Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like Rockefeller so I wasn't defending anarcho-capitalism.
The concept that he treated his workers well is like the concept of a benevolent king. He may treat the people well but the power is in his hands and he can use that power to abuse them whenever he wants.
Standard oil was able to defeat its competition through efficiency, I never denied that, but it also used its position to buy up competition and buy up the means of production (oil fields, etc.). That would mean in the future anyone who wanted to get oil would have to go through standard oil and they'd be indebted to him. Make no mistake, once standard oil controlled all the means of production there would be no reason left for them to innovate being as they'd have no possible competition.
As for you ideological belief, the wealth that Rockefeller gave to his workers wan't his to gain, he didn't build his company, his workers did; he only owned the capital they produced. Their output went to his input which he then distributed (unfairly) to them. Ones output needs to equal their input and vice versa.
Think of feudal Europe, the land lords provided for the surfs but in reality the surfs were the ones who worked the land, not the lords.
So what if the workers had no desire to overthrow Rockefeller? They were surely free to try. So were his competitors. Why weren't they successful?
He couldn't abuse them. I mean...he could in theory but he knew that's what kept his monopoly going: their loyalty. He had incentive to treat them well.
Standard Oil did get up something crazy like 80% to 90% market share and was still innovating.
Rockefeller didn't build that?
Oh boy, you're treading on Obama territory now.
The input and output were obviously fair to them. They never went to his competitors or tried to bring him down in a large consorted effort.
I wasn't too familiar with anarcho-syndicalism until not too long ago. Sounds like communism.
So you don't believe in an involuntary State. And that's what did Rockefeller in.
So if there was no State what do you think should have been done in regards to his monopoly?
I can't find it now but Mises did a piece on Rockefeller that briefly touched on some of this. I read it God only knows when.
It's one way to skin a cat in a true capitalist system (which is of course what anarcho-capitalism is) where this default monopoly may spring up: please the workers to the point that they aren't willing to turn on you (either by going to your competitors or by demanding so much that it will break the monopoly).
The workers were key. They had no interest in becoming a syndicate. They knew the monopoly was good in this case because it was from pure true capitalism and they were treated so well. Had Rockefeller not treated them well they could have either gone to his competitors with information or some other means to try to break him or more than likely formed the syndicate to demand more. The monopoly benefited the workers and they knew it. That's why it held until the State came in with its nonsense.
This is why it's a monopoly by default and not really a monopoly in the way we look at through the statist paradigm.
being treated well by corporate overlords is not good for workers. The people that do the work must receive just as much as they put in, not be treated well by the owner of the capital.
This logic is the same as that of successful kingdoms.
Also standard oil was never going to give up their monopoly which would then have been used to overprice costumers (once all competitors were kicked out of the oil business by full control of the means of producing oil) and give workers little control over their own future.
Syndicalism works, look at pre-ww2 Catalonia or Chiapas Mexico (which exists today)
Last edited by Winterfall8324; 03-25-2018 at 01:07 AM..
So what if the workers had no desire to overthrow Rockefeller? They were surely free to try. So were his competitors. Why weren't they successful?
He couldn't abuse them. I mean...he could in theory but he knew that's what kept his monopoly going: their loyalty. He had incentive to treat them well.
Standard Oil did get up something crazy like 80% to 90% market share and was still innovating.
Rockefeller didn't build that?
Oh boy, you're treading on Obama territory now.
The input and output were obviously fair to them. They never went to his competitors or tried to bring him down in a large consorted effort.
I wasn't too familiar with anarcho-syndicalism until not too long ago. Sounds like communism.
So you don't believe in an involuntary State. And that's what did Rockefeller in.
So if there was no State what do you think should have been done in regards to his monopoly?
No, Rockefeller was on his way to buying out all sources of competition which would ruin your free market idea, and if the workers don't become unhappy (they will once profits start to fall) the costumers will.
as for your last sentence, there would be no private business being as capital shouldn't be controlled by one person.
No, Rockefeller was on his way to buying out all sources of competition which would ruin your free market idea, and if the workers don't become unhappy (they will once profits start to fall) the costumers will.
as for your last sentence, there would be no private business being as capital shouldn't be controlled by one person.
Wait a second...then who enforces this "no private business" rule?
Wait a second...then who enforces this "no private business" rule?
decentralized federal syndicates. They are not a state, just the workers (they are not represented by anyone either, that would just be a state system).
decentralized federal syndicates. They are not a state, just the workers (they are not represented by anyone either, that would just be a state system).
And if someone wants to form a private business how are they stopped?
What grants a person control over the means of production? If a worker wants to produce they should be allowed to, not under the permission of some capitalist hierarchy.
What grants a person control over the means of production? If a worker wants to produce they should be allowed to, not under the permission of some capitalist hierarchy.
I'm going to have to read up on this.
So essentially you're a communist without a State (or as Marx put it...the end game)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
