Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps

r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On 28 Apr 2005 08:02:50 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >I have offered a proof, a logical proof.

> Nope.

Yup.

> >Influence on the State is a function of expenditures made to
influence
> >it.

> But not just expenditures of money. It would take an immense amount
> of money to buy an election while lacking a significant amount of
> volunteer labor.

You do not need to "buy" an election, however it takes wealth to run a
campaign for election, and in the main, whoever spends more, wins.

Land can always spend more than labour, thus land always wins, in fact
there are virtually no candidates who will even dare run against the
interests of land owners.

And of course, even if you do somehow win, if you go against the
interest of land owners, since they hold the basis of power, you can
still wind up dead or deposed.

In the end the economic forces can not be resisted politically.

> >As wealth generated by the economy tends to accrue to the owners of
> >land, they will be thus be able to control the State.

> Land rent is "only" about 20% of GDP.

So? Add Interest, Capital Gains, returns on Intellectual Property, etc,
to the above and then compare the percentage of GDP of wages after
their costs of subsistence has been subtracted.

You, of all people, know that labour ends up short.

> >As the price of
> >labour is driven by competition down towards its cost,

> Clearly a blatant falsehood.

Market theory holds that the price of any factor of production is
always driven towards its cost by competition.

Land, having a fixed supply, does not compete.

> >they do not have
> >any means to accumulate the wealth needed to take control away from
the
> >owners of land.

> Then how did Hugo Chavez come to power in Venezuela?

I am amused that you present an example who, for making some
reformations against property, while at the same upholding the general
rights of property, has still faced numerous, seemingly relentless,
attempts at deposal, including an outright coup. Who is constantly
being attacked in his local, and the international media as being a
ruthless, authoritarian military dictator, which he is clearly not, and
has even faced a massive general strike/lockout organized by Property
united with that supposed defender of labour, the liberal afl-cio!

If this doesn't demonstrate the hostility with which Property will
defend its interest, and that it has the means to dupe liberals as
well, then I don't know what will convince you.

And the fact remains, that if it were not for the support of the
military, who turned against the coup organizers after Chavez was
already arrested, Chavez would have been as gone as Mossadeq. Or dead
like Allende, a remaining prospect that Chavez himself discusses
frequently.

One also wonders if Chavez is a beneficiary of the USA being bogged
down in Iraq, and the related loss of Spanish support for Uribe.

And once again, the existence of anomalies like Chavez does not change
the fact that the the general global trend is the increasing wealth of
Property relative to Labour, and even in Venzuala the GINI index is
still around 50. Not so good. Even Chavez is a long way from making
reforms on a Georgist scale, there is no "Single Tax", or even
interested in making such reforms.

In anycase, By all means, go Chavez! I agree he is the most noteworthy
head of State in the world today. However the prosect of a Hugo Chavez
in America or any major Capitalist nation seems bleak, and the
prospects of such a political figure going beyond Chavez, and making
the sorts of reforms you and Trucker support (and in principal, me too)
is flat out impossible without a prior change in the mode of
production.

> >And history is on my side here, that you can find certain atypical
> >examples and occurrences does not change the fact that by and large
the
> >increase in the share if the economy that accrues to property and
the
> >decrease of that which accrues to labour continues relentlessly.
>
> No, it is subject to periodic reversals.

If you have some examples of these reversals, where the interests of
property where achieved by political, and not military or industrial
means, I would be happy to hear them, I always appreciate the
historical facts you present.

However, you will be unable to find evidence of general trend of
reversal by political means, because it is impossible.

> >I agree with this. Interest is meant here in the classic sense,
Capital
> >Yield. Not interest in the return on investment of abstained
> >consumption sense, which I support.

> ?? But how are these fundamentally different? Abstaining from
> consumption directs labor to production of capital rather than
> consumption goods, and the yield of the resulting capital is the
> reward for doing so.

Yet the yield that comes from its use is easily distinguished from the
profit that comes from its sale.

> >Yet the overall trend is the concentration of wealth and expansion
of
> >the rights property, thus supporting my impossibility theory.

> The fact that it is only an overall trend and not a monotonic
> certainty refutes your impossibility claim.

No, it does not, because any anomalies which fall short of complete
global reversal can only be temporary and will eventually be
retrenched, by the economic forces described.

> >Whatever victories are won by labour against property

> This is Marxist class warfare talk.

