3 Questions for AnComs

[Havet]

Individualist: If wage labor is exploitation and capitalists are just parasites who live by paying workers less than their full product, why should I trade a boss who siphons off, say, 20 percent of my labor for a "community" that siphons off 100 percent, and gives me only minimal input into who to give it to and how it should be directed?

Likely responses:

1. Because you voluntarily join the commune and contribute.

Individualist: Wage labor is voluntary, and you don't consider that a sufficient justification.

2. The majority agrees.

Individualist: So if a greater number of people want to fuck me, does that entitle them to just go ahead and rape me, or do they still need my consent? How about forcing me to work and produce for them in the first place, instead of redistributing my product after it's been created? Why is mutual consent so absolutely necessary in some areas but not others?

How would you reply to these? And please keep it civil.

P.S: Would you (ancoms) prefer super-majoritarian or consensual democracy to simple majority?

[IcarusAngel]

You've presented another false dichotomy in the first place. First of all, capitalism is not individualist, and neither are 'free-markets,' because they assume people will all agree with property being obtained through supposed labor.

Individualism means people could take from the community, and have to worry about giving anything back.

It would also mean if a group of 30 wants to take away from one or two "capitalists" who obtained products through their "labor" or "homesteading," they could do so. Even Max Stirner opposed private property in most instances.

So you've set up a question that is prejudicial from the start.

[IcarusAngel]

"If labour becomes free. the State is lost."

Property exists by grace of the law. It is not a fact, but a legal fiction.
- Max Stirner

"Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery."
-Wayne Dyer


"The distinguishing sign of slavery is to have a price, and to be bought for it."
-John Ruskin

Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need.

Bottom line, you are not an anarchist because you support absolutism.

Stirner was an anarchist, albeit a crazy one.

[Zanthorus]

If wage labor is exploitation and capitalists are just parasites who live by paying workers less than their full product

What kind of crazy system wants to give anyone their "full product"?

Gonna bring in my home boy Déjacque on this one -


It is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature.

[IcarusAngel]

I think workers' needs could be provided by a system of 'usage based' rights instead of property rights. You have the right to use and access certain resources based on your needs as a human, and your natural talents, whereever they lie. Obviously this would create a more effective mode of production than capitalism, where needs are artificially created and supplied inefficiently in the first place.

[AnthArmo]

Individualist: If wage labor is exploitation and capitalists are just parasites who live by paying workers less than their full product, why should I trade a boss who siphons off, say, 20 percent of my labor for a "community" that siphons off 100 percent, and gives me only minimal input into who to give it to and how it should be directed?

Likely responses:

1. Because you voluntarily join the commune and contribute.Crappy response, sorry :P

Socialism doesn't operate under Wage labour, Capitalism does. Under Socialism, labour is free, you contribute your labour freely, and you take as you need. Capitalists take as much from you as possible, and give you the least amount possible in exchange.


Individualist: Wage labor is voluntary, and you don't consider that a sufficient justification.

2. The majority agrees.Wage Labour isn't voluntary. For the Majority of the population, its the only option available to them.


Individualist: So if a greater number of people want to fuck me, does that entitle them to just go ahead and rape me, or do they still need my consent? How about forcing me to work and produce for them in the first place, instead of redistributing my product after it's been created? Why is mutual consent so absolutely necessary in some areas but not others?There's a difference to Producing for everyone, and having others produce for you. Than to producing for a Minority, and having no-one produce for you.

[IcarusAngel]

lol. I was just crusing at the Libertarian Left website (I had to clear my cache so I had to log back in here, I felt dirty after going there, like I'd just been at Mises forums or something) and I noticed that even there Hayenmill is often considered a right-wing loon by some of the loons over there, such as Francois (who himself trolls for Libertarian leftism).

Kind of interesting, over there he argues in favor of "landlords," rent, and usuary but over here he claims he opposed it all such domineering social relationships.

[Havet]

What kind of crazy system wants to give anyone their "full product"?

Gonna bring in my home boy Déjacque on this one -

Who has an obligation to supply the worker's needs?

[Havet]

Crappy response, sorry :P

Socialism doesn't operate under Wage labour, Capitalism does. Under Socialism, labour is free, you contribute your labour freely, and you take as you need. Capitalists take as much from you as possible, and give you the least amount possible in exchange.

You seem to have slightly derailed from the point.

In a commune, you give 100% of your labor to all (democratically), you may take whatever you need in return, but fundamentally you don't have 100% control over the product of your labor (one has only 1 vote, after all).


Wage Labour isn't voluntary. For the Majority of the population, its the only option available to them.

Sure. What if someone is born into the commune, aren't they *forced* to agree to their rules?


There's a difference to Producing for everyone, and having others produce for you. Than to producing for a Minority, and having no-one produce for you.

You kind of missed the question of whether a majority decision must ALWAYS be respected.

[AnthArmo]

You seem to have slightly derailed from the point.

In a commune, you give 100% of your labor to all (democratically), you may take whatever you need in return, but fundamentally you don't have 100% control over the product of your labor (one has only 1 vote, after all).

I haven't derailed at all.

The poster of that, umm, thing, was arguing under the assumption that wage labour still exists, with people selling "themselves" to society. It doesn't work like that. Under a Socialist system, the means of production are held in common. This means you don't have to "sell yourself" to anyone in order to work. You have control over your own labour from start to finish.

The "Democratic" part is the whole fact that labour today isn't an individual pursuit. It takes many people to produce one product. to produce a car, it takes a whole factory of people. Therefore it is only logical that people democratically have a say on how the running of a factory and, on the whole, the economy, is run.


Sure. What if someone is born into the commune, aren't they *forced* to agree to their rules?

I suppose they are. That's the whole point of Democracy, it nullifies that problem by giving people the Positive Right to change those rules. Under Capitalism, you have no power over the kind of labour available to you. Even if you want a specific job, Capitalists have the power to reject you.


You kind of missed the question of whether a majority decision must ALWAYS be respected.

Mind you, I personally prefer Consensus democracy, yet regardless...

If the interests of the Majority outweigh the interests of the Minority, then yes, it should be respected.

[Zanthorus]

Who has an obligation to supply the worker's needs?

Everyone has an obligation to supply everyone elses needs. By advancing society we advance ourselves.

[Havet]

lol. I was just crusing at the Libertarian Left website (I had to clear my cache so I had to log back in here, I felt dirty after going there, like I'd just been at Mises forums or something) and I noticed that even there Hayenmill is often considered a right-wing loon by some of the loons over there, such as Francois (who himself trolls for Libertarian leftism).

Kind of interesting, over there he argues in favor of "landlords," rent, and usuary but over here he claims he opposed it all such domineering social relationships.

Where am I considered a right-winger in the ALL website?

Where have I opposed the existence of landlords, rent and usury (its spelled like this, btw...) provided the decision for such forms of social organization were agreed upon by all the members of such community?

[Havet]

I haven't derailed at all.

The poster of that, umm, thing, was arguing under the assumption that wage labour still exists, with people selling "themselves" to society. It doesn't work like that. Under a Socialist system, the means of production are held in common. This means you don't have to "sell yourself" to anyone in order to work. You have control over your own labour from start to finish.

If I have a control of my labor, do I have complete control of where I labor on and what I do with the products of my labor?


The "Democratic" part is the whole fact that labour today isn't an individual pursuit. It takes many people to produce one product. to produce a car, it takes a whole factory of people. Therefore it is only logical that people democratically have a say on how the running of a factory and, on the whole, the economy, is run.

I think that there is much inefficiency (time, cost, centralization) in having the whole people of a country have an equal say on the WHOLE economy. I would prefer smaller divisions of the economy run democratically than, say, a State or some institution constantly making referendums so that *everyone* would have an equal say (which is practically impossible, even with the current information technology).


I suppose they are. That's the whole point of Democracy, it nullifies that problem by giving people the Positive Right to change those rules. Under Capitalism, you have no power over the kind of labour available to you. Even if you want a specific job, Capitalists have the power to reject you.

Oh yes. That is a problem with capitalism. I agree with you on that. People have practically no choice but to become "wage slaves".


Mind you, I personally prefer Consensus democracy, yet regardless...

I would prefer that too than simple majority decision.


If the interests of the Majority outweigh the interests of the Minority, then yes, it should be respected.

At any time? Let me ask my example again:

"if a greater number of people want to fuck me, does that entitle them to just go ahead and rape me, or do they still need my consent? How about forcing me to work and produce for them in the first place, instead of redistributing my product after it's been created? Why is mutual consent so absolutely necessary in some areas but not others?"

[Havet]

Everyone has an obligation to supply everyone elses needs. By advancing society we advance ourselves.

Should that obligation be imposed on someone? If starving africans need food, would I be legitimate (according to your beliefs) in forcing you to give away some of your possessions (television, computer, car) in order to supply them, or would I still need your consent?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I can't stand Individualism.

[Zanthorus]

Should that obligation be imposed on someone? If starving africans need food, would I be legitimate (according to your beliefs) in forcing you to give away some of your possessions (television, computer, car) in order to supply them, or would I still need your consent?

Yup. Before you come out with "lulz ur t3h 4n4rch0 st4tist", may I remind you that anarchism = no rulers no no rules,.

[Havet]

Yup. Before you come out with "lulz ur t3h 4n4rch0 st4tist", may I remind you that anarchism = no rulers no no rules,.

Can you give me your address then, so I can come over and steal some of your possessions to give away to starving Africans?

I agree that anarchism = no rulers, though it will still have rules. I'm just questioning the outcome of some of those rules.

[Zanthorus]

Can you give me your address then, so I can come over and steal some of your possessions to give away to starving Africans?

No, I can give you the addresses of some wealthy fuckers so you can give there possessions to starving africans.

Look I don't believe in absolute equality and forcing everyone to be exactly the same, that woudl be madness, But I do believe that there are severe limits to the extent that anyone should be allowed to rise above the herd in case they start getting any smart ideas about how many times better they are than all those at the bottom and how things would be better if they were in charge....

Fact is if you want to maintain a stateless society then unless you want some kind of hyper-capitalist dystopia where private companies protect the strongest from the "greedy workers" in some bizarre social darwinist arrangement you're going to need to get rid of the class system.

I don't believe in any kind of absolute natural right to property, so when I see one guy with all the wealth and a whole load of other people starving in the streets I'm going to take that guys wealth by force and redistribute it and to hell with "natural rights".

When we're all on a level playing field then maybe we can start talking about voluntary arrangements of society.

Although even then you better be on your guard that everyone in your lolbertarian world is getting what they need. And don't be surprised if, when you start instigating employer/employee contracts and furthering class divisions, the workers with the support of the commies in the next town over start resenting your "voluntary" arrangement.

[Havet]

No, I can give you the addresses of some wealthy fuckers so you can give there possessions to starving africans.

Why did you change the victims? I was talking about you. Would you condone such action?


Look I don't believe in absolute equality and forcing everyone to be exactly the same, that woudl be madness

Agreed


But I do believe that there are severe limits to the extent that anyone should be allowed to rise above the herd in case they start getting any smart ideas about how many times better they are than all those at the bottom and how things would be better if they were in charge....

I don't believe that with equality of opportunity the differences in natural ability would be great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others. Even if he could, there would be self-regulating factors that would prevent such massive accumulation of wealth which could hurt others.


Fact is if you want to maintain a stateless society then unless you want some kind of hyper-capitalist dystopia where private companies protect the strongest from the "greedy workers" in some bizarre social darwinist arrangement you're going to need to get rid of the class system.

No I don't like that kind of society. I don't have the same view of "class" system as most communists have here though. I'm more into agorist class theory, though I have to be honest and confess I haven't read much about that either.


I don't believe in any kind of absolute natural right to property, so when I see one guy with all the wealth and a whole load of other people starving in the streets I'm going to take that guys wealth by force and redistribute it and to hell with "natural rights".

I don't believe in natural rights either. But I will respect them if the community I am inserted in had decided to abide by such "rights", without forcing such system upon other communities and leaving people free to leave.


When we're all on a level playing field then maybe we can start talking about voluntary arrangements of society.

Maybe


Although even then you better be on your guard that everyone in your lolbertarian world is getting what they need. And don't be surprised if, when you start instigating employer/employee contracts and furthering class divisions, the workers with the support of the commies in the next town over start resenting your "voluntary" arrangement.

Now the discussion was going fine until you HAD to threw in ad hom. What was the point of saying "lolbertarian"? What purpose does such derogatory term have? You should know better.

Anyway, no problem with that. They can leave. Just as I expect the people in your "lolcollectivist" society to NOT be restricted from leaving as well.

[AnthArmo]

If I have a control of my labor, do I have complete control of where I labor on and what I do with the products of my labor?

Yes.


I think that there is much inefficiency (time, cost, centralization) in having the whole people of a country have an equal say on the WHOLE economy. I would prefer smaller divisions of the economy run democratically than, say, a State or some institution constantly making referendums so that *everyone* would have an equal say (which is practically impossible, even with the current information technology).

Right, sorry, I was talking about Democracy in principle. I don't actually want some centrilised authority making decisions on behalf of everyone. more specifically, I was talking about the creation of new projects, such as the making of a new bridge, such a project should go ahead as the result of popular support, as opposed to the possession of Capital.



Oh yes. That is a problem with capitalism. I agree with you on that. People have practically no choice but to become "wage slaves".

Yup :)....

wait, do I detect sarcasm?




I would prefer that too than simple majority decision.

At any time? Let me ask my example again:

"if a greater number of people want to fuck me, does that entitle them to just go ahead and rape me, or do they still need my consent? How about forcing me to work and produce for them in the first place, instead of redistributing my product after it's been created? Why is mutual consent so absolutely necessary in some areas but not others?"


Under Majoritarian Democracy, yes, the majority decision must always be respected. And yes, this is obviously far from perfect because it does, hypothetically, justify these scenarios.

I justify Majoritarian Democracy as a "Lesser Evil" to Autocracy/Aristocracy. If a few rule that a minority can be raped/forced into labour by the majority, this produces the same outcome as a Majority making the same decision. Under a democratic system however, the minority can at least have a say in this decision making process, wereas under an undemocratic system, they have no such say.

[Havet]

Yes.

So how do you justify that its the community, not me, which decides where I work (by democratic decision) and what to do with the products of my labor (under democratic vote), according to the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?


Right, sorry, I was talking about Democracy in principle. I don't actually want some centrilised authority making decisions on behalf of everyone. more specifically, I was talking about the creation of new projects, such as the making of a new bridge, such a project should go ahead as the result of popular support, as opposed to the possession of Capital.

I think I agree. I mean, i would have no problem if that project happened due to possession of capital, provided it abided by the rules of the community it was inserted in, and did not go against the intersubjective consensus of the population.


Yup :)....

wait, do I detect sarcasm?

No sarcasm, though our definitions might be different.


Under Majoritarian Democracy, yes, the majority decision must always be respected. And yes, this is obviously far from perfect because it does, hypothetically, justify these scenarios.

I justify Majoritarian Democracy as a "Lesser Evil" to Autocracy/Aristocracy. If a few rule that a minority can be raped/forced into labour by the majority, this produces the same outcome as a Majority making the same decision. Under a democratic system however, the minority can at least have a say in this decision making process, wereas under an undemocratic system, they have no such say.

No quarrel here.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I am not an anarcho-communist, but I would like to provide one universal answer that some anarcho-communists may agree with:


aren't they *forced* to...
We do not object to the use of force. We only object when one person can use more force than another.

On another note:


So how do you justify that its the community, not me, which decides where I work (by democratic decision) and what to do with the products of my labor (under democratic vote), according to the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
Why should we assume by default that the decision is yours, and some justification is needed to delegate it to the community?

Why can't we assume by default that the decision belongs with the community, and you must provide some justification for your wish to delegate the decision to yourself?

I reject philosophical individualism.

[Havet]

We do not object to the use of force. We only object when one person can use more force than another.

Can't a majority use more force than a minority? Isn't that objectionable, according to the principle you have just established?


Why should we assume by default that the decision is yours, and some justification is needed to delegate it to the community?

Because it's my body. I control it exclusively. See below.


Why can't we assume by default that the decision belongs with the community, and you must provide some justification for your wish to delegate the decision to yourself?

I reject philosophical individualism.

Let's assume that. And let's analyze again the example in the first post:

"if a greater number of people want to fuck me, does that entitle them to just go ahead and rape me, or do they still need my consent? How about forcing me to work and produce for them in the first place, instead of redistributing my product after it's been created? Why is mutual consent so absolutely necessary in some areas but not others?"

