G. A. Cohen - Against Capitalism - Part 1 

Whether you agree with him or not, his is a point of view that is totally marginalized today. You do sometimes hear some intellectual on Radio 4 giving a talk on why they're against capitalism, but it's just not part of the mainstream political debate. The 3 parties in the UK take capitalism as a given. I guess that's what they call 'hegemony', when one ideology has won people over and is presented as 'just the way things are' .

There is a clear distinction in political theory between possessions (your pen, car, clothes, house) and property. Property in Marxism relates to capital production. The distinction between possessions and property is a social relation, for instance a computer at home has a different social relation to a computer at work.

2:46 - to all of the capitalists out there!

@kdo2300 Did you watch the rest of the video? He actually addresses the problems with capitalism itself such as the concept of private ownership and the inevitable and insatiable need for profit.

@apell711: I'm sorry, wage bargaining is - in any meaningful sense - a political process based on relative power of the collective agents involved. The wage rate so determined will as a rule diverge from the (theoretical) counterfactual free labor market equilibrium wage rate. There is no perfect competition in this scenario and the distribution of income doesn't follow automatically from factor demand. The influence of the price mechanism is thus substantially weakened.

reminds me of Byrne's monologues in True Stories.."The first people to live here were simply called 'The People'"

@distopiadnb His revenue ceases and has three options: shut down because he can't afford raises, hire new people for less (end operations/revenue until he hires new staff at current/in-between wages), try to negotiate (pause operations/revenue, plus slow-down future revenue from higher wages) or cave in and meet demands (no pause, slow-down of future revenue from higher wages).

@apell711 hehe yes i did, I'm not dismissive in any way of those kind of positions, though i think they are substantially wrong. I've read some Hayek and Mises, quite interesting and coherent view. Some methodological premises are not so far from Marx, you may be surprised from that.

@s0673451 He is using what puilosophers call a "thought experiment" - imagining a situation that helps us see the true situation as it exists rather than the way we have become to accept things as "normal" or "the only way".

@distopiadnb To interfere on behalf of the consumer means to forbid a merchant from offering a product to a consumer or the means with which he acquired that product, regardless of whether the consumer would have accepted the terms of the deal or not. This is also coercion. To interfere on behalf of the company means you're forcibly taking money from people through taxes and diverting that capital to the company. This is also coercion.

@distopiadnb There is no unequal distribution of means. You are born into the world with usually two arms, legs and a brain. You have your physical effort, your mental effort and your passion and how you combine them transform into property. Either you use your body to stock shelves or you use your mind to cure diseases or use your passion to create art. You exchange the products of those skills for products that someone else created.

@distopiadnb It is in the self-interest of a capitalist to provide the hours as the workers (they're really both capitalists: one trades money, the other trades time, effort and talents) demand them and the conditions as the workers demand them because meeting these demands raises morale/productivity, keeps them working so they can improve their skills/provide the capitalist MORE revenue (than constantly training new workers).

Does anyone, by chance, know when this was broadcasted ?

On monopoly: as a matter of logic appearance of substitutes is not an argument against the existence of monopolist tendencies. At most it can support the idea that monopoly power is temporary. But to rule the very idea of monopoly out of capitalism you have to demonstrate that such a situation cannot even exist. In fact, you should have to argue that the need to substitute never manifest itself. Innovations, locations, skills, all them prove the contrary.

Everyone has their worldview heavily influenced by the (mostly privately owned) media; research has actually been done on the topic. Some people may be more influenced than others, but national discourse will generally focus on what the most popular media sources choose to report (and how they report it). This is especially true due to the information saturation (through mobile phones, social networks, etc) that exists now; if a topic isn't covered by the media, people will discuss it less.

@distopiadnb I can definitely admit that the state has the right to enforce legal contracts. That's not interference, that's enforcement. The free market doesn't guarantee compliance of both individuals after the contract has been agreed upon, but it suggests that since both parties entered it voluntarily, they will be inclined to comply. If Cohen is trying to argue against a company or industry's right to have the government pass laws in its favor, I agree with him.

