| View Blog
|
|
|
Do the poor officially govern others? Or, do the rich authoritatively govern others?
If every piece of land, and every unit of capital is private property, then can't it be stated
that the class of property-owners -- as a class -- has made everything their property?
"Ignorance, vice, and misery are more or less different words for the same thing."
-- Anonymous
In really-existing capitalism a sweatshop is capital, and a sweatshop involves the hard
work and long hours of those who work to produce value, and a sweatshop involves
entrepreneurship.
Wealth does come from sweatshops. This is quite true. Wealth also comes from slavery.
Does the production of wealth justify slavery?
Sweatshops are how corrupted people become successful and prosperous masters.
"On no one should there rest any obligation to work."
-- Anarchist Slogan
I have heard it said that "welfare is when government steps in to redistribute wealth".
I ask: Was the appropriation of common land as private property (land enclosures) a
welfare measure? If so, then the birth of modern capitalism was a form of welfare.
This welfare was situated, founded and supported by the state's land enclosure
measures, which did include and involve acts of violence. If welfare is what we call
it when the state redistributes wealth, then welfare is what we can call those land
enclosure actions which served to initiate and institute modern-day, really-existing
capitalism. Of course, this is a controversial assertion. To the ideological capitalist,
it is corrupt and ruinous welfarism only if the state distributes wealth to the poor, but
it is not destructive and evil welfarism if the state distributes wealth to the rich.
"People who find a pleasure in ordering others about (and this includes most of the
energetic people in the world) will not like anarchism, where every man can do as he
pleases."
-- Bertrand Arthur William Russell
The exchange value of a commodity is largely composed of the labor expended in the
production of the commodity. The price of a commodity can be primarily resolved to the
labor cost sacrificed in the manufacture of the commodity.
Of course, if a commodity has no utility value, then it would be foolish to invest labor in
the production of such a commodity.
If a thing answers and supplies a human need, then that thing has utility value. If a thing
requires labor in order for it to exist for use, then that thing's existence comes at a cost,
and will be exchanged at a price that reflects or remembers the cost.
"Self-interest itself, when it is fully understood, can be better served by a life which
is useful to the community than by one which is harmful."
-- Bertrand Arthur William Russell
"Laws can only follow the accomplished facts."
-- Pëter Alekseevich Kropotkin |
|
Posted by rallen2 on 2008-03-05 10:53:05 | Rating: | Views: 40
|
| |
|
|