The decision belongs to the community. You reject philosophical individualism. Would you object against you being raped, IF the majority so decided?

Why? Why not?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Can't a majority use more force than a minority? Isn't that objectionable, according to the principle you have just established?
No. I am only concerned about equality of power between individuals. Just like I am only concerned about equality of wealth between individuals.

Any so-called "equality" between a majority and a minority is not equality at all. Think of wealth, for example. Currently, in the world, there is "equality of wealth" between the top 1% richest people and the bottom 60% poorest people (or something like that). There you have it: a majority and a minority... but it would be absurd to seriously use the word "equality" to describe this situation.

It's the same with force. If the top 1% of people can use as much force as the bottom 60%... guess what happens.


Because it's my body. I control it exclusively.
Your body? I thought we were talking about work and the products thereof. This involves natural resources and means of production, which are not part of your body and do not belong to you.


The decision belongs to the community. You reject philosophical individualism. Would you object against you being raped, IF the majority so decided?

Why? Why not?
I did not say the community should make all decisions. I said the right to make a decision belongs to the community by default, unless the community decides to delegate it to the individual.

And I think it's a pretty safe bet that all communities will delegate the right to make sexual decisions to the individual. I mean, who would want to live in a community where he has to worry about the neighbours voting to rape him? If we held a vote on the question "Should we delegate sexual decisions to the individual?", do you have any doubt that the Yes side would win by a near-unanimous landslide?

The community will not have the power to vote to rape you because no sane person would want the community to have that power. Remember, just because it's a direct democracy doesn't mean there aren't any laws.

And remember that anyone can leave a community at any time, so you effectively have a veto on all community decisions that impact you personally.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Generalizing my point:

The problem with trying to set up a situation where a majority of people vote to violate some fundamental social norm is that fundamental social norms are by definition things that most people in our society agree with.

It is by definition impossible for the majority of people to vote to do something that would be repugnant to the majority of people.

In our society, rape is repugnant to the vast majority of people.

[Havet]

No. I am only concerned about equality of power between individuals. Just like I am only concerned about equality of wealth between individuals.

Any so-called "equality" between a majority and a minority is not equality at all. Think of wealth, for example. Currently, in the world, there is "equality of wealth" between the top 1% richest people and the bottom 60% poorest people (or something like that). There you have it: a majority and a minority... but it would be absurd to seriously use the word "equality" to describe this situation.

It's the same with force. If the top 1% of people can use as much force as the bottom 60%... guess what happens.

And the majority is a group of individuals. Except the majority has more individuals than the minority, hence the sum of their "power" is greater. Don't you find that illegitimate?

Why should the sum of power of one group of individuals (the minority) be inferior than the sum of power of another group of individuals (the majority)


Your body? I thought we were talking about work and the products thereof. This involves natural resources and means of production, which are not part of your body and do not belong to you.

If work and products thereof do not belong to the individual, then they certainly do not belong to the community either, because the community is a group of individuals.

I find it hilarious that some communists claim the problem is that capitalists steal some portion of the product of the worker's labor, then claim that product doesn't even belong to the worker to begin with.


I did not say the community should make all decisions. I said the right to make a decision belongs to the community by default, unless the community decides to delegate it to the individual.

And I think it's a pretty safe bet that all communities will delegate the right to make sexual decisions to the individual. I mean, who would want to live in a community where he has to worry about the neighbours voting to rape him? If we held a vote on the question "Should we delegate sexual decisions to the individual?", do you have any doubt that the Yes side would win by a near-unanimous landslide?

The community will not have the power to vote to rape you because no sane person would want the community to have that power. Remember, just because it's a direct democracy doesn't mean there aren't any laws.

And remember that anyone can leave a community at any time, so you effectively have a veto on all community decisions that impact you personally.

I'm not really arguing against direct democracy. I'm arguing at some of the arguments some people here use it to justify it. For all I know, direct democracy (or participatory democracy) is the most perfect system ever devised.

Anyway, you said:

"I did not say the community should make all decisions. I said the right to make a decision belongs to the community by default, unless the community decides to delegate it to the individual."

What if the community DOES NOT make the decision to delegate the choice to NOT be raped to the individual? In other words, what if the community just ignores the individual?

The point i'm trying to make is that voluntary communities which "forget" about certain "rights" (rights dont really exist, but you get what i'm saying) will become uncompetitive in regards to other communities. Which would be a waste of time and resources, if we already knew they were going to fail anyway.

[AnthArmo]

So how do you justify that its the community, not me, which decides where I work (by democratic decision) and what to do with the products of my labor (under democratic vote), according to the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

woah woah woah, lemme deal with that in two parts.

No-body ever suggested that a Socialist system would have the community "allocate" work. At least, I do not advocate that. I believe strongly that people should choose were they work, not the community.

As for not having control over the products of your labour. I think I already covered that earlier. Labour today isn't an individualistic pursuit, it takes many people to produce one product. thats why you don't have "complete control over the products of your labour", if you did, you would be denying someone else control over their product.

[Havet]

woah woah woah, lemme deal with that in two parts.

No-body ever suggested that a Socialist system would have the community "allocate" work. At least, I do not advocate that. I believe strongly that people should choose were they work, not the community.

Well I have an argument that says otherwise. It claims that anarcho-socialist community necessarily leads to central planning.


IVAN AND THE TOASTER ARGUMENT aka ALL ROADS LEAD TO CENTRAL PLANNING

By Dejavu

The argument assumes a hypothetical socialist economy ( within an anarchist setting of course), so its mainly posed to anarchists (the statist socialists would simply be ok with using force so that's autofail).

The idea is that you look at it from the point of view of 'Ivan' a member of the commune and we assume no such thing as a toaster even exists (i.e. has not been invented yet)

So then he invents it

So ivan has his little commune duties, i let the socialist pick the job for ivan.

According to most ansocs , ivan will get to pick his job at a workers council meeting, something to the effect of biding for it. Neverminding the problems with that, i give all passes to ansocs to allow them to even start an economy, so we can focus on ivan.

So ivan in his off time is fidling around with his stuff ( posessions), and he happens to configure the stuff he does have into a pretty efficient toaster, something to make his bread hot and crunchy. He got the idea from watching others in the commune toast their bread over a fire, but nobody ever thought of an industrial toaster yet.

All he knows is that people like hot , crunchy bread with butter on it (including himself obviously)

So ivan after like 6 months of his off time , finally completed this toaster, and he invites friends over (neighbors) and he's like , check this shit out

And people are like damn, that's fucking awesome. Pretty soon it becomes rather popular around the commune that ivan has a toaster. People come to ivan's house all the time and ivan gets no privacy really because so many people want to use his toaster

People start asking ivan to make them one. Ivan is like, i'd love to but this took me six months and i'd like to enjoy it for a bit instead of spending all of my off time making toasters.

Ivan decides to be a nice guy and starts handing out blueprints to his toaster. Basically what it takes to build one, and people are like gee thanks ivan, some people are able to replicate it , after 4-6 months of work on their off time.

But a lot of people are like , ivan, im not really mechanical, i really don't know how this all comes together, and ivan is like , i'd love to let everyone use my toaster but people are coming over all the time , i don't even get privacy.

Ivan knows he can't restrict the use of the toaster, but he doesn't just want to give it away to someone , not after all the hard work he put into it , he made it only because he wants to enjoy the toast

Intelligent question (by hayenmill): isnt his toaster possession? certainly he can restrict its use?

Answer: well , ivan thought so, but pretty soon there are some minor quibblings going around in the commune.

SOME people have a toaster , including ivan

Others do not

Meaning its much more inconveniant for them to make toast compared to the people who benefit from using the toaster. More and more people without a toaster start demanding toasters.

The first question to ask a Communist is:

Is the toaster a capital good?

Most reply no , offhand, until it is explained that the toaster is used to make other products that people want (people don't want a toaster per say , but an item capable of making better and faster toast) and why should SOME people have much better toast than others?

What do you do if the trend catches on and most of the workers demand toasters?

Then, a communist would anser: this is a simple matter , simply bring it up at the workers councils that we should produce enough toasters for everyone to have. Problem solved.

Of course, that's where the problems just begin

Most communists agree that the workers councils are organizing labor to meet the needs of the community. This means just enough food is being produced , just enough clothing , electricity.

Remember , no profit , just enough surplus to satiate the people, but now you have to also throw into there the mass production of toasters.

If workers are pulled off of other tasks to make toasters , that means that much less productivity of the other stuff, and who gets pulled off? they need some engineers to design the machinery capable of making the toasters as well as the toasters. They need to divert other resources into toaster production which means less for other things.

How is it ensured that enough steel will be available for automobiles if you also have to divert the production resources into other uses like toasters?

The councils have only several options:

- they have to take a more dominate role in overseeing production
workers either have to work longer hours on the other stuff
- or , toasters are deemed by the council to be too much of a non-necessity

But then what do you do with the inequality already existing between toaster holders and non toaster holders?

The point is, just something like toasters can throw the whole ansoc utopian economy totally out of whack. More precisely , the reality of scarcity.

Eventually if the economy must be planned, then the society must be planned as an extention. Economies and societies are always linked, and in a planned system , you need planners and those who follow the plan.

They might even find people who are capable of making the toaster line but what if those people are like ' i'm a car engineer , i want to stick to cars.'

Is the council going to democratically vote him to do work he'd rather not do? They could say ' then we'll teach new engineers.'

But again you're sucking away from your vitally needed pool of labor.

The engineers have to divert some of their time and resources into teaching students , as populatin increases , labor needs to be evenly distributed across all areas to compensate its planning.

If society is planned , THAT IS NOT an ANARCHIST or FREE society to me

hence: epic fail



As for not having control over the products of your labour. I think I already covered that earlier. Labour today isn't an individualistic pursuit, it takes many people to produce one product. thats why you don't have "complete control over the products of your labour", if you did, you would be denying someone else control over their product.

Ok, so lets say 10 people build something. Its still the community which allocates the product of their joint labor. Why don't they just keep the product of their labor and trade it?

[AnthArmo]

Well I have an argument that says otherwise. It claims that anarcho-socialist community necessarily leads to central planning.

OK, I read all that, had a quick laugh, then got started on posting this. There are a number of reasons why I disagree with this, I'll try and keep this relatively simple.

What would probably happen in reality is, the democratic body (Municipal Assemblies, Worker Councils, Internet) would allocate funding to the creation of a Toaster factory. Worker's would voluntarily join up to help out in this project. Once the factory is up and running, it should be able to handle the need for toasters.

A centrally planned economy would not be needed, obviously there would be coordination between toaster selling shops, toaster making factories, democratic bodies and whatnot. But nothing that necessitates Central planning.

and also, this seems to presuppose that no-body would want to work to build Toasters. In a society of 6 billion like ours, I'm sure you're bound to find someone who wants to work in a toaster factory.

Forcing people to work jobs they don't want is not needed. giving people control over their labour is kinda the point of Socialism.


Ok, so lets say 10 people build something. Its still the community which allocates the product of their joint labor. Why don't they just keep the product of their labor and trade it?Wow, massive strawman. No it doesn't. Once they've created their product, they can democratically agree who to sell it to. Assuming this is still a money economy, that is. Alternate systems, like Credits and Labour-vouchers would have their own mechanisms. But they don't advocate workers no longer having control over the product of their labour.

The point is, some grey faced beaurocrat doesn't arbitrarily pop up out of nowhere and take whatever they've made.

[Havet]

OK, I read all that, had a quick laugh, then got started on posting this. There are a number of reasons why I disagree with this, I'll try and keep this relatively simple.

What would probably happen in reality is, the democratic body (Municipal Assemblies, Worker Councils, Internet) would allocate funding to the creation of a Toaster factory. Worker's would voluntarily join up to help out in this project. Once the factory is up and running, it should be able to handle the need for toasters.

A centrally planned economy would not be needed, obviously there would be coordination between toaster selling shops, toaster making factories, democratic bodies and whatnot. But nothing that necessitates Central planning.

and also, this seems to presuppose that no-body would want to work to build Toasters. In a society of 6 billion like ours, I'm sure you're bound to find someone who wants to work in a toaster factory.

What if nobody wants to work in a toaster factory? Sure, it is unlikely, but not impossible. Especially if we consider less satisfying jobs, like sewer maintenance, bathroom cleaning, etc. What if NOBODY wants to work in these kinds of jobs?

The point of the "Ivan & Toaster" argument has to do with "need". As explained:


Most communists agree that the workers councils are organizing labor to meet the needs of the community. This means just enough food is being produced , just enough clothing , electricity.

Remember , no profit , just enough surplus to satiate the people, but now you have to also throw into there the mass production of toasters.

If workers are pulled off of other tasks to make toasters , that means that much less productivity of the other stuff, and who gets pulled off? they need some engineers to design the machinery capable of making the toasters as well as the toasters. They need to divert other resources into toaster production which means less for other things.

How is it ensured that enough steel will be available for automobiles if you also have to divert the production resources into other uses like toasters?

---


Forcing people to work jobs they don't want is not needed. giving people control over their labour is kinda the point of Socialism.

I agree, we shouldn't force people to work for a certain employer. People should be naturally free to start their own business, or self-employ themselves, or join a cooperative/commune if they so wished.


Wow, massive strawman. No it doesn't. Once they've created their product, they can democratically agree who to sell it to. Assuming this is still a money economy, that is. Alternate systems, like Credits and Labour-vouchers would have their own mechanisms. But they don't advocate workers no longer having control over the product of their labour.

The point is, some grey faced beaurocrat doesn't arbitrarily pop up out of nowhere and take whatever they've made.

Why is the product of one's labor subject to democratic vote? Why isn't that option left exclusively for the worker (which will have every incentive to trade it or join his products with others like a cooperative or commune)?

[Zanthorus]

Why did you change the victims? I was talking about you. Would you condone such action?

If all the people above me in terms of wealth had already had it done to them then I would agree to it.


I don't believe that with equality of opportunity the differences in natural ability would be great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others. Even if he could, there would be self-regulating factors that would prevent such massive accumulation of wealth which could hurt others.

Equality of oppurtunity is negated by the right to property. Accumulation is a necessary result of property. Under property each generation is subject to the labour that was performed under the previous generation. My initial social standing is determined by the labour and hence property of my parents. Because I have more property I might do more work or indeed bring some of the members of society impoverished by the previous generation under my employ. Now these wage-labourers are dependent on the future of me and my capital. They must advance my interests in order to advance their own even though, contradictorally, their interest is diametrically opposed to my own. They have to enlarge my wealth further in order to feed of the scraps, driving themselves further down the social scale hence their right to the products of their labour is appropriated even though at the same time the right to the product of one's labour is apparently being respected. This system is madness yet daily it is spouted by the propertarian right and by "left-libertarians" such as yourself.

Property of any kind is contradicted by the right to control the fruits of ones labour and the fruits of ones labour are contradicted by property.

There is of course a way out of this mess, the abolition of private property. And as we all know:


....the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.


No I don't like that kind of society. I don't have the same view of "class" system as most communists have here though. I'm more into agorist class theory, though I have to be honest and confess I haven't read much about that either.

I'm sure that your "theory" is far superior to some of the greatest sociological minds in history. :)


I don't believe in natural rights either. But I will respect them if the community I am inserted in had decided to abide by such "rights", without forcing such system upon other communities and leaving people free to leave.

And if these "rights" contradict the nature of a stateless society? Property implies classes which eventually lead back to states. Ironically Anarcho-communism is the logical conclusion of the propertarian babble about Thick Libertarianism (radgeek.com/gt/2008/10/03/libertarianism_through/i).


Now the discussion was going fine until you HAD to threw in ad hom. What was the point of saying "lolbertarian"? What purpose does such derogatory term have? You should know better.

This is Revleft, It's hard not to use ad hom:p

[AnthArmo]

What if nobody wants to work in a toaster factory? Sure, it is unlikely, but not impossible. Especially if we consider less satisfying jobs, like sewer maintenance, bathroom cleaning, etc. What if NOBODY wants to work in these kinds of jobs?

then nobody gets any toasters. However, to give people more incentive to work at a toaster factory, the price of a toaster would increase, so you can sell it for more and make more. or if your some kind of market socialist, supply and demand would do that for you. under alternate currency systems like labour vouchers and electronic credits, a democratic authority would raise the amount paid for working in a toaster factory.