@distopiadnb All exchange is voluntary. But I will embrace the idea that collective action is possible in a competitive economy. Employees - or as I know them to be called, outsourced labor - can collectively unite and demand that an employer raise wages, conditions or benefits. But even this doesn't require a government to mandate to the business what to do or how to do it.

The suggestion that contractual part are naturally, as such, inclined to cooperation is unjustified, even in liberalism's own terms. Each part has an interest in relating with the other only insofar that this benefits his self-interest. That being the case, the endurance of cooperation is the case to be explained, not the intuitively obvious. Workers and capitalists need each other for their own purposes, but in issues such as hours and working conditions they are clearly opposed.

The state do not just "interfere" with voluntary contracts, it can actually rule about what can be written into them. The state did it when slavery was abolished, when child labour was abolished, each time minimum working conditions changes and so on. This is *potentially* threatening for the system. But it can be very well threatening for just some individual capitalists, and functional to the system's need as a whole. Shaping incentives, law creates as much markets as it abolishes them.

Is that deprive or inability to earn?

To be fair, if anyone besides Gerry Cohen told the shmoo story you would probably view them as preachy and a bit cracked. But he's so likable and charismatic it's like your uncle's talking to you.

damn we really didn't abolish slavery. the hierarchal relationship is still there.

What gives a people the right to occupy and make use of natural resources and exclude everyone else from their use is history. If a tribe, out of the necessities of survival and existence, makes use of a land and its resources, over time certain rules, customs, and traditions will develop which regulate the ways in which such resources are acquired, used, and transferred between members. These customary rules or traditions are effectively tribal laws. If another tribe with another language, customs, and rules regarding resources makes contact with the first, the first is under no obligation to share its resources with the second. On the contrary, the second has an obligation to respect the rules of the first. If they do not, they will be excluded forcefully, and with justification. No tribe has an obligation to be infinitely accommodating to outsiders, strangers, foreigners, people they don't know who don't understand or respect the very rules by which the tribe depends for its existence.

@distopiadnb Good point! But his self-interest tells him to cooperate. If he doesn't, he has gained more than if he had done nothing. He has both the object he created of lesser value plus the object of greater value that he stole. But if he does cooperate, he not only has a greater absolute value, but he also has the opportunity to profit from his partner in the future. If he hadn't upheld his end of the contract, that opportunity would have been lost.

4) If you agree that wage bargaining (which is not market-based however, so one should legitimately say that bargaining displaces a free market alternative) is legitimate, you have to admit that the state should be able to guarantee the enforcement of bargained contracts. In fact, without some sort of state power to guarantee the rule of law there would be no market. I can peacefully concede that the state could in many occasions run against the capitalist logic -that's no harm to my argument.

Awesome video! Very convincing argument!

HEAR HEAR HEAR HEAR ❣️

Capitalist here. With regards to his query about the origination of private property, I would say that, first, very little of what we find in nature, in its natural state, is useful. To make a spear, naturally occurring rock, trees and fibers, must be fashioned into the useful spear. It's at that point, when someone devotes their own time, effort, and skill into an unclaimed piece of property, that it seems fair to say they have a claim on it. If someone were to take it away, they'd be taking away their time and energy, our most basic and valuable assets.

@distopiadnb If a monopoly exists, then the consumers have accepted the price the business has offered. This is their free will. The more unfair the price, the more driven the consumer population will be to erect a competitor. But when your company has somehow become a monopoly, it's in your best interest to keep prices down really low so as not to encourage competition which will lower your profits even more. That's pro-consumer and pro-business.

@distopiadnb Wage bargaining IS market-based. You, as an employee, are arguing that your services are worth more than what's being offered. As a group, you have more leverage to state your case. If the employer gives you what you're demanding, then he's agreeing with you. This is the same thing as haggling.

