"Libertarians" and "Anarcho-Capitalists"

[Lokomotive293]

It seems to me like this is some kind of new "trend" that started in the US but has also spread to other countries. Followers are mostly white, male, middle class teenagers and young adults, who spend lots of time on the Internet.
Would you say that is correct in so far?
And what's the reason for the rise of those ideologies? I'd say they are petty-bourgeois in nature, because they basically advocate going back to pre-Imperialist capitalism, i.e. free competition etc., which is of course impossible.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Completely ahistorical and downright reactionary in ignoring the fact that late/regulated capitalism is a natural development from lassiez faire capitalism. They're all based in idealist concepts like the non-aggression principle too. Reactionary ideologies often make gains during major crises, and I'd say that its resurgence is a result of the ongoing economic crisis.

Related: Although I don't share his anarchist ideology, Noam Chomsky is cool, and this gives me an excuse to dump a video I recently saw on this thread.
RxPUvQZ3rcQ

[Revolution starts with U]

It's basically hyper classical liberalism couched in radical terminology, the difference being that it (almost) entirely rejects the scientific method... seeing as how that little fact didn't seem to be conducive to the whole Capitalist ideology.

I wouldn't exactly call it petty bourgeois as it's not really in their class interest. In fact, it's in nobody's class interest. The big bourgeois need the state to promote their interests abroad and protect their dominance at home. The petty bourgeois need the state to protect them from monopoly capitalism and from worker agitation. And the proletariat doesn't need capitalism.

... I guess maybe it's in the class interest of drug dealers... idk... :lol:

On a related note; comrades might like this gem. It may help in dispelling bourgeois economic nonsense.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC1.html

[mew]

I've wondered about this. "Hardcore" libertarians doesn't seem to exist outside of the Internet. But they're prevalent all over the Internet...most of the political discussion I see (outside of places like Revleft obviously) like Reddit, youtube, 4chan (from what I've heard) are dominated by libertarians. Why is this? I can only guess that socially alienated nerds who spend a lot of time on the Internet might find libertarianism appealing for various reasons, but this isn't a totally adequate explanation.

[Regicollis]

I think "anarcho"-capitalism actually does provide a benefit for the bourgeoisie. The horde of young spoiled idiots who subscribe to this ideology helps justify attacks on the working class. "Anarcho"-capitalists may in principle also be against the state when it helps the bourgeoisie but they spend all their energy kicking at those at the bottom of the social pyramid.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think "anarcho"-capitalism actually does provide a benefit for the bourgeoisie. The horde of young spoiled idiots who subscribe to this ideology helps justify attacks on the working class. "Anarcho"-capitalists may in principle also be against the state when it helps the bourgeoisie but they spend all their energy kicking at those at the bottom of the social pyramid.

That's why I'm saying it's an ideology, not a class interest.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I think "anarcho"-capitalism actually does provide a benefit for the bourgeoisie. The horde of young spoiled idiots who subscribe to this ideology helps justify attacks on the working class. "Anarcho"-capitalists may in principle also be against the state when it helps the bourgeoisie but they spend all their energy kicking at those at the bottom of the social pyramid.
I doubt they're truly in opposition to the state aiding the Bourgeoisie. We've seen "Anarcho"-Capitalists go after Social Security, Medi-Care, gun rights, etc, more so than tax breaks for the rich.

[Deicide]

I used to be one. I've always held extreme opinions, so, naturally, I was attracted to it. When the ''system'' is in trouble, people, primarily the politically and educationally conscious youth, search for alternatives. Anarcho-Capitalism hasn't been tried before, or at least that's what A-cappies argue, that may be another reason why it's attractive. However, I realised (nice1 Marx) the problem is capitalism itself, and no amount of alteration is going to alleviate the socioeconomic problems it causes. Furthermore, I also realised capitalism without the state is a fairytale. And a capitalism that doesn't eventually bring into existence monopolies and huge concentrated interests is a ridiculous notion that isn't based in reality. I do think it's petty-bourgeois utopianism.

I also fucking hate Mises, that snakelike piece of shit.

[Deicide]

Anyone heard of Stefan Molyneux?

[trivas7]

Completely ahistorical and downright reactionary in ignoring the fact that late/regulated capitalism is a natural development from lassiez faire capitalism. [...]
What makes government intervention in the economy a "natural development" from lassiez-faire? It is a devolution IMO.