The point of the "Ivan & Toaster" argument has to do with "need". As explained:

--

Most communists agree that the workers councils are organizing labor to meet the needs of the community. This means just enough food is being produced , just enough clothing , electricity.

Remember , no profit , just enough surplus to satiate the people, but now you have to also throw into there the mass production of toasters.

If workers are pulled off of other tasks to make toasters , that means that much less productivity of the other stuff, and who gets pulled off? they need some engineers to design the machinery capable of making the toasters as well as the toasters. They need to divert other resources into toaster production which means less for other things.

How is it ensured that enough steel will be available for automobiles if you also have to divert the production resources into other uses like toasters?

This assumes that scarcity is a problem. It isn't, we don't have scarcity, scarcity ended years ago. we have enough food to feed the world twice over. The problem isn't of creating more, its of distributing it correctly.

More specifically, it assumes a scarcity of labour. as I pointed out before, we have more than enough labour to go around.


I agree, we shouldn't force people to work for a certain employer. People should be naturally free to start their own business, or self-employ themselves, or join a cooperative/commune if they so wished.buisness? you mean that thing that requires private property? the minute you throw private property into the mix, you automatically create problems. I want to work in a bakery shop, but its "Privately owned" by Hayenmill, and hayenmill won't let me in.

Private Property gives you the authority to deny work to another person. And eliminating authority is kinda the whole point of Anarchism.


Why is the product of one's labor subject to democratic vote? Why isn't that option left exclusively for the worker (which will have every incentive to trade it or join his products with others like a cooperative or commune)?Haven't I like...covered this already?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

How would you reply to these? And please keep it civil.

P.S: Would you (ancoms) prefer super-majoritarian or consensual democracy to simple majority?

Well, imo the question is flawed from the beginning (I'm probs a bit behind the thread? But wanted to say this)

When you give your labour to a commune, and are part of the commune, you also recieve the "labour" of everyone else in the commune. So you aren't being "exploited" as you recieve part of the shared labour of everyone else in the commune, in return for giving your own.

This social distribution method also makes fundamentally more sense to me, as in a capitalist society, production is clearly a social process.

[Green Dragon]

Under Majoritarian Democracy, yes, the majority decision must always be respected. And yes, this is obviously far from perfect because it does, hypothetically, justify these scenarios.

I justify Majoritarian Democracy as a "Lesser Evil" to Autocracy/Aristocracy. If a few rule that a minority can be raped/forced into labour by the majority, this produces the same outcome as a Majority making the same decision. Under a democratic system however, the minority can at least have a say in this decision making process, wereas under an undemocratic system, they have no such say.

But that minority DID NOT have a say in it- the result is no different.

It would also seem that that majority decision since it "must always be respected" is a greater evil, since its easier to justify acts by virtue of being the majority.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=AnthArmo;1628752]then nobody gets any toasters. However, to give people more incentive to work at a toaster factory, the price of a toaster would increase, so you can sell it for more and make more. or if your some kind of market socialist, supply and demand would do that for you. under alternate currency systems like labour vouchers and electronic credits, a democratic authority would raise the amount paid for working in a toaster factory.


OK. So the solution to the problem caused by socialist thinking is to suggest the profit making possibilites of producing toasters.
But why bother creating the robem in the first place?



This assumes that scarcity is a problem. It isn't, we don't have scarcity, scarcity ended years ago. we have enough food to feed the world twice over. The problem isn't of creating more, its of distributing it correctly.


Yet the toaster scenario absolutely deals with the problem of scarcity.


More specifically, it assumes a scarcity of labour. as I pointed out before, we have more than enough labour to go around.

Go around to do what? Not make toasters, IF the pay is not adequate.


buisness? you mean that thing that requires private property? the minute you throw private property into the mix, you automatically create problems.

Thus far, it seems that private business is what SOLVES the problems faced by socialism.


I want to work in a bakery shop, but its "Privately owned" by Hayenmill, and hayenmill won't let me in.

Or maybe the democratic majority of those bakers vote to not let you in. What is the difference?

[Green Dragon]

What would probably happen in reality is, the democratic body (Municipal Assemblies, Worker Councils, Internet) would allocate funding to the creation of a Toaster factory.

Why?


Worker's would voluntarily join up to help out in this project.

Why? Elsewhere you spoke of paying people to do this,



Once the factory is up and running, it should be able to handle the need for toasters.


How?



A centrally planned economy would not be needed, obviously there would be coordination between toaster selling shops, toaster making factories, democratic bodies and whatnot. But nothing that necessitates Central planning.


To "coordinate" means somebody must be in a position exercise authority OVER those various other categories/



and also, this seems to presuppose that no-body would want to work to build Toasters. In a society of 6 billion like ours, I'm sure you're bound to find someone who wants to work in a toaster factory.


If you pay them, even a premium, sure. But if you pay somebody more because that labor is valued more, it is only reasonable to assume somebody else, somewhere else, might be paid less because that labor is valued less.



Forcing people to work jobs they don't want is not needed. giving people control over their labour is kinda the point of Socialism.


This is good.


Once they've created their product, they can democratically agree who to sell it to.

What sense does it make to produce "X" when the workers have yet t decide who needs it?
And if they democratically agree to sell "X", it would seem that they would wish to get as much back-money, credits, whatever-as possible for as little of "X" as possible. But the buyer would seek to get as much of "X" for as little-money, credits, whatever- as possible.
And at this point, capitalism takes off. And how is all this coordinated if NOT by some gray faced bureaucrat?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What if nobody wants to work in a toaster factory? Sure, it is unlikely, but not impossible. Especially if we consider less satisfying jobs, like sewer maintenance, bathroom cleaning, etc. What if NOBODY wants to work in these kinds of jobs?
A socialist society (or a communist one, for that matter) should allocate labour using the following principles:

1. Everyone who is able to work, must work. Also, the number of available jobs must equal the number of people able to work.
2. The community (in communism) or its elected representatives (in socialism) draws up a list of the jobs which need to be performed, and the number of workers needed for each job. This list is based on the products that members of society say they wish to have, and on the principle noted above (#1).
3. Each member of society is then free to select which job he wants to do, subject to certain restrictions (you must be qualified for a job in order to be able to select it, of course).
4. If the number of people who want to do a certain job (let's call it X) is greater than the number of workers needed for that job (let's call it Y), then the community will devise some test to determine who is best at doing the job. Out of the X people who apply for it, the best Y people will get the job. The others will have to choose another job.
5. Repeat the procedure under #4 until all jobs are filled.

This way, the "planners" decide which jobs are to be done, but they don't decide which job you get to do. That decision is left up to you. And you will be able to get the job you like, as long as (a) you are qualified for it, and (b) that job has not already been filled by people who are better than you at it.

The problem of scarcity is resolved by the fact that the number of available jobs is finite and everyone (who is able to work) must have a job. Therefore, everything that needs to be done, will get done.

If no one wants to make toasters, then the job of making toasters will be given to the people who have failed the tests (see #4) for all the other jobs. Yes, this means that the most unpleasant jobs will be done by the most incompetent people. Yes, this means that unpleasant jobs will tend to be done poorly. And that means that the community will have an incentive to eliminate those unpleasant jobs, through mechanization. Which is exactly what we want.

[AnthArmo]

A socialist society (or a communist one, for that matter) should allocate labour using the following principles:

1. Everyone who is able to work, must work. Also, the number of available jobs must equal the number of people able to work.
2. The community (in communism) or its elected representatives (in socialism) draws up a list of the jobs which need to be performed, and the number of workers needed for each job. This list is based on the products that members of society say they wish to have, and on the principle noted above (#1).
3. Each member of society is then free to select which job he wants to do, subject to certain restrictions (you must be qualified for a job in order to be able to select it, of course).
4. If the number of people who want to do a certain job (let's call it X) is greater than the number of workers needed for that job (let's call it Y), then the community will devise some test to determine who is best at doing the job. Out of the X people who apply for it, the best Y people will get the job. The others will have to choose another job.
5. Repeat the procedure under #4 until all jobs are filled.

This way, the "planners" decide which jobs are to be done, but they don't decide which job you get to do. That decision is left up to you. And you will be able to get the job you like, as long as (a) you are qualified for it, and (b) that job has not already been filled by people who are better than you at it.

The problem of scarcity is resolved by the fact that the number of available jobs is finite and everyone (who is able to work) must have a job. Therefore, everything that needs to be done, will get done.

If no one wants to make toasters, then the job of making toasters will be given to the people who have failed the tests (see #4) for all the other jobs. Yes, this means that the most unpleasant jobs will be done by the most incompetent people. Yes, this means that unpleasant jobs will tend to be done poorly. And that means that the community will have an incentive to eliminate those unpleasant jobs, through mechanization. Which is exactly what we want.

Awesome. And just to premeditate something the other Cappies here are going to say. this isn't "mimicing what the Capitalists do". Capitalists deliberately try to downsize and hire people in a way that jobs are completed with the fewest number of workers possible. They also deliberately create unemployment, so as to strike fear into those already employed.

[AnthArmo]

But that minority DID NOT have a say in it- the result is no different.

It would also seem that that majority decision since it "must always be respected" is a greater evil, since its easier to justify acts by virtue of being the majority.

Yes, the result is the same. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

The point I was making was, although some instances of "mob rule" can occour, at least minorities can have a say in decisions. This would reduce the number of instances were "mob rule" can take place.

and I mean this not just in terms of voting, but in terms of open debate and discussion. if your talking about deporting all immigrants, for instance. It would be nice if the immigrants had a say in the decision. This might influence everyone else into supporting the immigrants in their plight.

And justifying tyrannical decisions by virtue of "we're the majority" is no different than justifying it by virtue of "I have divine right from god" or "It's MY factory, so I take the profits and get to say what goes on around here"

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Awesome. And just to premeditate something the other Cappies here are going to say. this isn't "mimicing what the Capitalists do". Capitalists deliberately try to downsize and hire people in a way that jobs are completed with the fewest number of workers possible. They also deliberately create unemployment, so as to strike fear into those already employed.
Yes, and there is also another very important way in which the labour allocation I described is different from the way jobs are allocated under capitalism. Notice I did not say anything about wages. Wages (or whatever you wish to call the reward of labour under socialism and communism) can be kept equal. Socialism and communism don't have to use monetary incentives at all. The reward for working hard is being able to do the job you like best. The punishment for being lazy or incompetent is having to do a job you don't like.

[AnthArmo]

OK. So the solution to the problem caused by socialist thinking is to suggest the profit making possibilites of producing toasters.
But why bother creating the robem in the first place?----

Thus far, it seems that private business is what SOLVES the problems faced by socialism.

No, it isn't, what I've suggested is simply increasing the incentive to work in an unpopular job. Socialism isn't "a flat, equal wage for everyone", it is about someone having control of their labour from start to finish, and getting the full value for their labour.

If I wanted to propose a "Capitalist" solution to a Socialist problem, I would suggest that those working other jobs be fired, creating a pool of desperate, unemployed labour, who would then go to work at the Toaster factory.



Or maybe the democratic majority of those bakers vote to not let you in. What is the difference? Same difference as Tyranny and mob rule

my sig says everything about my opinion on that.

[AnthArmo]

Why?

Because there is popular demand for it. That's another "point" of Socialism. Economic growth is directed to serve public demand, rather than individual profit.

For example, better to have funds directed to the creation of a Toaster factory, something that produces a commodity that people are currently demanding. Than to have a Capitalist direct funding to the creation of a "Snuggies" Factory. a fucking stupid Commodity that no-body asked for.


Why? Elsewhere you spoke of paying people to do this,By "Voluntarily" I mean, of course, people choose to take up the job, as opposed to being forced into doing it by some "central committee"


How?Through worker's self-management.


To "coordinate" means somebody must be in a position exercise authority OVER those various other categories/
No not necessarily, coordination can be something that is collectively organised. What I meant was, the Toaster factory could order the steel necessary from miners, the tools necessary from factory shops etc, etc.


If you pay them, even a premium, sure. But if you pay somebody more because that labor is valued more, it is only reasonable to assume somebody else, somewhere else, might be paid less because that labor is valued less.
yea, and?



This is good. :thumbup:




What sense does it make to produce "X" when the workers have yet t decide who needs it? I said this before, but I'll say it again. Under Socialism, economic growth is directed towards fullfilling public demands.

This means that workers won't be producing something unless somebody explicity asked for it.

So if there are a ton of people asking for Toasters, funding will go towards a Toaster factory, and workers will start making toasters, knowing that there is already demand for it.

This also means that you won't have random "Snuggie" factory's. Nobody asked for a snuggie, snuggies are stupid, no-body asked for a stupid blanket with sleeves.

(sorry, I recently saw an ad for snuggies, what on EARTH were they thinking!)



And if they democratically agree to sell "X", it would seem that they would wish to get as much back-money, credits, whatever-as possible for as little of "X" as possible. But the buyer would seek to get as much of "X" for as little-money, credits, whatever- as possible.credits and labour vouchers don't "circulate". So that's not necessarily a problem there. The pay is already predetermined by some democratic authority, they get paid based on how hard they work, and their product can go on its merry way to its destination as was decided by the Worker's Council/Municipal Assembly/Trade Union/you know what I mean.

If a Socialist society was still using money, then I suppose this probably would happen.


And at this point, capitalism takes off.No, at this point, a Market economy takes off. Market economics aren't limited to Capitalism.


And how is all this coordinated if NOT by some gray faced bureaucrat?There are a number of ways of "Coordinating" something that doesn't require a gray faced beaurocrat. Personally, I think in urban areas you'll see liberal use of the internet in democratic planning of the economy. In rural areas you'll most certainly see open air municipal assemblies.

[Havet]

then nobody gets any toasters. However, to give people more incentive to work at a toaster factory, the price of a toaster would increase, so you can sell it for more and make more. or if your some kind of market socialist, supply and demand would do that for you. under alternate currency systems like labour vouchers and electronic credits, a democratic authority would raise the amount paid for working in a toaster factory.

If nobody gets any toasters, what will happen to ivan and his toaster? He will become privileged. He will become unequal. How will it be ensured that everyone is equal?


This assumes that scarcity is a problem. It isn't, we don't have scarcity, scarcity ended years ago. we have enough food to feed the world twice over. The problem isn't of creating more, its of distributing it correctly.

More specifically, it assumes a scarcity of labour. as I pointed out before, we have more than enough labour to go around.

hahahahahahaha

Sorry

Even if no one is hungry, food is still "scarce", since for me to have more or better food, some cost must be incurred. Either someone has to give up food or someone must pay the cost of producing more. The opposite of a "scarce" good is not a "plentiful" good but a "free" good, something available in sufficient supply for everyone at no cost.

Total demand is not limited. Therefore, scarcity will always exist. There is a limit to the amount of food I can eat or the number of cars I can conveniently use. There is no obvious limit to the resources that can be usefully employed in producing a better car or better food. For $10,000 a car can be made better than for $5,000; for $20,000, better than $10,000. If the median income rises to $1000,000 a year, we shall have no difficulty spending it.


buisness? you mean that thing that requires private property? the minute you throw private property into the mix, you automatically create problems. I want to work in a bakery shop, but its "Privately owned" by Hayenmill, and hayenmill won't let me in.

Business does not require "property rights", it just requires intersubjective consensus.

If I don't let you work in my bakery, start your own or stop whining.


Private Property gives you the authority to deny work to another person. And eliminating authority is kinda the whole point of Anarchism.

Why then, did you mention above a "democratic authority"? Isn't all authority bad, according to *your* principles of anarchy?


Haven't I like...covered this already?

I don't think so

[AnthArmo]

If nobody gets any toasters, what will happen to ivan and his toaster? He will become privileged. He will become unequal. How will it be ensured that everyone is equal?

When Socialists talk about equality. We aren't referring to income or possessions. We're talking about power.

Capitalists have the power to fire thousands, to reduce wages, to impose harsh working conditions, to build stuff wherever they want regardless of public opinion. Capitalists have power over hundreds of lives through virtue of their private property.

Being the only dude with a toaster has nothing to do with power, Ivan can't use his toaster to oppress other people. He can keep his toaster.


hahahahahahaha

Sorry

Even if no one is hungry, food is still "scarce", since for me to have more or better food, some cost must be incurred. Either someone has to give up food or someone must pay the cost of producing more. The opposite of a "scarce" good is not a "plentiful" good but a "free" good, something available in sufficient supply for everyone at no cost.