@distopiadnb That's fair. To interfere on behalf of a union means to force an employer into making a decision he isn't obligated to make because his business is his property and to force someone to agree to a contract is not a valid contract. It's like forcing someone to say something. The unions fight for this and it's coercion.

@distopiadnb Abolishing slavery was interfering but it's interfering in a way that protects the property of those slaves. It's the same thing as theft, but on a larger scale. In defense of human rights, I'd argue that a child does not have the judgment to determine the fairness of contracts. It is for this reason that in a free society, there can be interference against child labor.

Dont you think the interaction goes both ways. The media reports what poeple talk about?

@distopiadnb Your arguments are legitimate. Let me correct your idea that monopolies exist naturally. For a monopoly to exist, it means that one company has the control over a product or service for which there are no substitutes. In a free market, any individual aggravated over the price or just feeling adventurous enough has the capabilities to acquire the resources to open up an industry that produces the same product or offers the same service at a cheaper price.

I assumed you understood that when one talks of public education, one refers to state monopolized education, and not the actual value of education to the public.The issue is how it is best provided,not whether it is is provided at all or not.Second,claiming property as personal is not unique to humans and goes beyond primates and mammals to even even insects(As ants show territoriality). So the act of private property was prior to humans even existing.Cohen has no thread to hang on.

Then, the difference between interference and enforcement is all but self-evident. You cannot simply rely each time on the one that fits your argument well. You must discern the two concepts clearly and identify a benchmark against which one can judge real cases. I defy you to do this. Under different historical circumstances and/or in different countries, the very same measures have been either attacked as interference or praised as enlightened enforcement.

And just about every single member of Congress + the President is funded by private interests. It is dumb to act like the interests of the government are somehow separate from the interests of those who fund its leaders' campaigns. It is pretty obvious that the government will act in the interests of wealthy individuals/businesses in a system where huge sums of money can be contributed to political candidates; they have the most money to contribute!

@distopiadnb Because he owns the business, it's his decision to make. Would he be "free" with his property if the government forced him to raise wages?

Interesting thought experiment. However.. he questions the validity of ownership of property... but animals have been territorial for throughout natural history. It is therefore not as foreign or inconceivable a concept that man would claim land a resource exclusively for his own. Dog's mark territory, are they unjust? The only difference is that our legal system eliminates the violence that often accompanies such claims of dominion in nature

His voice reminds me of David Byrne.

@apell711 you don't need to tell me the story of bad regulation and so on. I'm not friendly with étatisme and i think there is a reasonable way, far from conventional ones, to argue for free markets. I stand for individualism and the priority of freedom over equality. But an apology of capitalism doesn't follow consequentially at all. Let's proceed by order: 1) The entrepreneurial function need not be exercised by capitalists. Entrepreneurs own skills to innovate, not capital. Let us not mix different issues. 2) Your account of monopolies is ad hoc. Arbitrary political intervention cannot explain the kind of secular growth of economy-wide industrial concentration that took place in pretty much every advanced capitalist country. This, interestingly, didn't dampen competition. Monopolistic power has an economic rationale in increasing returns, internal and external economies. Political support is more a consequence than a cause. 3) When I wrote about collective action i was referring to capitalists. What you mentioned, the fact that action by individual capitalists may well be bad for capitalism as a system, is true. But if capitalists, acting as capitalists, under a competitive market economy that can reasonably be called capitalist, are pushed to act collectively to orient state policy, this cannot be assumed away as "not true capitalism". 4) If you agree that wage bargaining (which is not market-based however, bargaining partly displaces a market) is legitimate, then you have to admit that the state should be able to guarantee the enforcement of bargained contracts. In fact, without some sort of state power to guarantee the rule of law there would be no market. I can peacefully concede that the state could in many occasions run against the capitalist logic - my argument does not entail any denial of this. 5) Last, Cohen's argument is really different from what you may think having listened just that introductory story. Go ahead, he doesn't rely on silly hypotheses, his critique is not trivial. He pretty much accepts the classical assumptions about capitalism.