[Revolution starts with U]

What makes government intervention in the economy a "natural development" from lassiez-faire? It is a devolution IMO.

That word is meaningless. Evolution doesn't have a fixed upwards progress. Modern statism proved more conducive to the class interests of the bourgeoisie. It was a natural development from the failures of classical liberalism (which wasn't nonarchist, let's just get that straight).

[Revolution starts with U]

Anyone heard of Stefan Molyneux?

I've heard of him. Isn't he like a left-libertarian or something... or am I thinking of Carson... :confused:

[Tim Finnegan]

Boring people with boring ideas attempting to make themselves sound radical and anti-establishment. White male resentment posing as social rebellion. Nothing more.

[Lokomotive293]

What makes government intervention in the economy a "natural development" from lassiez-faire? It is a devolution IMO.

"Evolution" and "devolution" aren't mutually exclusive if you think dialectically. It's like a snake, when the old skin dies off and a new one grows underneath it, until finally, the snake shakes off the old skin, and the new one is free to develop its full beauty.

Lenin wrote a whole book about this, btw. Not about snakes, but about why "free market capitalism" is a thing of the past, and how the capitalism we have today is already the transition to something new. It's called "Imperialism - The highest stage of capitalism".

[Revolution starts with U]

"Free market capitalism" is not a thing of the past. For it to be so, it would have had to... you know... actually have existed.

[Lokomotive293]

"Free market capitalism" is not a thing of the past. For it to be so, it would have had to... you know... actually have existed.

I'm talking about free competition as opposed to monopoly capitalism. Of course the free-market-absolutely-no-government-intervention utopia so-called "libertarians" dream about never existed (since it's impossible), but before the end of the 19th century, we didn't have those huge monopolies that dominate the market and use the state to protect their interests against competitors and foreign capital.

[ВАЛТЕР]

"Evolution" and "devolution" aren't mutually exclusive if you think dialectically. It's like a snake, when the old skin dies off and a new one grows underneath it, until finally, the snake shakes off the old skin, and the new one is free to develop its full beauty.


I like this metaphor. I'm stealing it and will use it to explain some things to some people. No, you can't have it back so don't even ask.

[Lokomotive293]

I like this metaphor. I'm stealing it and will use it to explain some things to some people. No, you can't have it back so don't even ask.

Nice thing about words is that they don't go away if someone "steals" them. Thanks, btw.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

We also need to keep in mind that anarcho-capitalists are not really anarchists in any historical or theoretical sense.

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF

Let's be blunt. They are all quasi-rascist, ultra-nationalistic, ignorant, god-fearin' nutjobs. I used to know a "libertarian" that was a holocaust denier, thought the government was trying to turn people gay through aluminum pop cans, and was a 9/11 "truther". Needless to say I don't talk to that ignorant, homophobic dipshit anymore.

[helot]

We also need to keep in mind that anarcho-capitalists are not really anarchists in any historical or theoretical sense.




and when you tell them this simple fact they then claim you have no authority to say what is and isn't anarchism, arguing you're authoritarian (lol) and then they get out their little dictionary that says it's "opposition to government" as if dictionaries are politically nuanced and not contradictory.


Classical liberalism with radical chic is the best descriptor of this ideology. Another good descriptor is "batshit insane".

[NGNM85]

I've heard of him. Isn't he like a left-libertarian or something... or am I thinking of Carson... :confused:

He's a Canadian 'Anarcho-Capitalist.' He has a shitload of videos on YouTube.

[Ocean Seal]

The reason for the rise of these ideologies is in fact that idealism is a popular trend in the mainstream and some take it to a greater extreme. Also right wing propaganda instruments have been much more libertarian friendly than in the past. Plus libertarianism preaches to the odd delusional internet teenager who wants to feel intellectually superior without doing too much work.

[MuscularTophFan]

They aren't real libertarians. Me and Noam Chomsky are real libertarians.

American "libertarians" are brainwashed followers of the Ayn Rand cult. Dealing with them is like dealing with religious fundamentalists. What American "libertarians" advocate for is the ultimate form of totalitarianism. They are mostly made up of edgy suburban middle class teenagers who don't understand anything about economics and support Ron Paul because "he wants to make weed legal guies."

[cynicles]

Anyone heard of Stefan Molyneux?
Unfortunately. Can we deport him back to Ireland?

[helot]

Unfortunately. Can we deport him back to Ireland?


