just like
"socialism" could be described as an official preference
for the interests of labor over capital.
I
believe that we could have enough social ownership, and enough
private ownership, to claim rightfully that we've achieved both
capitalism and socialism, yet neither;
because while both systems would be allowed to exist, neither system
would be given preferential treatment, nor the ability to use the
state and its violence to force people to participate in one system
or the other. We should have "a free market in economic
systems", and a free market in who provides us with security and
justice.
That's
why I subscribe to a stateless economic theory which some call
“free-market anti-capitalism”.
5.
Free-Market Anti-Capitalism, Georgism, and Mutualism Are All Valid
Critiques of Anarcho-Capitalist and Political Libertarian Thought
I
would like to make my readers aware of several economic systems and
schools of thought, from which I think libertarian and free market
theories could benefit. They are “free-market anti-capitalism”,
Georgism and Geo-Libertarianism, and Mutualism and market socialism.
Free-Market
Anti-Capitalism
“Free-market
anti-capitalism” is a phrase associated with Roderick T. Long. Long
and others have been criticizing mainstream American libertarian
thought, with individualist-anarchist and libertarian-socialist
critiques. Gary E. Chartier and Charles W. Johnson are
left-libertarian theorists whom are associated with the phrases
“bleeding-heart libertarians” and “markets, not capitalism”.
“Left-wing market-anarchism” is an associated school of thought.
Wally
Conger is an “Agorist” (a radical anti-state, pro-free-market
theory), and explained in his book Agorist
Class Theory that
free-marketers and Marxists have a lot more of their goals
in
common than they realize; they just have very different plans about
how to get there.
Kevin
Carson, a Mutualist theorist, has attempted to reconcile the Labor
Theory of Value with the subjective theory, by offering a “subjective
labor theory of value” wherein the value of a good is influenced
both by the subjective valuation of the producer's own labor, and
also the subjective preferences of the buyer. Carson has also
explained that Marxists, Mutualists, and supporters of free
enterprise all value open-source collaboration, as well as the
freedom to do any task, and many tasks, without those tasks being
considered to require licensing, professionalization, nor rigid
regulation.
I
believe that the “Progressive-Libertarian Alliance” of Ron and
Rand Paul, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich will lead
the way to common ground on economic issues in politics, while
Georgist and Mutualist developments of anarchism and libertarianism
will lead the way to common ground on economic issues in a stateless
society.
These
are just some of the people who have found common ground between
libertarians and socialists. I've spent the last 5 to 10 years
writing about where this common ground is, and urging my fellow
libertarians to learn more about Henry George and Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon.
Georgism
Henry
George was a 19th century
American economist who developed the idea of “the Single Tax”,
now known as Land Value Taxation.
Some
libertarians and capitalists admit that pollution - including of
other people's air - is a property rights violation. I agree, and so
did Murray Rothbard. But Henry George took it a step further; by
prioritizing
people's
needs for land,
over
the concerns about the squabbles between representatives of labor and
of capital.
This
means that Georgism (and also Mutualism) are situated between
socialism and capitalism. These two economic systems play very
important roles in how capitalism and socialism might be reconciled
with one another. These economic systems would form a basis through
which negotiation could be made between the socialism of workers'
interests and the capitalism of private owners' interest.
I
wrote the following article about reconciling the ideas of Henry George with
the ideas expressed in modern American political libertarianism (with
specific regard to the land needs in Lake County, Illinois):
http://www.lclp.org/articles/geolibertarianism/
I
explain in the article that Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan
was a Geo-Libertarian (a Libertarian who subscribes to the economic
and land reform ideas of Henry George), and Milton Friedman said
George's tax ideas were “the least bad tax [ever] proposed”.
I
think that Reagan economic adviser Art Laffer would be pleased by the
fact that George's proposals completely avoid taxing both production
and earned income. Georgist slogans include “tax land, not man”,
“tax land, not buildings”, and “tax bads, not goods”.
I
myself explain it as “tax destruction (and waste, especially of
land), not production”. The waste and destruction of land is a
serious problem – and so is the misuse, disuse, abuse, and blight
of land, and allowing it to fall into disrepair – because we don't
want land to be rendered unuseable in case the owner dies and someone
wants to buy the land. The more land area that is destroyed, rendered
unuseable, and fenced-off and protected with the help of taxpayer
funding, the less land is available for families to build homes on,
and that means less property ownership and less production on that
land.
