Quote from: BitterTea on March 08, 2011, 04:10:28 PM

I've come up with a scenario and would appreciate if any of the "rent/profit is exploitation" people could answer the questions that follow.

Alice, after working for the same employer for 10 years, saved $50,000 to start her own business designing and creating extravagant widgets. She purchased widget making machinery, materials and set up a small production area attached to her home. The first year, business was slow and she spent half of her remaining savings keeping the business operating. The second year, some publicity brought in new clients, a tickle at first, then a flood. Soon, she did not have enough time to both design and produce the widgets alone. She decides to bring in one or more additional people to handle the manufacturing process.

Alice has clearly put much work into her business. If she needs to someone to merely operate a machine, why must she be morally obligated to reward the newcomer as highly as herself? If her business fails, she loses her savings, the results of the time expended up until this point, and all of the equipment and materials purchased (capital). On the other hand, her employees lose nothing but a guaranteed salary, which they can find elsewhere, or start their own business.

Assuming nothing about the labor market (it could be that employment is high, which means business fight for employees, not the other way around), why is it that an agreement between Alice and her new employee Bob is exploitative? Alice made Bob an offer for compensation, and Bob either accepted or negotiated a higher price, but it is still a wage. If Bob agreed to it, how can it be bad?

I have no problem with Bob paying for his share of the expenses. He should give to Alice some of that which he produces until he has paid for half of the building and the equipment. The problem occurs when Alice continues to collect from Bob until after he pays for his fair share. In that case, Alice is exploiting Bob with her ability to prevent him from working at the shop.

Quote

I feel that this is important
It seems that the main point of contention between our ideologies is one of causality. My belief is that once there is no state, there will be a fundamental change in business. Your belief is that once there is a fundamental change in business, there will be no state. We both seek the end the prominence of violence in human relationships, though we may each see certain relationships as violent that the other does not. What if instead of arguing about those aspects on which we disagree, we work together to change minds about those aspects on which we agree?

For instance, as has been said before, a society that reflects market anarchist principles would have a place for communes, syndicates, or whatever your favorite brand of non exploitative business arrangement. It would also have a place for some form of capitalism, though I happily accept that it will look nothing like what we know as capitalism today, since I have no particular fondness for this kind of capitalism. On the other hand, however, a society that reflects anarcho-socialist principles would have no place for any other type of business arrangement, even though there would be some individuals willing to participate in alternate arrangements.

Here's the thing, I oppose the state because it is capitalistic. Agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and the like oppose the state because they think it opposes capitalism. That makes no sense to me. The state is profitable because one can use it to better exploit others. In the absence of states, capitalists will compete to create new ones. They do so even in the presence of states by creating corporations, amorphous kingdoms. I will not help a capitalist topple one state so he can subject me to one of his own creation.

Quote from: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 03:18:39 PM

To be fair, McGruder has stated that he does not advocate violent revolution. Similar to myself, it seems, as an anarchist (voluntaryist/market anarchist) that does not advocate violent revolution. Though, he does seem to think that such property taking would be justified. Though, if employment and rent are considered exploitation, is such revolution truly violent?

I think revolutionaries treat violent revolution like self-defense and its spoils like restitution. I can understand that, but I don't advocate it because I have capitalist friends and family and I don't want anyone to hurt them. Besides, using violence or the threat of violence to make someone behave differently seems counterproductive.

Quote from: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 04:21:24 PM

All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf

How are all capitalists not red-marketeers?

Quote

I believe Lenin, and certainly Marx, would Disagree...

They might. Then again, they might say that the state, in a communist society, is merely the last capitalist and it will surely whither away. Either way, what if they would?

Quote from: Atlas on March 08, 2011, 04:23:21 PM

I think he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.

I may not have stated it clearly enough, but I think we can reach this end by embracing cooperative relationships and divesting ourselves from capitalism.

Quote from: Atlas on March 08, 2011, 07:00:45 PM

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

So might is right? I cannot agree.

Quote from: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 07:18:27 PM

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?

If any enclave refused to honor your property and thereby threatened your profits, as a capitalist, you would not tolerate it. Besides, why would a cooperative society compete?