Why do you hate the Irish? :laugh:

[Peoples' War]

Honestly, the whole "real libertarian" thing that Chomsky talks about, although he's correct, is fucking stupid semantics...which, besides being a good intro to radical politics, is all Chomsky is worth anyways.

I used to do this debating with wankers like this all the time, they can't be beaten. They think corporations, and big businesses are all good willed, and have everyone's best interests at heart. They think "competition" with wages will make them have to increase wages to get people to work for them, and that almost everyone can start their own businesses and shit.

They are fucking idiots.

[Book O'Dead]

Honestly, the whole "real libertarian" thing that Chomsky talks about, although he's correct, is fucking stupid semantics...which, besides being a good intro to radical politics, is all Chomsky is worth anyways.

Really?

That reminds me of a story I heard about a woman who took her kids out of school an put them into what white, bourgeois-minded Americans call "Home Schooling". When asked why she did that she replied "There was nothing left for the school to teach them."

[Peoples' War]

Honestly, the whole "real libertarian" thing that Chomsky talks about, although he's correct, is fucking stupid semantics...which, besides being a good intro to radical politics, is all Chomsky is worth anyways.


Really?

That reminds me of a story I heard about a woman who took her kids out of school an put them into what white, bourgeois-minded Americans call "Home Schooling". When asked why she did that she replied "There was nothing left for the school to teach them."
Your point is what?

Pardon my complete stupidity here, but what is so great about Chomsky from a Marxist perspective?

What does Chomsky's effort to "take back" the word Libertarian have to do with the fact that Capitalist "Libertarians" will never stop using the word?

[Book O'Dead]

Honestly, the whole "real libertarian" thing that Chomsky talks about, although he's correct, is fucking stupid semantics...which, besides being a good intro to radical politics, is all Chomsky is worth anyways.


Your point is what?

Pardon my complete stupidity here, but what is so great about Chomsky from a Marxist perspective?

What does Chomsky's effort to "take back" the word Libertarian have to do with the fact that Capitalist "Libertarians" will never stop using the word?

Chomsky is not trying to "take back" anything. He is simply and with great erudition explaining the distinction he makes between his understanding of the term and its common bourgeois use.

To assert that Chomsky's views on anything amount to nothing more than a "good intro to radical politics" is ignorant. It implies that you somehow know more than him about the wide range of topics he has discussed and written about in his many years as a bona fide American radical.

In short, I think that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

While Chomsky's works on the media and American foreign policy is good, his views in the political realm are...well....not worth my time to put it pleasantly. He really lacks a general knowledge of even what he claims to be, an anarchist.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think Chomsky bases himself far more on his anti-capitalism than he does proscriptive socialism. Which, tho I find his views lacking on that latter part, the former is excellent, and that cannot be denied.

If you're looking for a good critique of historical capitalism, there are few on par with Chomsky. If you're looking for what socialism means, there are far better places to find information.

[L.A.P.]

And also for, I guess, purely academic reasons. Chomsky has a better understanding of and lot more to teach about Adam Smith's ethics and political economy than any other libertarian fucktard.

eaZORYaygo0

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What makes government intervention in the economy a "natural development" from lassiez-faire? It is a devolution IMO.

..a complete "Free Market" being a lunatic asylum; it does not work, the capitalists need and have always cherished their state. Without the corruptable State signing free trade deals with dictatorships (that the majority of the population would deplore if they know/knew about them), controlling the money supply, opening up new markets for capitalists by investing tons of socialised wealth into research and development, subsidising the market economy when it looks like it will crash and creating bubbles for capitalists' profits, throwing TRILLIONS of dollars it doesn't have at failing banks, and last but not least buying tons of war machines from the capitalists' armament factories to spur economic growth and conquer new resource rich countries' markets; capitalism wouldn't survive.

[State-God]

I find it very funny how all of you claim that the AnCap's are akin to religious fundamentalists, when if anything YOU all are.

There are a few exceptions, but most people I've seen on this forum are close-minded, Das Kapital-humping hyper-socialists still stuck in the 1890's. For chrissakes people...

At the end of the day, we're ALL anarchists. We all want a voluntary society (or, at least, most of you do). You think that such a society would be primarily based on the collective ownership of the means of production, and the abolition of exchange and trade (I'm simplifying, I don't want to make a wall of text describing all the various schools).

We think that such a society would form primarily along private ownership of the mean of production, with free exchange and trade being the basis of society.