I
think the Lockean proviso shows that that is true; the idea that a
person must homestead land and make it habitable to earn it, but
also leave
enough land, and in as good quality, for other people, given the
number of people and the demand and need for land in the area. The
Lockean proviso, with its high standards, is thus very different from
many mainstream capitalists' ideas about how easy
it
is to acquire and “earn” land (sometimes even justifying conquest
and winning lands in war, and then transferring lands which were
legally stolen through those means and through ceasing to honor
treaties with native tribes, etc.).
Milton
Friedman said that a deregulated economic environment will lead to
economic prosperity and high productivity, but only if the
lowest-income people are assisted by some sort of basic income -type
program, to prevent the poor from falling through the cracks. Not as
a
welfare system, but instead
of
a
welfare system. And with personal spending replacing bureaucratic
micromanagement, saving costs in the process.
Some
libertarians are looking into U.B.I. and citizens' dividend programs
as ways to achieve a “capitalism, but with a robust social safety
net” sort of arrangement. One such type of citizens' dividend
program is a dividend funded by the taxation of oil companies'
profits, and/or by imposing fees on their extraction of natural
resources from the ground.
I
cannot help but notice that, of the four best-known places which have
tried this system – Alaska, Norway, Libya, and Venezuela – two
were mostly white and didn't get bombed for it, while the other two
are mostly non-white and had their countries destroyed as a result.
That could just be a coincidence. But there's nothing wrong with
trying to tie your country's economic future to the success of its
businesses and to protections against rapid exploitation of its
natural resources.
Mutualism
Aside
from the “free-market anti-capitalism” and “Geo-Libertarianism”
critiques, I think libertarianism could be improved through
emphasizing that the voluntary exchange we want must be mutually
beneficial. That means all economic transactions must be reciprocal,
and should not take place if unaware or unconsenting people are
directly affected by it (especially if negatively).
Mutualist
theorists include Kevin Carson (living today), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
(19th
century
France) and Josiah Warren (19th
century
Ohio). Warren's reforms centered on money and free enterprise, while
Proudhon's centered on free credit, and an anarchist critique of
private property ownership.
Another
proposal like Mutualism is market socialism, in which most ownership
would
be done collectively,
but the allocation
and distribution would
still be done through free trading in markets by individuals.
I imagine that Mutualism would feature balanced individual vs.
collective roles in both ownership and allocation.
Geo-Mutualism
I
think it is important to teach about other economic systems which
have been proposed, besides socialism and capitalism, to help
students understand that this is not as much of a binary choice as we
have been led to assume it is.
The
following link leads to a poster I designed about Georgism and
Mutualism. I believe that price competition, and taking full
advantage of automation, will lead to low prices (and eventually to
“free stuff through free markets”. Look up anarchist theorists
such as Jock Coats and Will Schnack to learn more about how Georgism
and Mutualism unite (as Geo-Mutualism).
6.
Mixed Economies and China
Defenders
of capitalism tend to seem confused as to which economic system China
currently has. I cannot fault them for this, however; I am not sure
which system it has myself. Perhaps dirigism best describes it;
essentially, government-directed economic fascism, featuring heavy
state ownership of enterprises.
Capitalists
seem to perceive, often, that China's economy boomed in the early
1980s because it adopted capitalism, or some degree of it. But I
disagree; I think it was the mixture of socialism and capitalism
which helped China, and helped it much more than it would have
benefited China to switch to a strictly capitalist system. It was the
mixing of increased private ownership and increased family business
ownership, into the system of largely state-owned cooperatives, which
created a sustainable, and sufficiently free and fair, balance,
between several diverse sectors of the economy. It was a balance
between
state ownership, and other forms of ownership, which helped China's
productivity increase. That's because encouraging a wide range of
forms of ownership, helps societal cohesion by allowing sufficient
freedom within society, through those forms of ownership, that allow
different families and communities to have shares in society. But
then, of course, I am describing only my own interpretation of what
Deng Xiaopeng's and the Company Law's intentions could have been; and
certainly not the current Chinese government.