Total demand is not limited. Therefore, scarcity will always exist. There is a limit to the amount of food I can eat or the number of cars I can conveniently use. There is no obvious limit to the resources that can be usefully employed in producing a better car or better food. For $10,000 a car can be made better than for $5,000; for $20,000, better than $10,000. If the median income rises to $1000,000 a year, we shall have no difficulty spending it.
Oh god, not this stupid "Limited Reasources, Unlimited Demand" crap.

Demand IS limited. if it weren't, millionaires would immedeatly spend all their money upon aquiring it. The fact that there are people with millions sitting in their banks is proof that demand is limited.


Business does not require "property rights", it just requires intersubjective consensus.

If I don't let you work in my bakery, start your own or stop whining. If you can make "buisness" without private ownership of the means of production than go for it. And I don't whine, I organise Revolution :cool:


Why then, did you mention above a "democratic authority"? Isn't all authority bad, according to *your* principles of anarchy?your mis-interpreting my use of the word "authority". I only use that word because Kwisadz used it once and it stuck. If you prefer, I'll use the term "Democratic Body" instead.

More specifically, when I used the term, I'm referring to instruments of direct democracy, such as Trade Unions, Municipal Assemblies, Online Democracy, Worker Councils, etc etc.




I don't think so*sigh*, fine, here we go again, I sound like a broken record :rolleyes:.

Labour today isn't an individualistic pursuit, it takes many people to produce one product. thats why you don't have "complete control over the products of your labour", if you did, you would be denying someone else control over their product.

[Havet]

When Socialists talk about equality. We aren't referring to income or possessions. We're talking about power.

Capitalists have the power to fire thousands, to reduce wages, to impose harsh working conditions, to build stuff wherever they want regardless of public opinion. Capitalists have power over hundreds of lives through virtue of their private property.

Being the only dude with a toaster has nothing to do with power, Ivan can't use his toaster to oppress other people. He can keep his toaster.

Its not about power. The fact that Ivan has a toaster allows him to make more toasts with less time and labor involved. This means that other people will likely want that toaster. And it is in his power to decide that, or not.

Theoretically, the toaster was his possession, so he could restrict its use based on privacy. So either you argue against privacy or you agree with ym argument, as far as I can see.


Oh god, not this stupid "Limited Reasources, Unlimited Demand" crap.

Demand IS limited. if it weren't, millionaires would immedeatly spend all their money upon aquiring it. The fact that there are people with millions sitting in their banks is proof that demand is limited.

I think you kind of ignored what I said:

There is a limit to the amount of food I can eat or the number of cars I can conveniently use. There is no obvious limit to the resources that can be usefully employed in producing a better car or better food. For $10,000 a car can be made better than for $5,000; for $20,000, better than $10,000. If the median income rises to $1000,000 a year, we shall have no difficulty spending it.

For example, air was a free good until demand for breathing and for carrying off industrial wastes, exceeded supply.

Just because people save SOME of their money doesn't mean they still dont increase their demand. In fact, many savings happen in order to demand/consume something more expensive in the future.

This is pretty obvious. If you just go around spending all you have, you won't have anything left in the future. Partially limiting one's demand/consumption doesn't imply that total demand is limited.


your mis-interpreting my use of the word "authority". I only use that word because Kwisadz used it once and it stuck. If you prefer, I'll use the term "Democratic Body" instead.

More specifically, when I used the term, I'm referring to instruments of direct democracy, such as Trade Unions, Municipal Assemblies, Online Democracy, Worker Councils, etc etc.

Doesn't it still qualify as authority, majoritarian authority?



Labour today isn't an individualistic pursuit, it takes many people to produce one product. thats why you don't have "complete control over the products of your labour", if you did, you would be denying someone else control over their product.

Suppose I make a shirt. I plant the cotton on a piece of land that nobody is using, I found the seeds from a nearby plant, I got the water from a nearby river and I got the tools all on my own (this means I dug up the metal ore, rudimentally processed it and then used the instrument to toil the earth). After that, I build the shirt out of the cotton.

So the shirt is a direct product of my labor. How the hell is someone entitled to ALSO control my shirt?

If I produce more than one person, how do i harm him in any way SO LONG AS I do not prevent the other person from applying his own labor to exploit nature, with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or by contract with others?

To quote an excerpt from my other thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125):


Is it justice to take from talent to reward incompetency? Is it justice to virtually say that the tool is not to the toiler, nor the product to the producer, but to others? Is it justice to rob toil of incentive? The justice you seek lies not in such injustice, where material equality could only be attained at the dead level of mediocrity. As freedom of contract enlarges, the nobler sentiments and sympathies invariably widen. With freedom of access to land and to capital, no glaring inequality in distribution could result. No workman rises far above or sinks much below the average day's labor. Nothing but the power to enslave through controlling opportunity to utilize labor force could ever create such wide differences as we now witness.

[Green Dragon]

Yes, and there is also another very important way in which the labour allocation I described is different from the way jobs are allocated under capitalism. Notice I did not say anything about wages. Wages (or whatever you wish to call the reward of labour under socialism and communism) can be kept equal. Socialism and communism don't have to use monetary incentives at all. The reward for working hard is being able to do the job you like best. The punishment for being lazy or incompetent is having to do a job you don't like.

This obviously is not the case since the "planners" are determining how many jobs are available. There is no guarantee that working hard results in a job one likes best.

[Green Dragon]

Generalizing my point:

The problem with trying to set up a situation where a majority of people vote to violate some fundamental social norm is that fundamental social norms are by definition things that most people in our society agree with.

It is by definition impossible for the majority of people to vote to do something that would be repugnant to the majority of people.

In our society, rape is repugnant to the vast majority of people.

But since you state a preference for "mob rule" the issue of voting does not seem particularly germane.

[Green Dragon]

Capitalists deliberately try to downsize and hire people in a way that jobs are completed with the fewest number of workers possible.

But since the socialist community is about the workers sharing the profits, why would they be expected to to have MORE workers than needed to complete the job? That would simply cut into their profits.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]
The point I was making was, although some instances of "mob rule" can occour, at least minorities can have a say in decisions. This would reduce the number of instances were "mob rule" can take place.


Why? Because the "mob" would be influenced by the minority? But that "mob" is no longer a "mob."




And justifying tyrannical decisions by virtue of "we're the majority" is no different than justifying it by virtue of "I have divine right from god" or "It's MY factory, so I take the profits and get to say what goes on around here"


But you are justifying it so. Certainly you have no argument against it.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=AnthArmo;1628948]No, it isn't, what I've suggested is simply increasing the incentive to work in an unpopular job. Socialism isn't "a flat, equal wage for everyone",

OK. In that you and Kwisiath dissagree.

But since you agree that increasing salaries be a valid method of attracting workers to needed jobs, it would seem that lowering salaries would be an incentive for discouraging workers from a particular job.
And since salaries will reflect the value of the work to the community, it stands to reason worker communes will offer all sorts of differing salaries to attract and retain needed workers.



If I wanted to propose a "Capitalist" solution to a Socialist problem, I would suggest that those working other jobs be fired,

If their work was not needed by the community, why should the community support that labor? Already, you are targeting the workers who produce "snuggies" for termination because you do not believe such labor is needed. In fact, firing those "snuggies" workers and sending them to the toaster factory is EXACTLY the obvious socialist solution.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=AnthArmo;1628955]Because there is popular demand for it.

Quantified how?




For example, better to have funds directed to the creation of a Toaster factory, something that produces a commodity that people are currently demanding. Than to have a Capitalist direct funding to the creation of a "Snuggies" Factory. a fucking stupid Commodity that no-body asked for.


As above.
And how do you know nobody wants "snuggies," anyhow?
If you are correct, capitalism has a method of solving that problem. If you are incorrect, you have denied people what they want.




Through worker's self-management.


Which still requires explanations.



No not necessarily, coordination can be something that is collectively organised. What I meant was, the Toaster factory could order the steel necessary from miners, the tools necessary from factory shops etc, etc.


This is what the capitalist toaster factory does now. Why does it need "coordination" by some board in the socialist community?





I said this before, but I'll say it again. Under Socialism, economic growth is directed towards fullfilling public demands.


A profit is a reflection of successfully meeting public demands.



This means that workers won't be producing something unless somebody explicity asked for it.


OK. So either send in a list on a regular basis... somewhere... of what are needs are-- or those workers will need other sources of information in making their decisions.



So if there are a ton of people asking for Toasters, funding will go towards a Toaster factory, and workers will start making toasters, knowing that there is already demand for it.


Yes. But so will the capitalist.





credits and labour vouchers don't "circulate". So that's not necessarily a problem there.

Yes. It is a problem.


The pay is already predetermined by some democratic authority,

So where did this "democratic authority" sneak in from? And they are going to set the value of goods and services- and the value work done by the workers? A couple of notes ago you were explaining no such board need to exist.





There are a number of ways of "Coordinating" something that doesn't require a gray faced beaurocrat. Personally, I think in urban areas you'll see liberal use of the internet in democratic planning of the economy. In rural areas you'll most certainly see open air municipal assemblies.


It doesn't matter- and now it gets worse. Somebody, somewhere, in some fashion, has to take all that information and process it and apportion it. It has to decide which of the requests are more important than others. And it has to have the authority to compel the workers to work as it demands. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

[Green Dragon]

1. Everyone who is able to work, must work.

Or what? tey starve and die?



Also, the number of available jobs must equal the number of people able to work.


A rather difficult undertaking, considering jobs exist because somebody wants the product. It doesn't exist for the benefit of the worker.



2. The community (in communism) or its elected representatives (in socialism) draws up a list of the jobs which need to be performed, and the number of workers needed for each job. This list is based on the products that members of society say they wish to have, and on the principle noted above (#1).


B definition, that list only reflects the reality of today. Tomorrow is a different day, with different needs and diffeent demands. It is a very difficult, and ineficient way method of determing needs.



3. Each member of society is then free to select which job he wants to do, subject to certain restrictions (you must be qualified for a job in order to be able to select it, of course).


As above.



4. If the number of people who want to do a certain job (let's call it X) is greater than the number of workers needed for that job (let's call it Y), then the community will devise some test to determine who is best at doing the job. Out of the X people who apply for it, the best Y people will get the job. The others will have to choose another job.


If the demand for a particular job, is greater than the need, the capitalist solution is to decrease the wages, thus encouraging labor to look in areas where its needs are underserved. The socialist solution seems to be to take some labor and teach it how to administer tests. The community would be far better served by sending those mandarins to work in more productive venues.




This way, the "planners" decide which jobs are to be done, but they don't decide which job you get to do. That decision is left up to you. And you will be able to get the job you like, as long as (a) you are qualified for it, and (b) that job has not already been filled by people who are better than you at it.

The problem of scarcity is resolved by the fact that the number of available jobs is finite and everyone (who is able to work) must have a job. Therefore, everything that needs to be done, will get done.


All this assumes that the "planners" are not only omnipotent, but also fortune tellers. It also tends to undermine your stated preference to "mob rule" than rule by the few.

The overall problem in your explanation is that you assume a static situation. But such an environment has never before existed, and never will. Because when things change, and they will, it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This obviously is not the case since the "planners" are determining how many jobs are available. There is no guarantee that working hard results in a job one likes best.
Read my algorithm again. The better you are at job X, the more likely you are to be able to work in that job. So, the better you are at your favourite job, the more likely you are to get your favourite job - whatever that job happens to be.


But since you state a preference for "mob rule" the issue of voting does not seem particularly germane.
Eh? What? When did I state a preference for "mob rule" - and what do you mean by that phrase, anyway?


Or what? tey starve and die?
Well, yeah. They are provided with a wide range of jobs to choose from, and they are guaranteed to be able to get SOME job. Under those conditions, there is no reason to refuse to work except physical or mental inability.


A rather difficult undertaking, considering jobs exist because somebody wants the product. It doesn't exist for the benefit of the worker.
Yes, of course, but since human wants are unlimited, there is always more work to do. Unemployment is one of the most absurd inefficiencies of capitalism. Unemployment means that there are people willing to work to produce goods that other people want... and yet, these willing workers are not allowed to work.


By definition, that list only reflects the reality of today. Tomorrow is a different day, with different needs and diffeent demands. It is a very difficult, and ineficient way method of determing needs.
Really? So, under capitalism, a worker gets to change jobs every day?

Of course not. Capitalism does not re-arrange the job structure on a daily basis. So you can't complain if socialism won't do it either.

I said if, because, thanks to the wonders of modern computer technology, it might actually be possible for a socialist planning agency to re-calculate the job structure every day. Still, that would just be showing off. It would have little practical use, because people can't change jobs that quickly or that often.


If the demand for a particular job, is greater than the need, the capitalist solution is to decrease the wages, thus encouraging labor to look in areas where its needs are underserved. The socialist solution seems to be to take some labor and teach it how to administer tests. The community would be far better served by sending those mandarins to work in more productive venues.
Right, because capitalists never employ any labour for the purpose of screening job applications, conducting interviews with potential employees, and deciding who gets hired. Nope. No mandarins under capitalism at all! :rolleyes:


All this assumes that the "planners" are not only omnipotent, but also fortune tellers.
Huh? Which part of what I said requires the planners to be any more or less knowledgeable than existing human resource departments or census institutions?


The overall problem in your explanation is that you assume a static situation. But such an environment has never before existed, and never will. Because when things change, and they will, it all goes to hell in a handbasket.
Are you familiar with mainstream capitalist economics and its assumption of a static situation - otherwise known as "equilibrium?" No? Look it up.

Assuming a static equilibrium is a good way to start. Then you adapt your model to deal with the reality of constant change. In the case of socialism, the planning agency will modify the job structure at regular intervals (say, every 3 months for example - though it could be done every week if you were really over-zealous about it). When the job structure is modified, it will be determined that some jobs need to be eliminated (let's call them group A) and others need to be created (let's call them group Z). The newly created jobs will be widely advertised, and the workers who want them will be able to apply and take the necessary exams. Thus the new jobs (group Z) will be filled. This will free up some jobs in the rest of the economy. Some of those jobs will be group A jobs. In those cases, the workers who left those jobs will not be replaced - so the jobs will be eliminated. In all other cases, the freed-up jobs will be up for grabs. This process will be repeated until there are no more empty jobs up for grabs.

There. That is the dynamic socialist solution.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1629818]Read my algorithm again. The better you are at job X, the more likely you are to be able to work in that job. So, the better you are at your favourite job, the more likely you are to get your favourite job - whatever that job happens to be.


In other words, if you do a good job, you can keep the job.




Well, yeah. They are provided with a wide range of jobs to choose from, and they are guaranteed to be able to get SOME job. Under those conditions, there is no reason to refuse to work except physical or mental inability.

Or no interest in doing so.

Or as in the USSR, make work jobs




Yes, of course, but since human wants are unlimited, there is always more work to do. Unemployment is one of the most absurd inefficiencies of capitalism. Unemployment means that there are people willing to work to produce goods that other people want... and yet, these willing workers are not allowed to work.


Sure they are. When work is needed to be cmpleted.



Really? So, under capitalism, a worker gets to change jobs every day?


An individual worker...? No, but we are talking about a socialist system where the individual worker is not as important.



Of course not. Capitalism does not re-arrange the job structure on a daily basis. So you can't complain if socialism won't do it either.


Actually, it does. Everyday jobs are created and ended.



I said if, because, thanks to the wonders of modern computer technology, it might actually be possible for a socialist planning agency to re-calculate the job structure every day. Still, that would just be showing off. It would have little practical use, because people can't change jobs that quickly or that often.


Doubtful. Computers only return the information as has been programmed.



Right, because capitalists never employ any labour for the purpose of screening job applications, conducting interviews with potential employees, and deciding who gets hired. Nope. No mandarins under capitalism at all! :rolleyes:


Not the same. You are proposing to take the great mass of people and subject them to such screenings.



Huh? Which part of what I said requires the planners to be any more or less knowledgeable than existing human resource departments or census institutions?


"Everything that needs to be done, will get done" I believe were your words.
But in any event, your objections are meaningless. An HR department simply follws through on the "plan." It doesn't set policy. And the census institutions I guess mean the "planners" will be the repository of all needed goods and services by all people. Holy mackeral.