But no matter what we think, it doesn't matter. What matters is abolishing the State, and then letting people figure it out for themselves. Maybe the anarchic society would mostly be made up of communes- and maybe it would be made up of capitalist cities.

But in the end, the key goal is abolishing coercion. And if you force people to adopt your ideals, then you're no better than any other Statist.

[Prinskaj]

There are a few exceptions, but most people I've seen on this forum are close-minded, Das Kapital-humping hyper-socialists still stuck in the 1890's. For chrissakes people... Are you shitting me? The people on this board are not stuck in the 1890's, that would be silly.
Many are however stuck in the 1920's.

[Jason]

Again it boils to down to "Freedom for whom?" as discussed in the other thread. A libertarian's freedom oppresses working people.



But in the end, the key goal is abolishing coercion. And if you force people to adopt your ideals, then you're no better than any other Statist.


The will to be dominant is too strong to think many won't violently oppose such a society.

[Spurcatu]

Libertarians as they are in America or wealthy western countries are a kind of white, middle to upper class, sociology, economics, management or political sciences graduate that has got the "academic" type of understanding of politics, and somehow they get turned on by goals belonging to anarchy or they realize that the state is an immense blockade with taxes and regulations in their road towards accumulation of wealth but do not want to side with the middle to lower class, do not want to give up their privileges, do not want to give up their inherited attributes;
Marx's Labor theory of value (which is actually adapted from Adam and Smith's labor theory of value) or Marx's theory of economic crisis will forever be valid as long as there exists private property, free market, accumulation, value, surplus value, capital, profit, wage.
So lets try to imagine a situation where libertarian services take place:
As Libertarians want to continue with state traditions but WITHOUT the state, Imagine the institution that would deal with law enforcement, or police, or private security (name it anyway you want). The police would turn into a right-wing, para-military faction that would apply "justice" according to their own interest by the ones appointing them to do so. But actually there wouldn't be anyone to ask for their services because coercion is already imposed as mobsters that deal with protection racketeering do also. So in order to be safe, you would actually be forced to pay for your safety otherwise you might be considered a "criminal" element by the criminals themselves.
Health Care would be facing massive casses of malpractice, a lot of people would die or be left untreated, even in cases of emergency for not having enough or the right money to pay.
Firemen would watch the houses and properties burn if you do not have a contract with their fire department.
Schools would end up making formal contracts through which they would end up selling diplomas without actually having the certificated studies. Interest vs Interest.
The Court would basically cease to exist as the paramilitary police force would take all means of power.

[Fnord]

I remember I used to call myself an "anarcho-capitalist" when I was 13, by then again, I would just about call myself anything politically as long as the wikipedia entry sounded interesting back then. For me personally, the main reason I did it was because I used to like the idea of "moneyless and stateless capitalism" where only barter would take place. Looking back on it, it was foolish of me, nevertheless I only assumed that label for about 3-5 months before looking into other ideologies and eventually leftist revolutionary tendencies.

[freehobo]

RxPUvQZ3rcQ

"We have to start by start by decoding a whole system of intellectual distortion before we can even talk .... If terms have lost their meaning it becomes impossible to talk" -- That is so true.

I think these words should be banned from usage in political debate.

Leftist
Rightist
Left
Right
Fascist
Communist
Socialist
Libertarian
<could think of a lot more but that would be a good start>

If people actually debated without those words we would be forced to discuss actual ideas rather than talking past each other with preconceptions.

Anyway, I am a "right-libertarian" because I think it's the only kind of anarchism that is possible. In any kind of left-libertarian society you wouldn't be able to repress capitalism: People would start trying to make a profit on the side, black markets would develop for things that were in high demand but underproduced, organized crime would start producing them privately, class differences would develop, and voila - you have capitalism; just an ugly, third-world version of it. If the secret police cant prevent black markets from flourishing in totalitarian versions of communism (USSR, China et al.), what makes left-anarchists think they won't exist in a society where there is no government at all? The very first thing that would happen in the Chomskian version of anarchy is capitalism! Lord, as much as I disagree with you Leninist / dictatorship of the proletariat folks, at least you're realistic: Getting rid of capitalism requires repression.

[Conscript]

Getting rid of capitalism requires repression.