I
would characterize China as a mixed economy; similar to, but not
exactly the same as, other mixed economies like “democratic
socialism”, “the Nordic model”, “Rhine capitalism”, and
German "ordoliberalism”, etc..
China's
system is similar to Germany's, especially considering that they have
similar laws regarding what percentage of members of a corporate
board should be made up of workers. However, I would describe that as
not a socialist law, but a mutualist one. That's because it doesn't
outright award workers the property of the people employing them.
Instead, it aims to balance and align the needs of workers with the
needs of owners, affecting earnings going
forward,
such that no contracts are overturned, no ex-post-facto laws are
created, and workers can earn income and stock value quickly through
hard (but fair) work. If we make sure that, going
forward,
we do not award charters, contracts, or special privileges to
companies whom are likely to exploit workers and natural resources,
then we can ensure free
and fair markets,
with voluntary and
mutually beneficial exchange,
without violating ex-post-facto laws, and without needing to abandon
having a system of property rights altogether.
Libertarian
presidential candidate Gary Johnson said during one of his campaigns,
that it helps in business to “tie people to profits”, such that
workers earn more when profits are up. That's not socialism, that's
just good business practices.
Besides,
what economic system does Germany
currently have? Nevermind that; if Germany has ten times as high a
percentage of people learning the skilled trades than America does,
who
cares what system they have?
Young Americans are dying
for an easy, debt-free way to access education in the way of the
skilled trades (and also I.T., while H.V.A.C. and agriculture will
need millions of workers soon). In my opinion, there is no reason why
what Germany and China are currently doing about large employers
should not be emulated.
Germany's
economy, by the way, is influenced by the traditions of mixed
economies like “Rhine capitalism” and “ordoliberalism”
(German for “new liberalism”), which feature capitalist market
economies with robust social safety nets.
7.
Achieving Socialism Without the State
Contrary
to what the current Chinese regime may argue, state ownership is
certainly not
the
only way to achieve
socialism.
As
I explained, socialism is an economic system which doesn't
necessarily imply either statism or anarchism. Many socialists want
to achieve socialism without political action, by having workers own
businesses and turn them into cooperatives, rather than having the
state own them. However, only about one tenth of one percent of
American businesses are currently cooperatives. Granted, the number
of non-profits and the like, added to that, would make the number of
non-for-profit
enterprises higher. But that does not ensure cooperative ownership or
cooperative management.
What
we need to talk about is E.L.M.F.s (Egalitarian Labor-Managed Firms)
and W.S.D.E.s (Workers Self-Directed Enterprise). These would be
worker-owned companies that set up stock ownership plans (like
E.S.O.P.s; Employee Stock Ownership Plans). Bernie
Sanders and Kristin Gillibrand have supported laws which would
require
large
companies to establish such stock ownership plans. However, a true
anarchist could not rightfully support political means to achieve the
same.
The
idea behind employee stock ownership plans is called “funds
socialism”. Examples of “funds socialism” include the
following: 1) the Meidner Plan in Sweden, calling for the
establishment of "wage-earner funds"; 2) the American
Solidarity Fund, proposed by the People's Policy Project; 3) the
Norwegian G.P.F.G. (Government Pension Fund Global); 4) the U.K.
Labour Party's proposed "Inclusive Ownership Funds"; and 5)
the NSW Generation Fund in New South Wales, Australia.
But
again, these are all laws
and legal proposals,
rather than plans regarding how anarchists should seek to achieve the
maximum number of cooperativized businesses, without relying on
violence or the assistance or the state. If truly voluntary socialism
is actually possible, then only peaceful actions are permissible in
order to achieve this; like persuasion, argumentation, conversation,
and instruction. Additionally, market pressures (like boycotts) when
fairly applied against owners and sellers (but that only works if
refusal to purchase can actually be achieved, both logistically and
legally).
Basically,
in a free society, the workers would have to convince
managers
and bosses and C.E.O.s that they deserve better pay (and benefits,
conditions, etc.),
instead of going through legal and political avenues to secure those
conditions for themselves. Bosses who refuse to reward their workers
sufficiently when it is fiscally responsible to do so, are only
making it more
likely
that their workers will resort to political action and violence to
achieve their goals, and less
likely
that their workers will appreciate capitalism and the supposed
benefits it offers.