I could reply to all of this but i think it's enough, we are monopolizing comments^^. I can just strongly suggest you to read Cohen's "Self-ownership, freedom and equality", because it adresses exactly the kind of arguments you're arguing for. Roughly speaking, the libertarian pursuit of individual fredom and autonomy is the right one. Marxists like Cohen simply accept those prescriptions but claim that capitalism is not the better way to realize them. You might disagree but you will enjoy it.

because THERE IS ONLY HONOR, VALUE, AND VIRTUE IN A MARKET BASED UPON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND VALUE BASED OFF OF RARITY.

You seem to find the "market" just as you see free will. Things are really different imho. First, unequal initial distribution of means of production imply de facto unequal freedom on the labour market, as wokers don't have any alternative to wage labour. A minimum definition of freedom implies at least a reasonable alternative: for wage earners there is no such alternative under capitalism. So the contract cannot be viewed as a guarantee that wage labour is a choice.

... And the first monopoly to be mentioned, of course, is the monopoly of means of production by the capitalist class. ps: don't ask me about Cohen just listen to his speech :D

He spelled corporatism wrong.

@distopiadnb Don't be sorry. It's not your fault. Let me explain it another way. An employer pays his employees a certain wage. One worker feels his effort is more valuable than the wage you give him. He confronts the employer (haggling), he disagrees and asks him to return to work. He runs the idea to his coworkers. They agree with him. They all confront the employer in union and threaten to stop working.

@distopiadnb The workers stocking shelves stock shelves because they've made the choice to accept that job. Regardless of whether they're happy, they've accepted it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be there.

when?

@distopiadnb Individualism drives capitalism. Entrepreneurs are rewarded based on how they combine entrepreneurial ability, labor, land and capital. When you allow the state to regulate, mandate, subsidize or bail-out industries, it is in conflict with the free market because the state is a biased arbitrator. A lot of regulations exist not to save your precious environment, but because companies WROTE them to prohibit other people from entering the market and competing with them.

@distopiadnb Enforcement is just punishing theft. If two parties agree to a contract but one withholds his end after the other has already given it, this is theft. You took his property through deceit, which is coercion. If the robbed party can't acquire it on his own, it's the state's responsibility to protect your property and return it to you.

@distopiadnb Well I hope you at least read my points. I'm unwavering.

@apell711 0:00 of your comment and its already clear that you're blinded by wishful thinking about the relations between state power and capitalism. You cannot simply state that "free markets" is the condition under which no political influence can be exercised, any different scenario being not "true" capitalism. This is apriorism, dogmatic thinking. You have to *demonstrate* that collective action by capitalist is impossible in a competitive economy. Plenty of models asserting the opposite.

i don't understand. what is a schmoo? Why is he talking about them? thanks.

Sure, and that applies to the concept of Government,justice for murder,medicine (maybe even more so),and thus you have come full circle to the realization that Cohen's line of questioning and reasoning is utterly useless.

@distopiadnb Capitalism only flourishes in a free market economy in which the government cannot or does not write laws that violate or interfere in a voluntary contract. If capitalists, even collectively, try to impose a law or rule by force that DOES this, it's no longer capitalism, but crony capitalism. Saying capitalism is the problem is like saying you hate oranges because you ate a rotten, moldy orange once. What we have now is the rotten, moldy orange of capitalism.

@distopiadnb If the need to find a substitute product never manifests itself, then that means the product the monopoly offers is adequate. Inadequacy in quality, price, convenience, promptness, friendliness: all of these are incentives to find a competitor.

5:05

@megustaface Why not give a decent criticism of Geryy's argument, instead of ranting like an immature fool. At least then, people can engage in a serious discussion.

@pipem4n mistyped :D ment mises.org of cource.

...but I'm a shmoo...