Only insofar we need to expropriate the bourgeoisie. After that, well, good luck turning commony property into capital without an army, or repression. The communists, on the other hand, don't have to do anything. Their production inevitably outpaces any petty bourgeois project (that's all that could ever manifest), as communist production is geared toward abundance not selling commodities. Any capitalist worth his salt would know it would be impossible to profit in any industry running that way. Anything but conditions of scarcity strangle capital as it makes exchange value near worthless, if it had to be measured. For capitalism to return, you couldn't just arise separated from the rest of the world. What is held commonly held would have to be taken back.

Or in other words, reactionaries have to be reactionaries.

The only way 'capitalism' would arise as you described is if some social chauvinists, most likely stalinoids, form a state to legislate morality with, doing things like banning abortions or drugs, and thus leaving these things to the market. Worse, they'd probably do this in their own enclave leaving world capitalism relatively untouched, or you know, socialism in one country. But, this is not communism, and the described aren't communists.

[Raúl Duke]

Maybe the anarchic society would mostly be made up of communes- and maybe it would be made up of capitalist cities.Capitalism, like any classist economic mode, is coercive, hierarchical, and "unlibertarian."

Anarchists being against hierarchy such as classism, is against capitalism.


But in the end, the key goal is abolishing coercion.Yes...and since capitalism is coercive it'll be key to abolish that for anarchism to exist.

Coercion is not solely in the realm of the state and the state isn't the "#1 boogey man" as misunderstood by the simplistic analysis of some misguided so-called "anarchists." The state is a top-down tool for political elitist-class rule, a tool necessary for the maintenance of a classist economic system. The modern state, at least its functions, is seemingly required to run a capitalism society: capitalism lead to the creation, or at least development, of the modern state.

[Jason]

"We have to start by start by decoding a whole system of intellectual distortion before we can even talk .... If terms have lost their meaning it becomes impossible to talk" -- That is so true.

I think these words should be banned from usage in political debate.

Leftist
Rightist
Left
Right
Fascist
Communist
Socialist
Libertarian
<could think of a lot more but that would be a good start>

If people actually debated without those words we would be forced to discuss actual ideas rather than talking past each other with preconceptions.

Anyway, I am a "right-libertarian" because I think it's the only kind of anarchism that is possible. In any kind of left-libertarian society you wouldn't be able to repress capitalism: People would start trying to make a profit on the side, black markets would develop for things that were in high demand but underproduced, organized crime would start producing them privately, class differences would develop, and voila - you have capitalism; just an ugly, third-world version of it. If the secret police cant prevent black markets from flourishing in totalitarian versions of communism (USSR, China et al.), what makes left-anarchists think they won't exist in a society where there is no government at all? The very first thing that would happen in the Chomskian version of anarchy is capitalism! Lord, as much as I disagree with you Leninist / dictatorship of the proletariat folks, at least you're realistic: Getting rid of capitalism requires repression.


So, true you got a choice between two types of slavery. However, one type is in the interest of people and the other isn't. Whether or not you could call the first type slavery is debateable. It's basically "a dictatorship of the working people".


Anyhow, the whole idea of anarchy confilcts with human nature way too much to be practical. As for right libertarianism as a beacon of freedom, that's ridiculous because it would only lead to a more extreme "dictatorship of the capital", so to speak. At least in the US today, there are some controls over the power of the private sector.

Nonetheless, freehobo's argument will probably be: "Right wing libertarianism is in the best interests of the people." The same line Reagan used in supporting "trickle down economics". But how so? How can it be proven to work?

[liberlict]

Only insofar we need to expropriate the bourgeoisie. After that, well, good luck turning commony property into capital without an army, or repression. The communists, on the other hand, don't have to do anything. Their production inevitably outpaces any petty bourgeois project (that's all that could ever manifest), as communist production is geared toward abundance not selling commodities. Any capitalist worth his salt would know it would be impossible to profit in any industry running that way. Anything but conditions of scarcity strangle capital as it makes exchange value near worthless, if it had to be measured. For capitalism to return, you couldn't just arise separated from the rest of the world. What is held commonly held would have to be taken back.

Or in other words, reactionaries have to be reactionaries.

The only way 'capitalism' would arise as you described is if some social chauvinists, most likely stalinoids, form a state to legislate morality with, doing things like banning abortions or drugs, and thus leaving these things to the market. Worse, they'd probably do this in their own enclave leaving world capitalism relatively untouched, or you know, socialism in one country. But, this is not communism, and the described aren't communists.