Assuming a static equilibrium is a good way to start. Then you adapt your model to deal with the reality of constant change. In the case of socialism, the planning agency will modify the job structure at regular intervals (say, every 3 months for example - though it could be done every week if you were really over-zealous about it).

Why? Change for the sake of change doesn't make sense, in this context.


When the job structure is modified, it will be determined that some jobs need to be eliminated (let's call them group A) and others need to be created (let's call them group Z).

Oh, so job overhauls are quarterly, or weekly, or whenever. And at the discretion of the planners.



The newly created jobs will be widely advertised, and the workers who want them will be able to apply and take the necessary exams. Thus the new jobs (group Z) will be filled. This will free up some jobs in the rest of the economy. Some of those jobs will be group A jobs. In those cases, the workers who left those jobs will not be replaced - so the jobs will be eliminated. In all other cases, the freed-up jobs will be up for grabs. This process will be repeated until there are no more empty jobs up for grabs.


You have already said elsewhere that wages and such will be equal. So you are left with hoping that job Z candidates were peple who could not get that job earlier-- or sadists who wish to go through the examination process again.
And in any event, its the planners who are in control of the process-- and all depends upon their omnipotence.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In other words, if you do a good job, you can keep the job.
Pretty much. And if you want a different job, you can have it, provided you're good at it. I don't see the problem.


Or no interest in doing so.

Or as in the USSR, make work jobs.
If we have a choice between a person working poorly or not working at all, the better choice for society is to give that person a job - even if they work poorly, at least they're producing something, which is better than nothing.


Sure they are. When work is needed to be completed.
ROFLMAO!!! :laugh: So you're saying that unemployment exists under capitalism because people have everything they want and no more work needs to be done??


An individual worker...? No, but we are talking about a socialist system where the individual worker is not as important.
An individual worker is actually more important - and holds more power - in socialism.


Actually, it does. Everyday jobs are created and ended.
Yes, but the jobs created and ended every day are a tiny fraction of the total. I suppose the socialist economy will tend to process more job changes at once, but at longer intervals.


Doubtful. Computers only return the information as has been programmed.
And you can program them with demand functions and production capacities. From this, you can determine what needs to be done and how best to do it.


Not the same. You are proposing to take the great mass of people and subject them to such screenings.
Only in jobs where the supply of labour exceeds the demand. And isn't every worker under capitalism subjected to some form of screening by someone when she is employed? There will be less screenings in socialism, because some jobs will have a labour supply below the demand.


"Everything that needs to be done, will get done" I believe were your words.
Right. Are you saying omniscience is required to find out what needs to be done?


But in any event, your objections are meaningless. An HR department simply follws through on the "plan." It doesn't set policy. And the census institutions I guess mean the "planners" will be the repository of all needed goods and services by all people. Holy mackeral.
That information is already held (in many pieces) by various departments in various corporations today. It will be a simple matter to just make it all publicly available.


Why? Change for the sake of change doesn't make sense, in this context.
If the people's preferences changed, or if new inventions were made, it will be necessary to adjust production accordingly.


Oh, so job overhauls are quarterly, or weekly, or whenever. And at the discretion of the planners.
Yes, and the planners will be at the discretion of the workers, who vote for them and have the power to recall them at any time.


You have already said elsewhere that wages and such will be equal. So you are left with hoping that job Z candidates were peple who could not get that job earlier-- or sadists who wish to go through the examination process again.
So you would say that people who apply for the same kind of job multiple times under capitalism are "sadists who wish to go through the interview process again?"


And in any event, its the planners who are in control of the process-- and all depends upon their omnipotence.
Except the workers are in control of the planners.

You are pathetic, Green Dragon. Every single one of your criticisms of the socialist job allocation system - except perhaps your vague fears that the planners won't have sufficient information - applies even more to the existing capitalist economy! Every thing that can go wrong with socialist jobs turns out to be something that does go wrong, and to a much greater extent, with capitalist jobs.

[AnthArmo]

Its not about power. The fact that Ivan has a toaster allows him to make more toasts with less time and labor involved. This means that other people will likely want that toaster. And it is in his power to decide that, or not.

If its not about power, than it isn't a concern about egalitarianism. If Ivan hadn't released the blueprints to his toaster then there would be a concern over power, as Ivan has a monopoly over toaster's. But he released his blueprints into the public domain, meaning there is nothing to stop the rest of the community from pursuing the creation of toasters.


Theoretically, the toaster was his possession, so he could restrict its use based on privacy. So either you argue against privacy or you agree with ym argument, as far as I can see.No problems with privacy.


I think you kind of ignored what I said:

There is a limit to the amount of food I can eat or the number of cars I can conveniently use. There is no obvious limit to the resources that can be usefully employed in producing a better car or better food. For $10,000 a car can be made better than for $5,000; for $20,000, better than $10,000. If the median income rises to $1000,000 a year, we shall have no difficulty spending it.

For example, air was a free good until demand for breathing and for carrying off industrial wastes, exceeded supply.

Just because people save SOME of their money doesn't mean they still dont increase their demand. In fact, many savings happen in order to demand/consume something more expensive in the future.

This is pretty obvious. If you just go around spending all you have, you won't have anything left in the future. Partially limiting one's demand/consumption doesn't imply that total demand is limited.I didn't ignore what you said. Your saying that there is no limit to the amount that can be invested into producing something better. My claim is that, altough there is, indeed, no limit to this, there is still a limit to Demand. If people do not want to invest $100,000 into getting a better car, because they are happy with what they have, then they won't bother.



Doesn't it still qualify as authority, majoritarian authority?If you deem "rule by majority" as authority, then sure, go for it.

However, not all Anarchists consider a "rule by majority" to technically be an example of authority. personally, I DO consider it to be a form of authority, which is why I prefer Consensus democracy.


Suppose I make a shirt. I plant the cotton on a piece of land that nobody is using, I found the seeds from a nearby plant, I got the water from a nearby river and I got the tools all on my own (this means I dug up the metal ore, rudimentally processed it and then used the instrument to toil the earth). After that, I build the shirt out of the cotton.

So the shirt is a direct product of my labor. How the hell is someone entitled to ALSO control my shirt?

If I produce more than one person, how do i harm him in any way SO LONG AS I do not prevent the other person from applying his own labor to exploit nature, with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or by contract with others?

To quote an excerpt from my other thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125):Is this it? strawman after strawman after strawman. I normally lurk, I've seen you stalk this forum before. Surely you've been hanging out around here long enough to know what we advocate.

Nobody is entitled to control your shirt. Your shirt is the product of your labour, you didn't have to work together with anyone else to produce it, its all yours.

I can't imagine any sect of Anarchism or Libertarian Marxism advocating that you don't own the product of your own labour as personal property. Maybe the Stalinists that stalk this forum would say otherwise. But I think you've misinterpreted what we mean by Private Property.

There is a distinction between Private Property and Personal Property.

Private Property is anything that is used for economic production. This includes things like Farms, Factories, Mines and Shops.

Personal Property is the result of these things. Computers, Beds, T.V's, Housing.

We advocate the abolition of Private Property, Not Personal Property.

[AnthArmo]

But since the socialist community is about the workers sharing the profits, why would they be expected to to have MORE workers than needed to complete the job? That would simply cut into their profits.

It works the other way around. Socialism doesn't overemploy. Capitalism underemploys. The difference here is that under Capitalism, the Capitalist will try to underemploy and drive those remaining to work harder in order to profit themselves.

Under Socialism, we aren't trying to satisfy the needs of a minority of Capitalists. We are trying to make work as easy and efficient as possible. This means that we will employ as many people as necessary to make the work easier, faster, and more efficient.



Why? Because the "mob" would be influenced by the minority? But that "mob" is no longer a "mob."

But you are justifying it so. Certainly you have no argument against it.

It seems to me as if your trying to distinguish two groups in a society, a Minority and a Majority. and that these are static, one group will always be the outcasts, while the others are the mass of society, always agreeing on everything.

It doesn't work like that. The terms "Majority" and "Minority" are always changing. For example, when it comes to the existence of God, I am part of the Minority, as most people believe that God exists. However when it comes to opposing the war in Iraq, I am part of the Majority, because most people oppose the war in Iraq.

Thus my defense of Majoritarian Democracy. Although there are instances were you will not be happy with the decisions made, because you are the Minority in that instance, There are other instances were you are part of the Majority, and as thus you will be able to successfully have your say.


But since you state a preference for "mob rule" the issue of voting does not seem particularly germane.

You've taken what he's saying completely out of context.

I'm assuming your referring to my signature, which is a quote from Kwisatz. That quote was made while a bunch of Anarcho-Capitalists were invading us from the Mises.org forum.

The argument was that they opposed Democracy for more or less the same reasons you have been putting forward. However, the alternative they were suggesting, Rule by a Plutocratic elite, was even more horrendus. Thats when he pulled out that quote, and I thought it sounded cool and put it in my sig.

He isn't Actually expressing a desire for mob rule. He is just saying that mob rule is preferable to tyranny.




OK. In that you and Kwisiath dissagree.

But since you agree that increasing salaries be a valid method of attracting workers to needed jobs, it would seem that lowering salaries would be an incentive for discouraging workers from a particular job.
And since salaries will reflect the value of the work to the community, it stands to reason worker communes will offer all sorts of differing salaries to attract and retain needed workers.I don't disagree with him at all. Show me were Kwisatz suggests that everyone should have a flat, equal wage.






If their work was not needed by the community, why should the community support that labor? Already, you are targeting the workers who produce "snuggies" for termination because you do not believe such labor is needed. In fact, firing those "snuggies" workers and sending them to the toaster factory is EXACTLY the obvious socialist solution.Under a Socialist society, there wouldn't BE a snuggies factory because there wasn't any demand for snuggies in the first place. This means that the materials and labour that would have ordinarily gone into making snuggies, instead goes into producing things that people are actually demanding.

And once again, and I have stated this again, and again, and again. Giving people control of their own labour is the point of Socialism. the idea of firing someone from a public workplace, against their will, is anti-socialist. In fact, in case you haven't noticed, its always been Socialists that have been protesting against layoffs by Capitalists.



Quantified how?

--

As above.
And how do you know nobody wants "snuggies," anyhow?
If you are correct, capitalism has a method of solving that problem. If you are incorrect, you have denied people what they want.Quantified through Democratic bodies. Now I know I've explained this already, either you don't bother reading my posts, or your deliberately ignoring what I'm saying.

By Democratic Bodies, I mean instruments of Direct Democracy, such as Worker Council's, Trade unions, Municipal Assemblies, even Democracy via the internet.

Under Socialism, a Snuggies factory would have never been built, because nobody would have ever brought up the suggestion for a factory that produces snuggies, and even if they had, such a notion would have never achieved popular support.

However, we are living under Capitalism. You are now going to witness an incredible waste of reasources. Those silly advertisements they show late at night, advertising those silly things. The waste of Materials going into producing these things. The waste of labour. And in the end, the company that decided to produce these things is going to go bankrupt, and your going to see hundreds of workers become unemployed as they leave behind a mountain of unwanted snuggies.



Which still requires explanations.I could, I really could. But, and here is the beauty of it all. Worker control of production has been done before in the past. Seeing as all you ever do is throw strawmen at me, how about you do your own reaserch for once?

Do a little reaserch on events such as

the Paris Commune of 1871, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune)

the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution)

the Russian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_%281917%29), more specifically the creation of the Petrograd Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrograd_Soviet), before the Bolsheviks took power.




This is what the capitalist toaster factory does now. Why does it need "coordination" by some board in the socialist community?I didn't suggest coordination by some "board". I suggested that the workers at the toaster factory could collectively organise all this.


A profit is a reflection of successfully meeting public demands.No it isn't. A profit is the result of a Capitalist paying a worker less than the value of their labour.

And money isn't representitive of "public demand". This is because some people have more money than others. if I lived in a country were 90% of the country was starving, but had no money, but I still managed to sell my food to the top 10% of the population who aren't starving, but have money. I haven't fulfilled a public demand at all.


OK. So either send in a list on a regular basis... somewhere... of what are needs are-- or those workers will need other sources of information in making their decisions.I don't think that's entirely necessary. If you've ever worked a job before (I'm sure you have) you'll know these things are already taken care of. You workplace already has an establised supplier of raw materials, an established buyer, etc.

HOWEVER, you might find this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/redmarti-t109877/index.html?t=109877&highlight=Walmart) thread interesting.


Yes. But so will the capitalist. Not necessarily. Thats just a matter of luck, of someone being smart enough to see a need for a commodity and also having the money, which isn't always the case.

Here however, there is a surefire way of knowing if there is demand for something, and then catering for that demand.



Yes. It is a problem. Oh my, why so? :crying:


So where did this "democratic authority" sneak in from? And they are going to set the value of goods and services- and the value work done by the workers? A couple of notes ago you were explaining no such board need to exist. Once again, bad wording on my part. I should have said instead Democratic Body. And by democratic body I mean institutions of direct democracy.


It doesn't matter- and now it gets worse. Somebody, somewhere, in some fashion, has to take all that information and process it and apportion it. It has to decide which of the requests are more important than others. And it has to have the authority to compel the workers to work as it demands. Otherwise, it makes no sense.IF, there are instances were you need someone to work through all that information, then at least that person is democratically accountable to the workers, and is not working for a personal profit.

That is at least preferable to Capitalism, were the people who work through this information are only looking to profit themselves or their Corporate masters.

And I do not see why they need the power to control workers. The whole point is to liberate workers. As I said before, there are ways of giving workers incentive to work unpopular jobs that don't require ordering them around.

[Green Dragon]

Under Socialism, we aren't trying to satisfy the needs of a minority of Capitalists. We are trying to make work as easy and efficient as possible. This means that we will employ as many people as necessary to make the work easier, faster, and more efficient.


Lets say the capitalist requires 10 workers to produce a certain amount of a product over the course of eight. Your suggestion might be to use 15 workers to produce the same amount, but over the course of five hours, to make things easier.
OK. But the problem remains that those five additional workers are not working and producing something else that is needed. The workers at the toaster factory might have an easier time of it, but then the workers at the shirt factory are short by five and working harder, or simply not producing enough shirts to satisfy need.



I don't disagree with him at all. Show me were Kwisatz suggests that everyone should have a flat, equal wage.

Dec 21 233am



Under a Socialist society, there wouldn't BE a snuggies factory because there wasn't any demand for snuggies in the first place. This means that the materials and labour that would have ordinarily gone into making snuggies, instead goes into producing things that people are actually demanding.

Which is one of the weaknesses of socialism. How many people were demanding personal computers in 1980?



And once again, and I have stated this again, and again, and again. Giving people control of their own labour is the point of Socialism. the idea of firing someone from a public workplace, against their will, is anti-socialist. In fact, in case you haven't noticed, its always been Socialists that have been protesting against layoffs by Capitalists.


Ok. So now you have just argued against the production of personal computers and for the continued production of typewriters.


Quantified through Democratic bodies.

The democratic bodies have to justify what they do- they have to give a rational for their actions. This is what I mean.





However, we are living under Capitalism. You are now going to witness an incredible waste of reasources. Those silly advertisements they show late at night, advertising those silly things. The waste of Materials going into producing these things. The waste of labour. And in the end, the company that decided to produce these things is going to go bankrupt, and your going to see hundreds of workers become unemployed as they leave behind a mountain of unwanted snuggies.


Maybe that is what would happen to the snuggies people. Or maybe you are incorrect and snuggies become popular and requires more workers to be hired. In any event, capitalism ends the waste of resources on snuggies by compeling the compnay to go out of business. But the socilaist community doesn't even try to see if there is a need or desire for such new products. And since the workers of an old industry are not going to be let go (even if their product is not needed) , I would suggest the potential for massive waste is evident.



I could, I really could. But, and here is the beauty of it all. Worker control of production has been done before in the past. Seeing as all you ever do is throw strawmen at me, how about you do your own reaserch for once?

Do a little reaserch on events such as

the Paris Commune of 1871, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune)

the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution)

the Russian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_%281917%29), more specifically the creation of the Petrograd Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrograd_Soviet), before the Bolsheviks took power.


And it all failed.



I didn't suggest coordination by some "board". I suggested that the workers at the toaster factory could collectively organise all this.

Yes. But they can also organise this according to the principles of capitalism. But that would be an obvious no-no in a socialist system.




And money isn't representitive of "public demand". This is because some people have more money than others. if I lived in a country were 90% of the country was starving, but had no money, but I still managed to sell my food to the top 10% of the population who aren't starving, but have money. I haven't fulfilled a public demand at all.