As
John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make political reform impossible,
make violent revolution inevitable.”
8.
Unequal Distribution of Wealth, and Corporate Taxation
In
my opinion, it is completely unjustifiable that one person can have
as much money as 300 million or even a billion people.
Primarily
because it would be impossible to make frequent and efficient enough
use of all that wealth, to justify owning it. And additionally, due
to the high economic power and leverage which ownership affords a
person. This is dangerous because it allows a person to acquire
currency while doing little actual work and risking little (if any)
capital in the process; through lending and renting their property
out to (usually propertyless) people who have none of their own.
That
may seem “equal enough” or "fair enough", or seem like
“the result of different levels of effort by different people”,
but it is not fair because it suppresses economic opportunity and
competition. Land owned by one person, cannot be developed by
another, without consent and payment. Similarly, an invention owned
by one person (through a patent), cannot be developed by another,
without consent and payment.
We
cannot compete against those who monopolize their land and their
inventions, because it is literally
illegal to compete against an entity protected by a monopoly
privilege granted by the state.
And that is the nature of land title registration and the granting of
patents. The “minimum government” crowd may consider physical and
intellectual property protections as necessary to create a free
society which is sufficiently ordered, secure, and fair; but the need
to protect dead property and intangible ideas, often distracts from
the need to protect actual
people's physical human bodies.
Defenders
of capitalism tend admit that it is morally
wrong to redistribute wealth, especially earned income, and I agree
with them, as there are ways to achieve socialism and more
cooperative ownership without political action. However, defenders of
capitalism are nearly always against the taxation of corporations,
which receive special protections, and insulation from lawsuits and
market competition, through Limited Liability Corporation status
protections issued by the state. Thus, corporations are a creation of
the state.
I
don't object to the existence of “companies” or “corporations”,
if that means enterprises which are funded voluntarily by whomever
wants to, and enterprises in which employees can be held accountable
for their actions. But I take issue with leaving corporations
untaxed, because corporations are creations of the state (at least
corporations with L.L.C. status are). I consider corporate income
“unearned income” which is gained with the assistance of the
state (and the legitimized violence upon which it relies to enforce
its order and acquire its revenues). It's not that I want to see
corporations taxed; it's that I want to see corporations not
created by the state in the first place,
so that we don't have
to tax them (because they wouldn't exist).
If
businesses don't want to follow regulations and pay taxes, then they
shouldn't lobby for privileges and accept subsidies and bailouts. I
would like to see less companies accepting subsidies, but I would
also to see the federal government stop tempting
the
states and businesses into accepting them (because there are strings
attached that allow the federal government to control how they spend
it, which tend to undermine the liberties of the states and the
localities).
I
would like to see more supporters of free enterprise, distance
themselves from capitalism, and fully oppose all forms of business
assistance. It's one thing to say “don't accept subsidies if you
don't want to be regulated”, but it's another thing to say “we
need to abolish
all subsidies and artificial business privileges,
or there won't be any
truly private companies in this country anymore.”
I
feel like capitalism and minarchism, with their “minimum
regulation” idea, tends to excuse and even invite government
involvement. If the state didn't exist,
regulation of companies' activities would still happen; it would just
occur through self-responsibility, voluntary association, and
mutually beneficial negotiation and decision-making.
“Regulation
of business”, in a stateless society, could easily be performed by
each business's employees and clients, negotiating as directly with
one another as possible (without the state to guide or direct them),
while retaining the full right to boycott. The Taft-Hartley Act (with
its prohibition on boycotts spanning multiple industries), and the
facts of subsidies and redistribution, now make full boycott – and,
thus, “ethical consumerism” and “voting with our wallets” -
impossible.
That's why
the system is much more rigged than defenders of capitalism suspect
it is.
Redistribution
of earned income is wrong, and should not be done. But the
redistribution of opportunity
to compete –
from the rich to the poor – should also be a concern. The poor pay
little taxes, but it's because they have little opportunity in the
first place to acquire enough skills and education to be a viable
competitor in the market. And again, it's literally illegal and
impossible to compete against – or boycott - monopolists and
entrenched business interests (including companies which hold patents
and trademarks).