You're ignoring the reality that not all goods can be produced "abundantly'. Take diamonds or gold for example --does a communist government supply an abundance of gold necklaces and ear rings and watches? I'm assuming not, since these commodities are limited. So how does the peoples republic ration out the gold watches? Does it divide the amount of gold by the amount of people in the world and give everybody a useless speck? That's the only egalitarian answer.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

But does everyone want such luxury items? You seem to be presenting it as a choice (dare I say, a false dichotomy) between a few people having gold watches or everyone having specks of gold dust. This is of course not the case. As Alexander Berkman asserts:


Equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity.Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development.

Not only this, your argument also relies on the assumption that people will continue to desire the same commodities that they do at present (especially those that merely serve to increase social status), even after the abolition of commodity production.

Lastly, even if everybody DID in fact desire more gold watches, they could simply democratically decide to produce more for those who want them (or in the case of a shortage of less frivolous objects, distribute them according to an agreed upon need).

[liberlict]

But does everyone want such luxury items? You seem to be presenting it as a choice (dare I say, a false dichotomy) between a few people having gold watches or everyone having specks of gold dust. This is of course not the case. As Alexander Berkman asserts:



Not only this, your argument also relies on the assumption that people will continue to desire the same commodities that they do at present (especially those that merely serve to increase social status), even after the abolition of commodity production.

Lastly, even if everybody DID in fact desire more gold watches, they could simply democratically decide to produce more for those who want them (or in the case of a shortage of less frivolous objects, distribute them according to an agreed upon need).

Well people obviously won't still want today's Nintendo Wii in 10 years time, or whatever, but reality will still dictate that resources are limited while human wants are infinite. There's no way you can fairly distribute yachts, private jets and Bugatti sports cars, because obviously not everybody can have one. There's no recourse in any "democratic" solution, because it's not a matter of consensus, its a matter of supply. The only rational way to distribute luxury goods, with all its faults, is the price mechanism.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

But are human wants infinite? You seem to be engaged in reification, in that you are an taking an abstraction, namely "unlimited human wants" and viewing it as a separate and universal principle apart from capitalist relations of production. Indeed, history and anthropology show that the evidence for the existence of unlimited human wants is rather slim. See for example research on present or past hunter-gatherer societies or on early neolithic ones (Marshall Sahlins and Richard Lee are pretty good).

[Tim Cornelis]

But are human wants infinite?

Yes they are. If you lived infinitely you'd consume infinitely. Consuming food today does not mean you don't want food tomorrow. Wants are infinitely renewed. Wants are infinite, time is scarce.

[Desy]

It seems to me like this is some kind of new "trend" that started in the US but has also spread to other countries. Followers are mostly white, male, middle class teenagers and young adults, who spend lots of time on the Internet.
Would you say that is correct in so far?
And what's the reason for the rise of those ideologies? I'd say they are petty-bourgeois in nature, because they basically advocate going back to pre-Imperialist capitalism, i.e. free competition etc., which is of course impossible.

Ha. And they all love Alex Jones and infowars.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

But food is a need, not a want or a luxury item. Further, no one lives forever, so I don't see what the point is.

No idea why you're asserting that wants are something apart from humanity, that can not be limited or changed based on the perceptions of humanity or the productive means available. By doing so, you play right into the hands of the capitalists and their demands for ever more unsustainable, destructive, and unlimited growth. As I noted, members of hunter-gatherer societies etc., did limit their wants so that they were closely matched to their productive capacities. It is only in capitalist society that this assertion is regarded as an unalterable truth. Thus, I would argue be regarded as part of the ideological superstructure because of its role in the justification of the present system.

[Conscript]

You're ignoring the reality that not all goods can be produced "abundantly'. Take diamonds or gold for example --does a communist government supply an abundance of gold necklaces and ear rings and watches? I'm assuming not, since these commodities are limited. So how does the peoples republic ration out the gold watches? Does it divide the amount of gold by the amount of people in the world and give everybody a useless speck? That's the only egalitarian answer.

The communist economy would simply tend towards expanding the supply and insofar the resource is scarce the people will consume less of it. It'll just be a reality that needs to be overcome in order to make a better society. I suspect eventually we'll look less towards the earth for (easily accessible) resources.

The 'egalitarian' answer would be to produce as much as possible in order to get closer to equal opportunity, and overcome 'bourgeois right' as explained by Marx in the critique of the gotha program.