I disagree, and in anycase, guilt by association is yet another
fallacy.

> >via the State are
> >dwarfed by the losses and retrenchments.
>
> Nope. There is a current propertarian swing in progress, but it
> follows an era of gains for labor that began in the 1930s and
> continued through the 60s.

I am currently looking in to these eras. First, they mostly achieved a
change in the structure, not level of wages as argued by Daniel Bell in
his study "The Subversion of Collective Bargaining;" whatever gains
were made in overall wages were mostly lost in overall prices. Second,
the fact that even the marginal gains where eventually retrenched and
the general downward trend continued, just further proves my point.

> >Voting requires candidates and parties to vote for, and the mass
> >support to give them a chance at election. None of this can be
> >accomplished without wealth, and neither can education.

> It doesn't take all that much wealth.

It takes more wealth than the opposition can spend, no less.

> But it does take education.
> And the Net is providing the means for that.

Really? Where do you see the effect of this education, the public seems
as reactionary and clueless as ever to me.

> >True, but the hard economics of it do mean that it is impossible.

> Claim without proof.

The logical proof has been given.

Reform can not be achieved so long as the mode of production
that funds its reform makes the greater amount of wealth available to
oppose the reform.

> >Yes, by using their wealth to ensure its enforcement.

> What do they do, throw dollars at squatters?

No, they throw armed guards. Private or provided by their joint
apparatus, the State. Often both.

> >And they have developed a highly sophisticated control mechanism
that
> >delivers the consent of these victims, it is called the State.

> No, a certain _kind_ of state does so, and even then it only works on
> those who do not understand it.

Understanding is a privilege only available to a few.

> To claim that a state like China (let
> alone Cuba or North Korea) is in the service of landowners or
> "property" is just silly.

Not as silly as any claim that any of those was brought about by
electoral activity, and not military activity. Are are you and Trucker
now propsing a military overthrow of the State? I have never denied
that is possible, unlikely given the military power of State, but
possible, given the sheer numbers of the people. However, once the
State has been captured by force, the new elite is the military elite,
and the worker has as little leverage as ever.

As in China, Cuba or Korea, there is also an elite, based in different
factors than the elite where there is a capitalist mode of production,
but not any less of a threat to true freedom.

> >I agree, however "Withdrawing consent" does not mean to hope and
pray
> >for a altruistic party and candidate to overcome the daunting
economic
> >obstacles and deliver justice via a reformed state and in the
meantime
> >allow Rent to continue to collect in the pockets of land owners, to
be
> >spend on keeping the state from being reformed.

> Strawman. Education and political work (and the Greens are clearly
> making headway in Europe) are not "hoping and praying."

They are making headway in Europe by serving the interests of Property,
as I am witnessing first hand.

AFAIK, The SPD-Green coalition has retained power by bringing about the
largest social retrenchments, privatisations and giveaways of public
wealth in the history of the modern German state.

And, of course, the Greens support the private ownership of land, there
has been limited talk of a "green shift" in taxation, but that is
marginal, and in my experience flat out Georgist reasoning will be as
hotly contested by most Greens as it is by most Democrats.

> >"Withdrawing consent" means forming industrial organisations with
> >ownership models that embody our ideas of justice from the start,
and
> >expend whatever resources we can muster on acquiring land and
capital
> >for these organisations to build their basis of power.

> No, that's just what _you_ claim it means.

And what is your opposition to it?

> >Two wrongs do not make a right, this still disproves the notion that
> >the USA was a "just state."

> It was certainly more just than what went before.

That is not clear to me, as unjust a society as the Natives may have
had, it is very hard to argue that it became more just for them after
the formation of the USA.

> >And as I have said, this is not Anarchism, which is specificly
against
> >"murdering, robbing and enslaving."

> Claiming to be "against" something while opposing the only known
> effective means of preventing it is not very persuasive.

Each one of us is capable of self-defense, and thus we can form
collective organisations for our mutual self-defense, and form
alliances of these collective organisations. It is incorrect that only
the State can put an end to "murdering, robbing and enslaving" and
completely ignores the fact that much "murdering, robbing and
enslaving" is conducted by the State.

> >I have no clue why you feel the need to continue with this
> >equivocation.

> Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye.

I am not using any equivocation, I often endorse many of the arguments
you make, and whatever disputes I have are presented logically, not by
making references to popular misrepresentations of your beliefs,
instead of your beliefs as you state them.