Now who is creating strawmen here?



I don't think that's entirely necessary. If you've ever worked a job before (I'm sure you have) you'll know these things are already taken care of. You workplace already has an establised supplier of raw materials, an established buyer, etc.


Such organisation is as per capitalist modes of production-- such a mode of production is not available to the socialist. Gee whiz! Is an establshed a buyer a permanent feature? Why is he an established buyer to begin with?




Not necessarily. Thats just a matter of luck, of someone being smart enough to see a need for a commodity and also having the money, which isn't always the case.


But this is true for the socialist community as well. And the problem seems more acute since there is NO available labor, should labor say "no," to manufatcture these toasters.



Here however, there is a surefire way of knowing if there is demand for something, and then catering for that demand.


Yes. By determining that a profit (the value of a product being worth more than the value of its sum parts) can be made.




IF, there are instances were you need someone to work through all that information,

"If" there is an instance???



And I do not see why they need the power to control workers. The whole point is to liberate workers.

A democratic body DOES control workers-- it controls the minority of the workers. Who cares if "sometimes" a particular worker might find himself on the winning side of an issue. Are you suggesting that only "sometimes" a worker will be free in a socialist community?
And a "consensus" system works the same way.


As I said before, there are ways of giving workers incentive to work unpopular jobs that don't require ordering them around.

yes. You can pay them more-- or make whatever whatever concessions that is needed to get that labor working in that unpopular, but needed, job.
But when you do that, what is happening is the creation of that adversarial relationship which exists in a capitalist community and is supposedly being extinguished by the socialist.
Because the worker freely does not have to accept the pay being offerred, or the concessions being made. And the other workers making the offers do not have to freely meet the demands of that worker.

[Green Dragon]

If we have a choice between a person working poorly or not working at all, the better choice for society is to give that person a job - even if they work poorly, at least they're producing something, which is better than nothing.


Its not just a question of somebody doing a poor job. A skilled and highly trained buggywhip maker is still a drain on the resources of the community, even if he is producing high quality buggywhips.



ROFLMAO!!! :laugh: So you're saying that unemployment exists under capitalism because people have everything they want and no more work needs to be done??


No. I am suggesting unemployment exists so as to create a pool of people who can work in needed areas, but also cease working in unneeded areas.





Yes, but the jobs created and ended every day are a tiny fraction of the total. I suppose the socialist economy will tend to process more job changes at once, but at longer intervals.


But over time... no.



And you can program them with demand functions and production capacities. From this, you can determine what needs to be done and how best to do it.


Not entirely true, since the "best way" to do it will be as per socialist thinking of the subject.






Right. Are you saying omniscience is required to find out what needs to be done?


In a socialist system, yes.



That information is already held (in many pieces) by various departments in various corporations today. It will be a simple matter to just make it all publicly available.


Capitalism, my friend, not socialism.



If the people's preferences changed, or if new inventions were made, it will be necessary to adjust production accordingly.


Yep. 'tis where the need for omniscence kicks in.



Yes, and the planners will be at the discretion of the workers, who vote for them and have the power to recall them at any time.


recall them for not doing what? If everyone has a job, then the planners have done their job- at least as per the structure of socialism.

[Havet]

If its not about power, than it isn't a concern about egalitarianism. If Ivan hadn't released the blueprints to his toaster then there would be a concern over power, as Ivan has a monopoly over toaster's. But he released his blueprints into the public domain, meaning there is nothing to stop the rest of the community from pursuing the creation of toasters.

Ok, no quarrel here, let me just post an extension of this hypothetical scenario, if you do not mind so yourself

Aren't his blueprints the product of his labor? I mean, realistically, without the existence of intellectual property laws, he would cleverly put his blueprints in public domain in order to gain reputation, but let's suppose that he doesnt. Would you advocate that he would be forced to show his blueprints to the public? Why? If its a product of his labor, and it is a form of personal property, isn't he entitled to privacy, no matter how irrational his beliefs behind his selfishness are?


I didn't ignore what you said. Your saying that there is no limit to the amount that can be invested into producing something better. My claim is that, altough there is, indeed, no limit to this, there is still a limit to Demand. If people do not want to invest $100,000 into getting a better car, because they are happy with what they have, then they won't bother.

Sorry, i posted ahead of time and forgot to answer this. I will get back to you on this one.


personally, I DO consider it to be a form of authority, which is why I prefer Consensus democracy.

I too prefer consensus democracy


Is this it? strawman after strawman after strawman. I normally lurk, I've seen you stalk this forum before. Surely you've been hanging out around here long enough to know what we advocate.

Yes, I know what you advocate. I agree with many parts of it. I like to throw in different arguments (at least from the ones I used to argue) so as to hear new viewpoints, new ways to defend them, and increase my awareness and even my opinion about them. I hope that you do not make the mistake of mistaking me from those people who always use strawmans. They cannot recognize they are strawmaning, whereas I can.


Nobody is entitled to control your shirt. Your shirt is the product of your labour, you didn't have to work together with anyone else to produce it, its all yours.

I can't imagine any sect of Anarchism or Libertarian Marxism advocating that you don't own the product of your own labour as personal property. Maybe the Stalinists that stalk this forum would say otherwise. But I think you've misinterpreted what we mean by Private Property.

There is a distinction between Private Property and Personal Property.

Private Property is anything that is used for economic production. This includes things like Farms, Factories, Mines and Shops.

Personal Property is the result of these things. Computers, Beds, T.V's, Housing.

We advocate the abolition of Private Property, Not Personal Property.

Ok, so now that we've cleared that up (which I already knew, having some knowledge of proudhon's conception of possession (personal property) and private property (basically what you want abolished), it seems the question now is:

- Where is the line drawn from personal to private property?

- Why cannot people, individually or collectively, own private property?

As for the first, I am asking because you claimed a computer is a form of personal property. Yet I can produce more property with a computer and a printer. I can produce books, movies, videogames, etc. Does it not constitute a means of production, and therefore, private property?

As for the second, I would like to point out that the most likely reason you will answer the first question, that the computer is not a form of private property, is because there is equality of opportunity (not all, but a great deal of) in the production of computer-derived products.

Likewise, why cannot ownership of the means of production exist so long as the following principles are followed:

- No imposed monopolies (they restrict the equality of opportunity, and natural monopolies are quite rare, actually)
- free access to credit (voluntarily or via proudhonian/mutual banks)
- armed populace with voluntary militia to defend the intersubjective consensus

Would you not agree that if people actually had choice between working for a wage or self-employing themselves, or joining a commune/cooperative, with natural democratic restrictions on the size of such enterprises, that a truly just and fre society could be achieved?

[Skooma Addict]

1. Everyone who is able to work, must work.

So if I refuse to work, what are you going to do? Enslave me?


2. The community (in communism) or its elected representatives (in socialism) draws up a list of the jobs which need to be performed, and the number of workers needed for each job. This list is based on the products that members of society say they wish to have, and on the principle noted above (#1).

This assumes that Mises' calculation argument has been refuted. But it hasn't. Regardless, do you honestly think that a single group of planners will be able to determine what is to be produced simply by having the members of society say what it is they wish to have? Do I just get on my computer and type out a list of what it is that I want?


3. Each member of society is then free to select which job he wants to do, subject to certain restrictions (you must be qualified for a job in order to be able to select it, of course).

Unless the positions for the job you want have all been filled. By the way, how do the godlike planners determine who is more qualified?


4. If the number of people who want to do a certain job (let's call it X) is greater than the number of workers needed for that job (let's call it Y), then the community will devise some test to determine who is best at doing the job. Out of the X people who apply for it, the best Y people will get the job. The others will have to choose another job.

What will this test be?



The problem of scarcity is resolved by the fact that the number of available jobs is finite and everyone (who is able to work) must have a job. Therefore, everything that needs to be done, will get done.

That does not resolve the problem of scarcity. Just because everyone has a job, that does not mean that everything that needs to get will get done. We could all be digging ditches, but that doesn't resolve the problem of scarcity. Scarcity is just something yo have to live with.


If no one wants to make toasters, then the job of making toasters will be given to the people who have failed the tests (see #4) for all the other jobs. Yes, this means that the most unpleasant jobs will be done by the most incompetent people. Yes, this means that unpleasant jobs will tend to be done poorly. And that means that the community will have an incentive to eliminate those unpleasant jobs, through mechanization. Which is exactly what we want.

Totalitarianism at its finest. The Communist society must resort to enslavement to get things done. But we must not forget that you need to resolve the calculation problem. You have yet to do this. I also think Caplans critique of Majority vote (The Myth of the Rational Voter) would apply well with your brand of Communism.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

So if I refuse to work, what are you going to do? Enslave me?

What? Haven't you read everyones answers to this like, one million times?

If you don't like it where you are living, fuck off. Don't inflict your greedy bollocks on everyone else.

Uhhh ohhh uhhh durr, what about fredom?

Well, dipshit, having to obey the rules of whoever "controls" where you were born is something capitalism, "Anarcho - Capitalism" and communism have it common.

[Havet]

What? Haven't you read everyones answers to this like, one million times?

If you don't like it where you are living, fuck off. Don't inflict your greedy bollocks on everyone else.

Uhhh ohhh uhhh durr, what about fredom?

Well, dipshit, having to obey the rules of whoever "controls" where you were born is something capitalism, "Anarcho - Capitalism" and communism have it common.

What about the whole "just because you can leave doesn't justify their power" sort of thing?

Just because I can leave the commune doesn't mean they are justified in forcing those who don't want to work, right? Same logic as when you spout: "Just because I can leave a capitalist country doesn't mean the government's and employer's power is justified".

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What about the whole "just because you can leave doesn't justify their power" sort of thing?

Just because I can leave the commune doesn't mean they are justified in forcing those who don't want to work, right? Same logic as when you spout: "Just because I can leave a capitalist country doesn't mean the government's and employer's power is justified".
That is correct. But when we use the argument that the commune is justified because you can leave, we are not using our logic, our worldview. We are using yours. We are using libertarian logic. The point is to show that communism can be justified by the exact same arguments that libertarians use to justify capitalism and private business.

[Havet]

That is correct. But when we use the argument that the commune is justified because you can leave, we are not using our logic, our worldview. We are using yours. We are using libertarian logic. The point is to show that communism can be justified by the exact same arguments that libertarians use to justify capitalism and private business.

It is as much a "libertarian logic" as it is a "communist logic" to argue that one can leave a community. In fact, since communism is older, i'm willing to bet that communists were the first to use that argument.

So in that case, libertarians are showing that libertarianism can be justified by the exact same arguments that communists use.

[IcarusAngel]

The communes have two advantages:

One, no one is ever forced to leave due to the threat of starvation. No one is ever forced to work, at least to the extent they are in capitalism.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/worker-cooperative-vs-t124981/index.html


And two, people democratically determine their needs and values.

Another benefit is that communes are not allowed to get large monopolies on land.

[Skooma Addict]

What? Haven't you read everyones answers to this like, one million times?

If you don't like it where you are living, fuck off. Don't inflict your greedy bollocks on everyone else.

Uhhh ohhh uhhh durr, what about fredom?

Well, dipshit, having to obey the rules of whoever "controls" where you were born is something capitalism, "Anarcho - Capitalism" and communism have it common.

In other words, you will enslave me. If I do not flee the country, you arrogantly assume the right to enslave me if I decide not to work.

[Skooma Addict]

No one is ever forced to work, at least to the extent they are in capitalism.

Nobody is forced to work in a capitalist society.


And two, people democratically determine their needs and values.

People democratically determine their values? That doesn't make sense.

[IcarusAngel]

You want to enslave people based on mystic property rights and on axioms you can't provide evidence for, the logic of which comes from an outdated mathematical model that was abandoned at the start of the twentieth century.

You advocate serfdom and can't be taken seriously.

And by the way, capitalism is NOT younger than communism.

[IcarusAngel]

Nobody is forced to work in a capitalist society.

They absolutely are.


People democratically determine their values? That doesn't make sense.

They absolutely are. Values are not static; they are constantly changing. And as society changes, human needs will change as well. And so peopel work together to determine what these are and have for two millenia.

Markets emphasize fear, irrationality, and other bad aspects of human nature.

Democracy emphasizes reason, logic, rationality, and so on.

Hence markets are "right" and democracy is "left."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In other words, you will enslave me. If I do not flee the country, you arrogantly assume the right to...
Wait, stop right there. Are you saying that giving you a choice of the form "accept X or leave the country" is equivalent to slavery?

Then I am currently enslaved by your private property laws.

[IcarusAngel]

Yep. And those "property laws" are static and absolute. Miseans believe they have discovered the fundamental principles of society, without offering a shread of evidence and while ignoring the vast amounts of evidence that contradict them. Another reason why markets inevitibly lead to heavily government backed (one of the many) is that the irrationality that exists within them prevents any real work getting done.

Mises bought into bad logic, and railed against the scientific method while claiming to have valid axioms. It makes absolutely no sense, but this is what the majority of internet Libertarians use to defend capitalism. It is obviously ridiculous and not a valid defense.

[Skooma Addict]

Wait, stop right there. Are you saying that giving you a choice of the form "accept X or leave the country" is equivalent to slavery?

No that is not what I am saying. Forcing me against my will to work is enslavement. I am certain that there will be people who will be unable to leave the country for reasons beyond their control. If you force them to work, you are enslaving them as far as I am concerned.

As for private property, I fully recognize that people disagree with it. But I don't have much of a problem with enforcing property rights regardless.

[Skooma Addict]

You want to enslave people based on mystic property rights and on axioms you can't provide evidence for, the logic of which comes from an outdated mathematical model that was abandoned at the start of the twentieth century.


I have no idea what you are talking about here.


They absolutely are.

Um, no they aren't. You don't have to work if you don't want to.


They absolutely are. Values are not static; they are constantly changing. And as society changes, human needs will change as well. And so peopel work together to determine what these are and have for two millenia.

Markets emphasize fear, irrationality, and other bad aspects of human nature.

Democracy emphasizes reason, logic, rationality, and so on.

Hence markets are "right" and democracy is "left."

You are speaking of society as if it is something separate from a collection of individuals. Society is just a collection of individuals. It has no aims or values of its own. Human needs haven't really changed. I need food, water, shelter, and I enjoy leisure.

Democracy does not emphasize reason, logic, or rationality. Democracy is simply majority rule, and therefore if anything it is anti-rational. There is no reason why the majority must be right.

[IcarusAngel]

Society has aims and it has goals. These will vary from society to society. Needs also change. For example, in modern society in order for people to survive they need to get the required training they need to allow them to be a slave for a certain corporation, wherever is marketable. This has a large impact on their needs.

As for democracy, it is a process to help determine people's needs in certain situations. Democracy is a process, as opposed to private dictatorships, such as what free-markets creates.

[Pogue]

So if I refuse to work, what are you going to do? Enslave me?

Obviously if you refuse to work then you'll have a pretty shit standard of living.

[Skooma Addict]

Society has aims and it has goals. These will vary from society to society. Needs also change. For example, in modern society in order for people to survive they need to get the required training they need to allow them to be a slave for a certain corporation, wherever is marketable. This has a large impact on their needs.

As for democracy, it is a process to help determine people's needs in certain situations. Democracy is a process, as opposed to private dictatorships, such as what free-markets creates.To the extent that society has goals, it is nothing more than a group of individuals going after the same goal. But it is not like the goals of "society" are more important than the goals of the individuals. This could only be true if society was some kind of living entity that transcended humans. But as we know, this is not the case.

Democracy has nothing to do with reason or rationality. Democracy is just majority rule. This is practically the opposite of a society based around reason.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No that is not what I am saying. Forcing me against my will to work is enslavement. I am certain that there will be people who will be unable to leave the country for reasons beyond their control. If you force them to work, you are enslaving them as far as I am concerned.
Capitalism puts you in a position where you have a choice between working or starving to death - and sometimes you can't even find work.

Compared to that, how exactly is it worse to require all able-bodied citizens to work? Is it not in fact much better, if they are guaranteed to have a place to work, if they are guaranteed a decent and egalitarian income, and if they have a vote in all matters concerning their workplace and the economy in general?


As for private property, I fully recognize that people disagree with it. But I don't have much of a problem with enforcing property rights regardless.
Ok then. I recognize your disagreement with the duty of all citizens to work, but I don't have much of a problem with enforcing it regardless.