[liberlict]

But are human wants infinite? You seem to be engaged in reification, in that you are an taking an abstraction, namely "unlimited human wants" and viewing it as a separate and universal principle apart from capitalist relations of production. Indeed, history and anthropology show that the evidence for the existence of unlimited human wants is rather slim. See for example research on present or past hunter-gatherer societies or on early neolithic ones (Marshall Sahlins and Richard Lee are pretty good).

Well,

There's an easy way to test the theory that opulence is a behavior distinct to the capitalist mode of production---if it is, it should only be observed under capitalism. If it isn't, then it will be observed across for all time.

taken from wiki @wealth


Accumulation of non-necessities
Humans back to and including the Cro-Magnons seem to have had clearly defined rulers and status hierarchies. Digs in Russia have revealed elaborate funeral clothing on a pair of children buried there over 35,000 years ago.[citation needed] This indicates a considerable accumulation of wealth by some individuals or families. The high artisan skill also suggest the capacity to direct specialized labor to tasks that are not of any obvious utility to the group's survival.



Control of arable land
The rise of irrigation and urbanization, especially in ancient Sumer and later Egypt, unified the ideas of wealth and control of land and agriculture. To feed a large stable population, it was possible and necessary to achieve universal cultivation and city-state protection. The notion of the state and the notion of war are said to have emerged at this time. Tribal cultures were formalized into what we would call feudal systems, and many rights and obligations were assumed by the monarchy and related aristocracy. Protection of infrastructural capital built up over generations became critical: city walls, irrigation systems, sewage systems, aqueducts, buildings, all impossible to replace within a single generation, and thus a matter of social survival to maintain. The social capital of entire societies was often defined in terms of its relation to infrastructural capital (e.g. castles or forts or an allied monastery, cathedral or temple), and natural capital, (i.e. the land that supplied locally grown food). Agricultural economics continues these traditions in the analyses of modern agricultural policy and related ideas of wealth, e.g. the ark of taste model of agricultural wealth.


The role of technology
Industrialization emphasized the role of technology. Many jobs were automated. Machines replaced some workers while other workers became more specialized. Labour specialization became critical to economic success. However, physical capital, as it came to be known, consisting of both the natural capital (raw materials from nature) and the infrastructural capital (facilitating technology), became the focus of the analysis of wealth. Adam Smith saw wealth creation as the combination of materials, labour, land, and technology in such a way as to capture a profit (excess above the cost of production).

So, if I'm engaging in "reification", it's expecting the future to repeat the past; This is not in itself logical, but it's a decent default position in absence of any countervailing evidence.

Anyway, in a socialist society, how are you going to moderate my personal needs? Speaking just for myself, I like to have at least two cars--- a sports car and a 4wd---a yacht, a speed boat, a mansion on the French Riviera, a plentiful supply of aged wine, a garden of marijuana, a maid and a helicopter. How do I find satisfaction? Do I need to be re-educated?

[liberlict]

The communist economy would simply tend towards expanding the supply and insofar the resource is scarce the people will consume less of it. It'll just be a reality that needs to be overcome in order to make a better society. I suspect eventually we'll look less towards the earth for (easily accessible) resources.

The 'egalitarian' answer would be to produce as much as possible in order to get closer to equal opportunity, and overcome 'bourgeois right' as explained by Marx in the critique of the gotha program.

There's nothing "simple" about this approach. Are all houses going to be the same value? Who gets all the houses on the beach and yachts? Even simple products like flour; as any chef knows, there are different grades of flower, and some of them are very expensive. You could maybe do like labor vouchers or time-banks, but this is just as vulnerable to corruption as money.


" It'll just be a reality that needs to be overcome in order to make a better society."

You can already see the seeds of totalitarianism in this statement.

[evermilion]

Capitalism implies the collective ownership of the means of production by the bourgeoisie, which necessities collective enforcement of property, which means a state exists. It feels like anarchist-capitalists don't endeavor for the complete abolition of the state so much as its reduction to individuals. But where coercion (hence property) exists, it is likely that people pool resources and come to collectivize their coercive power. So we have states developing all over again.

[liberlict]

Capitalism implies the collective ownership of the means of production by the bourgeoisie, which necessities collective enforcement of property, which means a state exists. It feels like anarchist-capitalists don't endeavor for the complete abolition of the state so much as its reduction to individuals. But where coercion (hence property) exists, it is likely that people pool resources and come to collectivize their coercive power. So we have states developing all over again.