> >Ok, I am content to "merely" prove that the USA was (and continues
to
> >be) an unjust state and that it could not maintain whatever liberty
it
> >did provide.

> Again: not "could not." _Did_ not.

Ok, I am content to "merely" prove that the USA was (and continues to
be) an unjust state and that it did not maintain whatever liberty it
did provide.

> >Only as far as these improvements were also in the interests of
> >Property.

> No. Property was the clear loser in the English income tax of the
> early 19th C, the Meiji-era tax reforms in Japan, etc.

How is a tax on Income a loss to Property??

And in anycase, has the share of the economy given to Property fallen
since then?

And I know nothing about Meiji-era Japan, but given that it was ruled
by an Emperor makes in unlikely this was the result of electoral
activity. And in anycase, like England, the share of the economy
commanded by Property in Japan has not fallen.

> >Because wage slavery is far more efficient than chattel slavery.

> Wage slavery is an oxymoron.

I disagree, it has clear meaning when labour lacks the leverage to earn
its fair value as its price, which is the case as long as land is
privately held.

> and it is clear that abolition of chattel
> slavery greatly improved the conditions of working people generally,
> not just the slaves.

Yes, including Property owners, which no longer had to bear the expense
of acquiring and keeping slaves, but could simply buy labour at its
cost; subsistence.

> >Who chose? Property chose. Labour never had a choice.

> Nonsense.

Only if by "nonsense," you mean that it is so irrefutable you wont even
hazard an attempt.

If labour did choose, please explain why it chose against its
interests, and how property had no hand in it.

> >I hope so, but before resistance is possible they must first acquire
> >the basis of power to resist,

> But before they can acquire the basis of power, they must first
> understand the issue.

No, they merely need to have the opportunity to join orgnizations that
give them a better deal; wages plus equity instead of wages alone.

Only those that found the organisations need to understand the issues
in detail. The economic logic will fuel the growth because it is sound,
not because it is understood.

> But if they understand the issue, they can
> always just _vote_ their interests.

Not when they have no candidates to vote for.

Who did you vote for in the last election? Did anybody run on the
Single Tax platform? If no one runs, or whoever runs lacks mass
support, how can they "_vote_ their interests?"

> >and this must be accomplished by
> >organising industrially, not politically, this has always been the
> >Anarchist argument.

> And it's wrong.

As I've said many times, I do not need to convince you of this. I am
more than willing to agree to disagree as I find your feedback and
knowledge quite usefull to helping me develop the economic aspects of
my ideas, and we mostly disagree only on political aspects.

It is enough for me if you know that the above is indeed the Anarchist
argument, and not "no government" alone and so forth, wether or not you
agree with it.

> >By removing the coercion of Property, and achieving freedom,
>
> Where has abolition of property ever been accompanied by freedom?

The income derived from property, land and capital yield, is what is
used to subjugate others, its removal is therefore a prerequisite to
freedom.

However, //it's abolition alone// does not guarantee freedom, this can
only be accomplished by the existence of organisations to defend
freedom.

> >not directed by force, for the interests of Property.

> You are still saying "property" when you seem to mean "privilege."

Sorry, I was still using Anarchist terms, because I am trying to
demonstrate their usage in context. As I said I'm not hung up on the
terms.

Regards.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps
    ... >You do not need to "buy" an election, however it takes wealth to run a ... >Land can always spend more than labour, ... >You, of all people, know that labour ends up short. ... political power in their own interests, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments.
    ... > labour contribution, so when you have made sufficient labour ... > labour to be found than surplus wealth. ... that the land is a joint stock for all men ... >> capitalism? ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Yet More Anarchism with Roy.
    ... into the pockets of land owners. ... victory for labour is impossible, but at best you have only logically ... And the economic forces described in my impossibility theory explain ... > Anyone interested enough in economics to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
    ... >>Land is an input to production, as such, it's value is part of the ... >>center housing on a polluted lot, thus the community has lost Rent. ... I mean that in the Anachist mode of production, ... And they can't afford to buy it because the price of their labour is ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps
    ... >> evidence of history is that it is, ... Land rent is "only" about 20% of GDP. ... >any means to accumulate the wealth needed to take control away from the ... >Because wage slavery is far more efficient than chattel slavery. ...
    (sci.econ)