It
is impossible to calculate the value which the working poor lose,
from having their money taken away to fund agencies that profit off
of turning work from a right into a licensed privilege, and from
being unable to adequately compete in some of the most highly
oligopolized industries.
9.
Minimum Wage Laws Are Bad, But Enslaving Children to Mammon is Worse
I
don't support minimum wage increases. But I also disagree with the
idea that a high minimum wage “deprives teenagers of their first
jobs”. I understand that high minimum wages tend to result in low
teen employment levels, but that is not the fault of teenagers. I
know that because teenagers can't vote and have no political power,
and therefore couldn't possibly cause such a state of affairs to
arise.
Here's
the thing: nobody said to pay teenagers less than older workers. Some
teens are more skilled than some adults. There is no reason to assume
that, just because someone is younger, they haven't justified or
earned that kind of pay yet.
Teens
don't get paid less because they deserve less or don't work as hard
as older people; they get paid less because they're younger,
and have had fewer
opportunities than older people to
acquire skills and work experience and money.
As
a result, teens are coerced into a state of dependence upon the old,
and the entrenched business interests, and the existing set of jobs,
in order to survive. Which gives the old free rein to prey on the
young, insisting that they must
help
the old, because they (with their stronger bodies) are the only ones
capable of helping the helpless old decrepit people who have all the
money and property. Society already looks at young people as a cheap
source of labor and a free source of favors.
Saying
high minimum wages “deprive teenagers of their first jobs” is
just saying that high minimum wages “prevent child labor”. I
thought we wanted
to
prevent child labor! Maybe we can prevent child labor by simply
paying
workers enough money to
give their children gifts of cash. That way, we will not hear about phenomena such as teenage girls being tempted
into whoring themselves out to fifty-year-old men on yachts, nor teenagers whoring themselves out for employment by corrupt and polluting companies, or by police departments
or the military, which will expect them to shoot at innocent people.
Which
is more important: The need to protect the right to compete in the
market? Or the need to protect workers' "freedom of opportunity"
to sell themselves our and sign away their rights to compete?
Which is more important: The need to protect children's innocence, or the need to make sure they have a stable flow of money into their pockets? It does matter if that flow of money comes through Jeffrey Epstein's penis. Actually existing capitalism has given our children U.S. Dollars covered with toxic ink and stripper sweat and cocaine, which we should be ashamed that we're encouraging our children to handle, and it has given us the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Every parent should understand that Epstein's handler, Ghislaine Maxwell, was able to persuade teenage girls into becoming masseuses (and then prostitutes and sex slaves) by promising nothing more than a little extra money to spend on themselves and on their families at the holidays. To some degree, we cannot blame desperate parents for allowing their children to fall into the hands of people like that, but to some degree we can blame them for exploiting their children. But I contend that the real problem is the artificial, manufactured need for currency and money, which is achieved by inserting currency between the buyer and everything they need to survive and feed their families.
Additionally, some teenagers (i.e., teen parents as old as 19) have more dependent minors to support than some adult workers do (i.e., single workers without children). So why should a person be paid more for having more skills, when a less skilled person might have more mouths to feed? Of course effort and skills should affect pay, but so should a person's level of need. At one job I had, I needed a lot less money as a temporary janitor with no dependents, than a unionized janitor with a family, needed. I did not need $30,000 per year, and I did not have the skills to justify earning that much. The fact that unionized employees sometimes get sick, does not justify forcibly unionizing all people who might temporarily replace them.
We shouldn't have minimum wage laws, nor should we endorse the Labor Theory of Value. But nor should we allow children to be pressured into signing employment contracts before they're capable of fully understanding all the consequences. Some of those employment contracts include anti-competition clauses, which could limit teenage workers' freedom to compete until years after their employment with that company ends. Consumers and workers must be sufficiently informed, and never defrauded nor swindled, in order for markets to be fully free. And a truly voluntary market can only be participated in by people who are old and mature enough to be able to give fully informed consent to do the work they do, and they need to not be pushed into it by adults.
On
the matter of wages in general: I disagree with the frequent claim,
made by defenders of capitalism, that bosses don't make profits by
stealing from their employees. I believe that many bosses make money
by coercing and depriving employees into parting with their
opportunities to compete, and into parting with a huge degree of
self-determination and autonomy while on the job. Wage theft is a
real thing, of which companies have actually been found guilty, and
forced to provide compensation.