Have we reached the stage where you declare that might makes right and property rights should be enforced because you say so? That is where all propertarians eventually end up.


Democracy has nothing to do with reason or rationality. Democracy is just majority rule. This is practically the opposite of a society based around reason.
Who gets to decide what is "reasonable"? You?

No society can be based on "reason", because "reason" is an abstract concept. It has no will, and it cannot make decisions. In any society, someone must make the decisions. That someone can be either a majority or a minority. You can have majority rule or minority rule. There is no other option.

[Skooma Addict]

Capitalism puts you in a position where you have a choice between working or starving to death - and sometimes you can't even find work.

Compared to that, how exactly is it worse to require all able-bodied citizens to work? Is it not in fact much better, if they are guaranteed to have a place to work, if they are guaranteed a decent and egalitarian income, and if they have a vote in all matters concerning their workplace and the economy in general?Consumers have what you could call a "vote" in how the economy is run. I also don't think the choice is necessarily between work or starve to death in a capitalist society. People who want to work should be able to find work. There are also charities, churches, and families that people may rely on. But it is just a fact of life that people will starve if they do not work. We have reached a population that can only be sustained due to the employment of the division of labor. So I don't see see this as any flaw with capitalism. Capitalism need not rely on forced labor like communism must. The reason why you must require people to work is because otherwise you run into a major incentive problem. But still, what is the motivation to work hard? Why should I increase my productivity?


Ok then. I recognize your disagreement with the duty of all citizens to work, but I don't have much of a problem with enforcing it regardless.

Have we reached the stage where you declare that might makes right and property rights should be enforced because you say so? That is where all propertarians eventually end up.This is where all supporters of all social constructs end up, including you. I value a just and prosperous society. Such a society gives me the best means to achieve my goals.


Who gets to decide what is "reasonable"? You?

No society can be based on "reason", because "reason" is an abstract concept. It has no will, and it cannot make decisions. In any society, someone must make the decisions. That someone can be either a majority or a minority. You can have majority rule or minority rule. There is no other option.But basing a decision on majority rule rather than reason and deliberation is definitely not a something that a person making their decision according to reason and rationality would promote. But I agree that there are no societies based on reason. I would take minority rule over majority rule if I felt that the minority would enact policies that I view as essential to the advancement of civilization.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

It is as much a "libertarian logic" as it is a "communist logic" to argue that one can leave a community. In fact, since communism is older, i'm willing to bet that communists were the first to use that argument.

So in that case, libertarians are showing that libertarianism can be justified by the exact same arguments that communists use.

I'm sorry, we never did. We just aren't that stupid.

By the way, this point has been repeated to directly to you a ton of times "Hayenmill" over many months. Why do you still not get it - there is no difference between being born in a capitalist society or a communist one, in both you are subject to the laws of the place you were born!

I just don't bloody get it, the logical blackflips you guys go though to claim that the state is wrong as it is "forced" on people, but market transactions are "voluntary" because you can choose not to participate are simply incredible.

Just admit it; communism rules.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

In other words, you will enslave me. If I do not flee the country, you arrogantly assume the right to enslave me if I decide not to work.

:huh:

Didn't I already cover this?

"In other words, you will enslave me. If I do not flee the country, you arrogantly assume the right to enslave me if I decide not to work/respect your property rights/respect the laws in the locality.....Oh wait!

Get it now?

But what I don't get here, Olaf, is why you believe that people DON'T have the right to decide what goes on in the area that they live in - and whats your alternative? That they're rules should be replaced by ones you've made.

And you call that "Individualism?"

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Consumers have what you could call a "vote" in how the economy is run. I also don't think the choice is necessarily between work or starve to death in a capitalist society. People who want to work should be able to find work. There are also charities, churches, and families that people may rely on. But it is just a fact of life that people will starve if they do not work. We have reached a population that can only be sustained due to the employment of the division of labor. So I don't see see this as any flaw with capitalism. Capitalism need not rely on forced labor like communism must. The reason why you must require people to work is because otherwise you run into a major incentive problem. But still, what is the motivation to work hard? Why should I increase my productivity?

This is where all supporters of all social constructs end up, including you. I value a just and prosperous society. Such a society gives me the best means to achieve my goals.

But basing a decision on majority rule rather than reason and deliberation is definitely not a something that a person making their decision according to reason and rationality would promote. But I agree that there are no societies based on reason. I would take minority rule over majority rule if I felt that the minority would enact policies that I view as essential to the advancement of civilization.

Also, you are a piece of shit. And a stupid one at that.

Also, although this has been over already - in a communist society the motivation to work will be *because you want too.*

If you have a comfortable existence, then the motivation to work will be because *You like what you are doing. So there isn't much reason to slack off at all.*

Only in capitalism do we need to motivate people with the threat of starvation - which highlights just how barbaric you people are. And that doesn't even work well at all - it just encourages people to slack off when they think they can get away with it. And hey, its a lot easier to do that when your the boss.

[Skooma Addict]

Also, you are a piece of shit. And a stupid one at that.


:crying:


Also, although this has been over already - in a communist society the motivation to work will be *because you want too.*

If you have a comfortable existence, then the motivation to work will be because *You like what you are doing. So there isn't much reason to slack off at all.*

Yea that is not gong to work for obvious reasons. But anyways, what about the people who are assigned jobs that they don't like?


Only in capitalism do we need to motivate people with the threat of starvation - which highlights just how barbaric you people are. And that doesn't even work well at all - it just encourages people to slack off when they think they can get away with it. And hey, its a lot easier to do that when your the boss.

Well there is always a threat of starvation if enough people refuse to work. You are rebelling against nature, and really there is nothing you can do about it. People will starve if they don't work. This is not something special about capitalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well there is always a threat of starvation if enough people refuse to work. You are rebelling against nature, and really there is nothing you can do about it. People will starve if they don't work. This is not something special about capitalism.
Actually, considering how few people work in agriculture in industrialized countries today (about 3-5% of the population, I believe), the natural threat of starvation is not what it used to be. If our only goal was to stay alive, we would only need to do a tiny fraction of the work we are doing now.

Capitalism says "if you don't work, you starve." Nature says "if over 95% of the population doesn't work at all, you starve." Can you spot the difference?


Yea that is not gong to work for obvious reasons. But anyways, what about the people who are assigned jobs that they don't like?
I can throw this question right back at you: What about the people that the capitalist market assigns to jobs they don't like?

Ultimately, Olaf, your problem is that you keep complaining about people being ZOMG forced to do X or Y under socialism or communism, while ignoring the fact that, by your own admission, capitalism also requires X and Y to be done. Therefore, in capitalism too, someone must do X and Y.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Consumers have what you could call a "vote" in how the economy is run. I also don't think the choice is necessarily between work or starve to death in a capitalist society. People who want to work should be able to find work. There are also charities, churches, and families that people may rely on. But it is just a fact of life that people will starve if they do not work. We have reached a population that can only be sustained due to the employment of the division of labor. So I don't see see this as any flaw with capitalism. Capitalism need not rely on forced labor like communism must. The reason why you must require people to work is because otherwise you run into a major incentive problem. But still, what is the motivation to work hard? Why should I increase my productivity?

This is where all supporters of all social constructs end up, including you. I value a just and prosperous society. Such a society gives me the best means to achieve my goals.

But basing a decision on majority rule rather than reason and deliberation is definitely not a something that a person making their decision according to reason and rationality would promote. But I agree that there are no societies based on reason. I would take minority rule over majority rule if I felt that the minority would enact policies that I view as essential to the advancement of civilization.

Just one quick point here;

Notice, Olaf, how (I don't know if you were conscious of this or not), but you've shifted your argument from "Communism is slavery because we are forced to work - capitalism is freedom because work is voluntary" too "Capitalism is more "reasonable - regardless of weather it is imposed (Involuntary) or "freely chosen" (voluntary.)

So, let this be the day when you realised that calling capitalism voluntary, and socialism involuntary, was utter crap! Lets not hear that from you again, and head back to Mises.org to spread the word - so we don't have to go though this once more.

Anyway:

Quote:

Yea that is not gong to work for obvious reasons. But anyways, what about the people who are assigned jobs that they don't like?
What about people in capitalism who have jobs they don't like?

The point is that in communism/socialism, these jobs will be assigned for a purpose - the benefit of all. (And we'll make a point of reducing them as fast as we can.)

To be honest, capitalism is so wasteful, considering the amount of money we spend on sustaining our government, our wars, our socially useless activity, and our wealthy elite, I'm confident we can drastically cut down the amount of "assigned" work pretty quickly.

But the other point is - whats the alternative? To allow people *not* to obey laws the community makes up is to say that communities shouldn't be able to control what goes in in the area that they live in.

If you live in an area, I think it is reasonable to be able to make laws there - you agree, of course - thats what you call "property."



Quote:
Well there is always a threat of starvation if enough people refuse to work. You are rebelling against nature, and really there is nothing you can do about it. People will starve if they don't work. This is not something special about capitalism.
Why? If everyone on the planet refused to work, yes, then we'd be threatened by starvation. But assuming that some people still work (Which it seems to me pretty obvious that they would do), we can "guarantee" people the same standard of living regardless of what they do.

Can you not see the freedom inherant in this? Rather than going to work at a job you hate, to make some other guy rich, you can decide to focus on what you find important without the whip of "nature" at your back.

[Green Dragon]

If you have a comfortable existence, then the motivation to work will be because *You like what you are doing. So there isn't much reason to slack off at all.*


It doesn't matter how confortable, hard working, and how enjoyable the buggy whip worker finds his labor. When Henry Ford comes along, its game, set and match...

[Skooma Addict]

I can throw this question right back at you: What about the people that the capitalist market assigns to jobs they don't like?

Ultimately, Olaf, your problem is that you keep complaining about people being ZOMG forced to do X or Y under socialism or communism, while ignoring the fact that, by your own admission, capitalism also requires X and Y to be done. Therefore, in capitalism too, someone must do X and Y.But earlier it was said that people would work hard because they have jobs they liked. But as you pointed out, not everyone would be assigned a job they enjoyed. So why would these people work hard? Still, saying that people will work hard because they have a job that they like is a very weak argument. In most of the cases, the people would prefer leisure to their job even if they did like it. Even if that is not the case, I see no reason why people would attempt to be as productive as they can be. I know I sure wouldn't. I would just work as little as possible, unless I will receive some kind of reward for increasing my productivity.

Also, the point about capitalism is that nobody if forced to do X or Y. Instead, people will be attracted to perform these much needed tasks due to the profit motive.

[Zanthorus]

Also, the point about capitalism is that nobody if forced to do X or Y. Instead, people will be attracted to perform these much needed tasks due to the profit motive.

No, people are forced into doing these tasks through threat of starvation. Notice the "are" by the way. Capitalism is not some bourgeois abstraction from reality, it's a specific mode of production. And it exists right now.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

But earlier it was said that people would work hard because they have jobs they liked. But as you pointed out, not everyone would be assigned a job they enjoyed. So why would these people work hard? Still, saying that people will work hard because they have a job that they like is a very weak argument. In most of the cases, the people would prefer leisure to their job even if they did like it. Even if that is not the case, I see no reason why people would attempt to be as productive as they can be. I know I sure wouldn't. I would just work as little as possible, unless I will receive some kind of reward for increasing my productivity.

Also, the point about capitalism is that nobody if forced to do X or Y. Instead, people will be attracted to perform these much needed tasks due to the profit motive.

Once again; I am forced to do X or Y. If I try stealing something, i'll go to jail.

Think outside your capitalist mindset, for once. There is no difference between a law entailing that we respect private property or be punished, or a law telling you to do anything else or be punished. I'm just repeating myself here.

Also, your other point is crap. Given that there is little/no complusion to do stuff you don't like in a communist society, most people will actually do things that they consider "leisure activities" but still have end up with something "useful" to others being produced. If you had 24 hours every day to do whatever you wanted in, what exactly would you do?

I'm betting "Sit on my ass" would get pretty old pretty fast. You'd probably get involved with some form of political thing.

But even if nobody wanted to do anything "useful" to others, the ability of people to engage in "useless" "lesuire" activities is a good in itself. Why should we force people though unavoidable, natural needs to do what they don't want to do when we can work to minimize that?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

It doesn't matter how confortable, hard working, and how enjoyable the buggy whip worker finds his labor. When Henry Ford comes along, its game, set and match...

Eh?

The buggy whip worker can continue making his buggy whips;

Henry Ford can continue with his mass production schemes. Of course, this time around Henry will have to actually try and convince the public to adopt his schemes, build his factories, and work for him; and presumably they will if they think the benefits of mass production outweigh whatever costs they're are...As opposed to historically, where it was "make me money or starve."

Which option seems more civilized to you?

[anticap]

Consumers have what you could call a "vote" in how the economy is run.

Ah, yes, the "1 dollar = 1 vote" form of "democracy." And who do you suppose makes the decisions in your "democracy"? the rich, or the poor? How do you suppose the economy is skewed in your "democracy"? toward rational production for the benefit of all, or toward frivolous toys and luxuries for those with disposable income?


I also don't think the choice is necessarily between work or starve to death in a capitalist society. People who want to work should be able to find work. There are also charities, churches, and families that people may rely on.

I see, so the choice is between "work," "starve to death," or "rely on handouts from those with disposable income." Thank you for clarifying.


But it is just a fact of life that people will starve if they do not work.

The subjugation of man to nature does not justify the subjugation of man by man.


... what is the motivation to work hard? Why should I increase my productivity?

It isn't wage labor, that's for certain. The capitalist pays the worker the market value of her ability to work. He then takes the product of her labor out into the market to realize his profit. The worker has already been paid; she is not motivated to "work hard" by the promise of realizing a share of the profit, which belongs to the capitalist.

Motivation to work hard comes when the worker realizes the full value of what she produces -- a situation that cannot exist under capitalism, which is characterized by the exploitation of surplus value. Capitalists are forced to resort to all manner of tyrannical methods to increase productivity (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/frederick-taylor-the-biggest-bastard-ever/). The existence of such methods is evidence enough that the above is true.


I would take minority rule over majority rule if I felt that the minority would enact policies that I view as essential to the advancement of civilization.

So as long as the minority includes you, and you find yourself in a position to impose yourself, then you're all for it! Lovely!

Kwisatz was right: you've predictably fallen back on "might makes right."

[Skooma Addict]

Also, your other point is crap. Given that there is little/no complusion to do stuff you don't like in a communist society, most people will actually do things that they consider "leisure activities" but still have end up with something "useful" to others being produced. If you had 24 hours every day to do whatever you wanted in, what exactly would you do?

Assuming that my pay will not increase with my productivity, I would just pick an easy job. I wouldn't work hard at all.


The subjugation of man to nature does not justify the subjugation of man by man.

Correct. But that is not how I justify subjugation. There needs to be some system of law in place in order to ensure that we don't just collapse into barbarism. Almost everyone supports some for of subjugation.


It isn't wage labor, that's for certain. The capitalist pays the worker the market value of her ability to work. He then takes the product of her labor out into the market to realize his profit. The worker has already been paid; she is not motivated to "work hard" by the promise of realizing a share of the profit, which belongs to the capitalist.

Motivation to work hard comes when the worker realizes the full value of what she produces -- a situation that cannot exist under capitalism, which is characterized by the exploitation of surplus value. Capitalists are forced to resort to all manner of tyrannical methods to increase productivity (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/frederick-taylor-the-biggest-bastard-ever/). The existence of such methods is evidence enough that the above is true.

You haven't given me a good reason why people would want to work hard. Also, "giving the worker the full value of their work" means that people wont earn the same wage. Are you okay with that?

Also, the communist god-planners will control the supply of labor for each job available. This means that some people will lose out because the value of their product will be lower if there is a a high supply of laborers doing the same task. So now lets say there is some carpenter who's chairs are of very little value because the god-planners have decided that there should be a very large supply of carpenters. So really the god-planners will be able to more or less determine the value of every product. But this renders the "paying the workers the value of their product" practically meaningless since the value of each workers product is being determined beforehand by the very people who will be paying the workers.

But more importantly is that you are not taking time into account when you object to a system where "workers don't earn the value of their product."

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Assuming that my pay will not increase with my productivity, I would just pick an easy job. I wouldn't work hard at all.


Oh, and what job would that be?