It’s so nice how he thinks that trade unions and the welfare state came to stay.

pause it at 2.46 and take note capitalists

WRONG. Ever heard of Advertising? Capitalists are just as capable of manipulating the public by their own means. Their marriage with government only further complicates, but elimination of government would not eliminate the negative effects of profit-seeking.

The shmoo i.e. communist made people independent. Is this not a complete contradiction. Is it not the American culture that is inherently one of individualism. Was this country not built on individualism. Or would you claim America is the worst country ever to exist because, "slaves?"

I am inclined to think Cohen may not have ever taken Max Stirner seriously.

@distopiadnb But we're all capitalists! I think I explained that in response to this series of arguments.

Based and shmoopilled

2:30 in and I've already refuted his claim against Capitalism. This is not an example of Capitalism, it's Cronyism. If this were a Capitalism, the "rich Capitalists" wouldn't be able to convince the government to do anything about the shmoos because it's not a pure Capitalism unless there are free markets.

Preformationism is a dead theory,and so your gametes analogy is wrong.Your attempt at 'answering' my query to Cohen-ites is actually a cop out.It is factually incorrect that moneyed people possess all the means of production.Money is merely used to barter ,but in itself constitutes no claim over any means of production (except when issued in fiat,which is only possible under the State). Your distinctions of property is an equivocation.

5:10

A specific child is a very low probabilistic outcome as it does not exist until two very specific individuals mate and then two very specific sex cells meet. Property is not static in a capitalist based economy and neither are people's classes.Some of the wealthiest people on this planet have come from your 'proletarian class' in capitalist leaning economies.Highly socialist economies, on the other hand highly exhibit what you talk about.

All made possible because of the existence of money.

You cant silence truth look up astral projection by spirit science and look up chakras explained by avatar

6:58: "But we can ask a deeper question..." Right, of course you can, Cohen, but that question is not for the self-made "capitalist" to answer, as he neither invented the institution of private property, nor forced it upon others against their will. He merely found himself residing in it, and played by the rules. Capitalist is in quotes above, because the very terms capitalism and capitalist come from Socialist doctrine. Having an interest in your own property no matter how little, like your shoes for instance, should, objectively speaking, make you a capitalist, since you value ownership of YOUR shoes. But you aren't what a socialist means by capitalist, for the Socialist, capitalist is a fancy technical word for the rich. "Capitalist" is like "Terrorist": it has no objective meaning, it is a non-concept.

Kind of like Milton Friedman in a silly wig.

Thuis justifications for private property are steaming crap, dressed up to sound scientific, monopolies are not coerive if the people accept them? What kind of 1984 double speak is that?

In a real free market, people would be free to embrace the shmoo. Let the business owners go out of business. Capitalism isn't about holding onto businesses. In a free market, businesses are free to go out of business. It is unhealthy for the economy and society to force businesses (through the government) to stay in business. The shmoos either do everything, or nearly everything. If the latter, voluntary interaction (a free market) may exist on top of the shmoos which provide base needs for the people. Shmoos and capitalism are therefore compatible. Cohen does not make a valid argument against capitalism. Furthermore, notice how he says the capitalists use the force of the government to get their own way... well, that's not a free market. That's government force. More silly Marxist nonsense.

@WorkersPower2008 And in the real world that is a distinction without a difference,where a computer at home can be used generate revenue.The very fact that people earn an income from selling their blood,sperm,ovaries etc further attests to the failed definition.Indeed for the Marxian distinction to be valid it must concur empirically ,and it just does not.

The problem in the schmoo story wasn't capitalism (voluntary trade and ownership) rather it was the government! His beef is with corpratism, not capitalism.

He's made a good argument for capitalism without government.

I thought this was satire. His premise is all based on a Schmoo? A NON-EXISTENT fantasy monster that meets all needs? ok kids....

OMG so much fail! this is the poison of rhetoric rather than discussion. In discussion this putz would get destroyed by even the most base libritarian.

What a load of horse crap