I
explain a few forms of wage theft in Section 5 of the following
article, why I believe that bosses' collection of wages on
state-secured “private” property, is a form of monopoly
privilege, and therefore an unfair violation of free market
principles:
10.
Stalin Didn't Kill Sixty Million People, You're Thinking of Hitler
Stalin
tends to get a bad rap in the capitalist, C.I.A.-influenced American
mainstream media and academia. However, he helped defeat the Nazi
menace, and he understood that people
need enough shelter and sleep, and enough food security and job
security, to be able to contribute and produce adequately while on
the job. And, since a well-rested worker is a productive worker, that
arguably makes Stalin more capitalistic than the capitalists.
I,
personally, would rather be driving next to a truck driver who's
worked 40 hours a week and slept for 56; instead of a driver who's
worked 56 and slept for 40. People have the right to work hard and
work long hours, but as a security guard, I can tell you that the
more hours I work during the week, the higher the chance that I'll
fall asleep while on duty.
At
some point, working harder doesn't pay off any more than it does to
take a little time off to rest and recuperate. And of course, people
should have to be healthy
enough to work,
instead of expected to work for
their
health needs, and instead of coerced
into keeping a bad job because of the health insurance it offers.
A
wise man once said the following: “It is difficult for me to
imagine what 'personal liberty' is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry
person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and
oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment,
and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home
and his bread. Only in such a society, personal and any other freedom
can exist for real and not on paper.” That man's name was Joseph
Stalin. Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has been saying
similar things in his campaign. But whomever says it – Yang,
Stalin, or anyone else – I think it's correct.
Furthermore,
capitalists tend to blame Stalin for a lot more deaths than the
number for which he was actually responsible. I think that is one of
the key factors contributing to socialism's bad reputation, and also
a key factor causing people to suspect that Hitler killed less
than
Stalin (when my research shows that the opposite is true).
Stalin's actions in the Ukraine were somewhat justified. First, because he waited three years before doing anything to address food shortages, and thus cannot be accused of using too much political action to solve problems. Second, what Stalin did was punish people who resisted collectivization. Kulak farmers made the food shortages worse; by slaughtering their livestock, and refusing to turn food over to the authorities. They chose, instead, to attempt to profit off of the desperation of starving people in their own country, by selling to foreign buyers, during a time when most of those foreign buying nations were aligned against the U.S.S.R.. Stalin tried to relieve the suffering of the famine; by collectivizing farms, confiscating grain, and redistributing it. Only a well fed Russian people, and a well fed army, could have survived the rapid agricultural and industrial expansion that the U.S.S.R. was undergoing, or could have created a defense against the Nazi menace which was coming (and which they all knew would eventually come, unless it underwent revolution). The alternative to refraining from punishing farmers, was to allow them to sell food to foreign countries, feeding the enemies of the U.S.S.R. in the process.
The idea
that Stalin killed more than Hitler, is an extremely destructive (and
untrue) idea. I believe that people who regret America's alliance
with the U.S.S.R. during World War II – especially those who admit
that America should have allied with the Nazis to defeat “the true
enemy” communism” - are Nazi sympathizers. That idea is also invalid because America did try to work with the Nazis at the beginning of World War II; Americans were trading with the Nazis at a higher volume than the U.S.S.R. was in 1940, and America allowed Nazis to march in Grafton, Wisconsin, and Madison Square Garden, before America joined the Allies.
Please
see the following links to learn more about my views on Josef Stalin:
I
think it's important that "libertarian capitalists" and
"libertarian socialists" have conversations such as the
debate between libertarian capitalism and free-market
anti-capitalism. I also think that more public debates on these
topics would really benefit liberty lovers' education to understand
socialism, whether for the purposes of criticizing it or not.
That's
why I will be participating in a “Voluntaryism vs. Libertarian
Socialism” debate – on Saturday, November 9th,
2019, in West Lafayette, Indiana – with Marcus Pulis (of Aquarian
Anarchy). Follow Aquarian Anarchy and JoeKopsick4Congress on YouTube
for updates about that debate.
Written
on September 2nd
and November 3rd,
2019
Published
on November 3rd,
2019