Would it be one you liked, or one you disliked? If you liked it, wouldn't it make sense to "work hard" at it and spend a lot of time doing it?

What would you spend the rest of your time doing?

I simply refuse to believe that you don't like to do anything anyone else would find useful.

I also note you haven't yet admitted that there is no difference between "coercion" from private property, and "coercion" from a communist state!I'd at least like an acknowledgment. We've explained it too you enough times.

[Skooma Addict]

Oh, and what job would that be?

Would it be one you liked, or one you disliked? If you liked it, wouldn't it make sense to "work hard" at it and spend a lot of time doing it?

What would you spend the rest of your time doing?

I simply refuse to believe that you don't like to do anything anyone else would find useful.I don't know what job I would pick. All I know is that once I get bored, my productivity will plummet. I have no reason whatsoever to work hard. I know that there are jobs that I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I am going to work hard.


I also note you haven't yet admitted that there is no difference between "coercion" from private property, and "coercion" from a communist state!I'd at least like an acknowledgment. We've explained it too you enough times.Private property is a social construct that requires that force be used on those who violate it. I fully recognize this. I don't really care if we call it coercion. I don't support private property because no coercion is required. I support private property because it is required for a prosperous society that I also can be content with. If communism could create a just and prosperous society, then I would support communism.

[Green Dragon]

Also, your other point is crap. Given that there is little/no complusion to do stuff you don't like in a communist society, most people will actually do things that they consider "leisure activities" but still have end up with something "useful" to others being produced. If you had 24 hours every day to do whatever you wanted in, what exactly would you do?


But even if nobody wanted to do anything "useful" to others, the ability of people to engage in "useless" "lesuire" activities is a good in itself. Why should we force people though unavoidable, natural needs to do what they don't want to do when we can work to minimize that?

Ok. So what this argument says is that the numbers of computers available is dependent on the numbers of computers that computer makers wish to make. This is true for, then, for any product.
How much electricity is produced? Well, it depends upon the whims of the electrical workers.
How many bushels of corn? Ditto.
And onward and onward.

It should not take much thought to determine that such a system is completely irrational.

[Green Dragon]

I simply refuse to believe that you don't like to do anything anyone else would find useful.

But that is not the issue-- Then there are questions as to whether enough people enjoy the needed work to adequately provide the product.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But earlier it was said that people would work hard because they have jobs they liked. But as you pointed out, not everyone would be assigned a job they enjoyed. So why would these people work hard?
They will not work hard. So the jobs that people generally dislike will be performed less well than the jobs that people generally like. So there will be an incentive for society to target its research and development efforts towards inventing ways to mechanize the jobs that people dislike - so that no one will have to do those jobs any more. And this is precisely what we want.


I would just work as little as possible, unless I will receive some kind of reward for increasing my productivity.

Also, the point about capitalism is that nobody if forced to do X or Y. Instead, people will be attracted to perform these much needed tasks due to the profit motive.
The profit motive? That only applies to the capitalists, not to the majority of people. The majority of people are workers, and get an income from wages, not profits. And wages do not normally go up or down every week depending on the worker's performance. Wages are typically fixed in long-term contracts, and remain fixed for long periods of time, regardless of the worker's performance. So I really don't see how capitalism rewards workers for working hard. Most of the time, capitalist firms employ managers and supervisors to watch their workers and make sure that the job gets done, precisely because they know that capitalism gives workers no incentive to increase their productivity... except the fear of being fired.

So, again, you are criticizing socialism for failing to provide something that capitalism also fails to provide: monetary incentive for workers to work hard.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I don't know what job I would pick. All I know is that once I get bored, my productivity will plummet. I have no reason whatsoever to work hard. I know that there are jobs that I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I am going to work hard.

Private property is a social construct that requires that force be used on those who violate it. I fully recognize this. I don't really care if we call it coercion. I don't support private property because no coercion is required. I support private property because it is required for a prosperous society that I also can be content with. If communism could create a just and prosperous society, then I would support communism.

Okay, so you'd rather do "nothing" than something you feel is productive, enjoyable and helpful. Odd, but never mind.

But don't you think that being free to do what interests you, or even "nothing" at all is a good in itself? If we want a just society, why should be essentially coerce people with the threat of destitution to get them to do something they ordinarily would find crap and boring?

As per your last point, good, I'm glad you admit that.

However earlier in this thread, you were claiming that instituting communism would "enslave" you - and that presumably, capitalism doesn't. Have you now reversed your position?

But; if you support private property "because it is necessary for a prosperous society", doesn't this entail that you break with a lot of libertarian dogma?

I don't see, if you are considering a "prosperous society" here, you could argue that stealing is never justified? Surely you must recognise that private property acts against "a just society?" in some cases? Sounds like you should be a social democrat to me.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No responses?

Could you kindly fuck off and admit you know jack shit, then?

[Skooma Addict]

No responses?

Could you kindly fuck off and admit you know jack shit, then?

Because whenever a person decides to leave a discussion, that means that they "don't know jack shit." :rolleyes:


Okay, so you'd rather do "nothing" than something you feel is productive, enjoyable and helpful. Odd, but never mind.

I prefer leisure to work. Sometimes I would rather work, but after a while, I will get bored or tired. When this happens, my productivity will plummet. I will work hard whenever I feel like it.



However earlier in this thread, you were claiming that instituting communism would "enslave" you - and that presumably, capitalism doesn't. Have you now reversed your position?

Forcing me to work against my will is enslavement. Under capitalism, you are not forced to work. I do not take "threat of starvation" as being equivalent to forcing someone to work.


But; if you support private property "because it is necessary for a prosperous society", doesn't this entail that you break with a lot of libertarian dogma?

Yes. Point being?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Forcing me to work against my will is enslavement. Under capitalism, you are not forced to work. I do not take "threat of starvation" as being equivalent to forcing someone to work.


Nevermind about the rest, but once again: WE'VE COVERED THIS EARLIER.

You agreed that we are just as much forced to accept private property (which results in us working for someone, as well as a host of other crap) as we are too "work" in communism.

You agreed to that just a few posts ago. So my point here was, you need to shut up about claiming communism is "enslavement" because you have admitted capitalism does the same.


<><>

As for you breaking with libertarian dogma, as I said in the above post, I do not see how supporting private property because it "leads to good results" could allow you to maintain a libertarian viewpoint. There are clearly plenty of examples in which private property would not lead to "civilization" or "humanity" or whatever you said you liked private property for.

Even you wouldn't agree that everyone essentially working for one guy if he managed to "homestead" to only local water source, right?

Or perhaps that stealing medical supplies for your kids was wrong, right? Would that not be "civilized?"

Well then - it seems like your logic should lead you to a social democratic position, if anything.

[Skooma Addict]

Nevermind about the rest, but once again: WE'VE COVERED THIS EARLIER.

You agreed that we are just as much forced to accept private property (which results in us working for someone, as well as a host of other crap) as we are too "work" in communism.

You agreed to that just a few posts ago. So my point here was, you need to shut up about claiming communism is "enslavement" because you have admitted capitalism does the same.

I know that people are forced to accept private property. I have no problem with this. Coercion does not imply enslavement. Forcing a person to work (or more specifically, an innocent person) is enslavement. If you simply force communism on us, but you do not force us to work, then you are not enslaving us. If you do force us to work, then you are enslaving us. Same goes for private property.


As for you breaking with libertarian dogma, as I said in the above post, I do not see how supporting private property because it "leads to good results" could allow you to maintain a libertarian viewpoint. There are clearly plenty of examples in which private property would not lead to "civilization" or "humanity" or whatever you said you liked private property for.


Well most libertarians are pretty narrow minded. They assume that private property is somehow inherently non coercive, and that any violation of it goes against their faulty concept of "negative liberty." This makes them come to absurd conclusions where they say that it is never OK to violate a persons right to private property.


Even you wouldn't agree that everyone essentially working for one guy if he managed to "homestead" to only local water source, right?

Or perhaps that stealing medical supplies for your kids was wrong, right? Would that not be "civilized?"

Well then - it seems like your logic should lead you to a social democratic position, if anything.

I don't fully agree with the homesteading principal. If I had kids who needed medical supplies, I would feel morally justified in stealing. I am not a social democrat for many reasons. One, there is no reason why the government that I would prefer would remain the way I attended it to be for any length of time. Also, I think the masses do not know enough on the topics they are voting on to make any good decisions. I mean, really, look back at the election. The Obama and McCain supporters all supported their candidate for terrible reasons for the most part. There are many, many more problems with social democracy that Caplan covers.

[Zanthorus]

Also, I think the masses do not know enough on the topics they are voting on to make any good decisions. I mean, really, look back at the election. The Obama and McCain supporters all supported their candidate for terrible reasons for the most part. There are many, many more problems with social democracy that Caplan covers.

So what this comes down to is you being a spoiled elitist misanthropic brat who lacks even a basic understanding of how bourgeois society acts to maintain cultural hegemony?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

=Olaf;1639450I know that people are forced to accept private property. I have no problem with this. Coercion does not imply enslavement. Forcing a person to work (or more specifically, an innocent person) is enslavement. If you simply force communism on us, but you do not force us to work, then you are not enslaving us. If you do force us to work, then you are enslaving us. Same goes for private property.


Well most libertarians are pretty narrow minded. They assume that private property is somehow inherently non coercive, and that any violation of it goes against their faulty concept of "negative liberty." This makes them come to absurd conclusions where they say that it is never OK to violate a persons right to private property.



I don't fully agree with the homesteading principal. If I had kids who needed medical supplies, I would feel morally justified in stealing. I am not a social democrat for many reasons. One, there is no reason why the government that I would prefer would remain the way I attended it to be for any length of time. Also, I think the masses do not know enough on the topics they are voting on to make any good decisions. I mean, really, look back at the election. The Obama and McCain supporters all supported their candidate for terrible reasons for the most part. There are many, many more problems with social democracy that Caplan covers.What?

Why the distinction between forcing someone to work and forcing them to do anything else? Why is it "slavery" to force someone to do something or be punished, but not slavery to force someone to do something else or be punished?

You haven't explained this at all. I would of thought slavery would be forcing someone to do something...not just "work." If you are owned by someone but they don't make you "work", just tell you to do X, Y, or Z, why is that not slavery?

Can't you see that you are grasping at straws!? Just admit that you are wrong!

<><>

Uh, but there is no guarantee that libertarianism remains libertarianism, or that communism remains communism. But you find it okay to be a libertarian? Considering how we've had a similar type of social democrat goverment for the past 70 years....I'm guessing its probably one of the most stable "things" around since feudalism.

And LoL, scratch a libertarian, find a rascist/sexist/dicatorial elitist turd. Its bewildering to me how so many libertarians I encouter are just so commonly like that! I can't think of any explanation?

And by the way, I thought you believed in "self goverment?" But of course, now its perfectly clear that thats just a deceptive term for what libertarians actually believe in: a propertarian dictatorship set up so the "foolish" masses don't get a say (unless they have money, of course.)

[Skooma Addict]

So what this comes down to is you being a spoiled elitist misanthropic brat who lacks even a basic understanding of how bourgeois society acts to maintain cultural hegemony?I don't know what the term bourgeois society means. Where you get the idea that I am spoiled is beyond me. If me thinking that the majority is not qualified to be making such important decisions, then sure, I am elitist.


What?

Why the distinction between forcing someone to work and forcing them to do anything else? Why is it "slavery" to force someone to do something or be punished, but not slavery to force someone to do something else or be punished?

You haven't explained this at all. I would of thought slavery would be forcing someone to do something...not just "work." If you are owned by someone but they don't make you "work", just tell you to do X, Y, or Z, why is that not slavery?

Can't you see that you are grasping at straws!? Just admit that you are wrong!Are you purposely going to great lengths to avoid the point? If the state makes be do X (pay taxes) that does not mean that I am enslaved by the state. Obviously it does not have to be "work." There are sex slaves for example. If a communist state forces people to work, then it enslaves them. If it does not force people to work, then it does not enslave them.


Uh, but there is no guarantee that libertarianism remains libertarianism, or that communism remains communism. But you find it okay to be a libertarian? Considering how we've had a similar type of social democrat goverment for the past 70 years....I'm guessing its probably one of the most stable "things" around since feudalism.The government has changed radically since it was founded. I know that it is fairly easy to maintain democracy, but hat is not the point. Laws change all the time for the worse.


And LoL, scratch a libertarian, find a rascist/sexist/dicatorial elitist turd. Its bewildering to me how so many libertarians I encouter are just so commonly like that! I can't think of any explanation?So I am a racialist, dictatorial and a sexist now? The explanation is that you make unfounded assertions.


And by the way, I thought you believed in "self goverment?" But of course, now its perfectly clear that thats just a deceptive term for what libertarians actually believe in: a propertarian dictatorship set up so the "foolish" masses don't get a say (unless they have money, of course.)See. Unfounded assertions.

[Zanthorus]

I don't know what the term bourgeois society means. Where you get the idea that I am spoiled is beyond me.

:lol:

I get the idea that you're spoiled because you're an elitist free marketer. As for what "bourgeois society" is I really can't say I'm surprised that some as reactionary as yourself would lack even a basic knowledge of marxist class theory.


If me thinking that the majority is qualified to be making such important decisions, then sure, I am elitist.

Well at least you admit it.

[Skooma Addict]

:lol:

I get the idea that you're spoiled because you're an elitist free marketer. As for what "bourgeois society" is I really can't say I'm surprised that some as reactionary as yourself would lack even a basic knowledge of marxist class theory.From the fact that I believe in free markets and that the majority should not be making vital decisions concerning the economy and the judicial system, you cannot reasonably conclude that I am spoiled. I don't know what "bourgeois society" means, so why don't you just give me a definition.

[Zanthorus]

From the fact that I believe in free markets and that the majority should not be making vital decisions concerning the economy and the judicial system, you cannot reasonably conclude that I am spoiled.

Well if I couldn't before I am now :D


I don't know what "bourgeois society" means, so why don't you just give me a definition.

A society in which all the major institutions of state/government, mass media etc are controlled by the bourgeoisie.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I don't know what the term bourgeois society means. Where you get the idea that I am spoiled is beyond me. If me thinking that the majority is not qualified to be making such important decisions, then sure, I am elitist.

Are you purposely going to great lengths to avoid the point? If the state makes be do X (pay taxes) that does not mean that I am enslaved by the state. Obviously it does not have to be "work." There are sex slaves for example. If a communist state forces people to work, then it enslaves them. If it does not force people to work, then it does not enslave them.

Um...What?

Despite that you didn't actually answer my question, you've defined slavery wrongly, but never mind, you can use words how you like. But it would seem to me like there is little difference between being forced to obey some law (which results in work and much more!), and forced to work. You've just defined slavery into meaninglessness, but are just hanging onto it because its an emotive term that you like. Regardless of this, you have to admit that capitalism is no less "coercive" than communism.

And no, I wasn't calling you a racist. I was remarking at how often your type are. Its amazingly predictable. Any idea why that is?

[Skooma Addict]

A society in which all the major institutions of state/government, mass media etc are controlled by the bourgeoisie.

But the bourgeoisie is not a homogeneous group with defined interests. So the term bourgeois society still doesn't say anything meaningful.



Despite that you didn't actually answer my question, you've defined slavery wrongly, but never mind, you can use words how you like. But it would seem to me like there is little difference between being forced to obey some law (which results in work and much more!), and forced to work. You've just defined slavery into meaninglessness, but are just hanging onto it because its an emotive term that you like. Regardless of this, you have to admit that capitalism is no less "coercive" than communism.

I am not going to say that you being forced to obey some law means that your enslaved. If that were the case, then just about the entire population supports slavery. There is a huge difference between being forced to obey a law and being forced to work. I think capitalism is less coercive than communism if we are forced to work under communism, even though I know that coercion is required to maintain private property.


And no, I wasn't calling you a racist. I was remarking at how often your type are. Its amazingly predictable. Any idea why that is?

I don't know. Ask yourself what it is that is causing you to incorrectly perceive "my type" as racists. I cannot look into your mind and find your problem for you.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I am not going to say that you being forced to obey some law means that your enslaved. If that were the case, then just about the entire population supports slavery. There is a huge difference between being forced to obey a law and being forced to work. I think capitalism is less coercive than communism if we are forced to work under communism, even though I know that coercion is required to maintain private property.


But being forced to obey this law means that you will have to work. And more often, on less favorable terms than in a communist society.

You are just dodging the question.