Myself, I don't see the need to delegate to the government to my protect private property. If I own a house, I can take measures to protect it myself---by buying in a neighborhood with a nice community, getting to know my neighbors, cooperating with people in my street with neighborhood watch like projects, and if I really need to,, hiring a security guard. The same goes for means of production: Typically the reason you cant walk into a business and empty their till is not because you're worried about the police, it's because they have private security guards, super citizens, and the staff/proprietors will naturally protect themselves. I don't own any private property, but if I did this is how I envision it would be protected.

[#FF0000]

Anyway, in a socialist society, how are you going to moderate my personal needs? Speaking just for myself, I like to have at least two cars--- a sports car and a 4wd---a yacht, a speed boat, a mansion on the French Riviera, a plentiful supply of aged wine, a garden of marijuana, a maid and a helicopter. How do I find satisfaction? Do I need to be re-educated?

If you can build those things yourself than go wild. I doubt people would waste their time working on things for you and only for you. Unless everyone decided to working on cars for everyone.

Don't imagine you'll have a maid though. Sorry.

[evermilion]

Myself, I don't see the need to delegate to the government to my protect private property. If I own a house, I can take measures to protect it myself---by buying in a neighborhood with a nice community, getting to know my neighbors, cooperating with people in my street with neighborhood watch like projects, and if I really need to,, hiring a security guard.

Congratulations. You now have a state, unless you plan on this coalition of neighbors protecting the property of the neighborhood through persuasive debate alone.


The same goes for means of production: Typically the reason you cant walk into a business and empty their till is not because you're worried about the police, it's because they have private security guards, super citizens, and the staff/proprietors will naturally protect themselves. I don't own any private property, but if I did this is how I envision it would be protected.

Police or super civilian or private guard, their use of violence to protect property is, as it stands, sanctioned by the state. But the places of business that are most often robbed do not have private guards nor are they staffed or patronized by "super citizens" (Bruce Wayne?) and proprietors willing to put their lives on the line just for the money in the register.

[#FF0000]

Even if one relies on private security, one would still need the state to set the legal foundation for property.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why a maid? Do you like the idea of someone being paid peanuts to clean your messes up after you (as if you were an infant), or is there just a mismatch between your standards of household cleanliness and your willingness to actually achieve that standard?

[liberlict]

Even if one relies on private security, one would still need the state to set the legal foundation for property.

Yeah, private property is essential to capitalism. I'm happy with that.

[evermilion]

Yeah, private property is essential to capitalism. I'm happy with that.

You're happy with the state, then.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

People seem to forget that the transition to a communist society corresponds to a shift in consciousness; in the lower phases of communist society, of course, objects such as diamonds etc. would have to be regulated in some manner (we Marxists freely admit that the state and coercion are necessary in these lower stages of communist society). In the higher phases, I would not be surprised if diamonds will only be found in industrial tools. There will be no need to display wealth in order to confirm one's social status, since there will be no social status. The few outliers to this trend will probably have trouble convincing people that others need to clean after them, but if they do (I would suggest the local BDSM club), let them knock themselves out.

[liberlict]

Why a maid? Do you like the idea of someone being paid peanuts to clean your messes up after you (as if you were an infant), or is there just a mismatch between your standards of household cleanliness and your willingness to actually achieve that standard?

I just like to get the most out of life as I can. If I can find somebody willing to clean my place while I go out and sail my boat, or go to the gym, or whatever, that's good with me. I wouldn't coerce somebody into doing it, of course. But if I am in a position to employ somebody to do it that's the way I'll be going.

[liberlict]

If you can build those things yourself than go wild. I doubt people would waste their time working on things for you and only for you. Unless everyone decided to working on cars for everyone.

Don't imagine you'll have a maid though. Sorry.

It would be a pretty immense individual that could build all these things himself haha. Alas, I am not him.

However, I do think I might be able to acquire enough goods and marketable adroitness to trade with others who do have the dexterity.

Is that ok?

[evermilion]

It would be a pretty immense individual that could build all these things himself haha. Alas, I am not him.

However, I do think I might be able to acquire enough goods and marketable adroitness to trade with others who do have the dexterity.

Is that ok?

Not the Atlas who can shrug off the need for social production, huh?

[liberlict]

People seem to forget that the transition to a communist society corresponds to a shift in consciousness; in the lower phases of communist society, of course, objects such as diamonds etc. would have to be regulated in some manner (we Marxists freely admit that the state and coercion are necessary in these lower stages of communist society). In the higher phases, I would not be surprised if diamonds will only be found in industrial tools. There will be no need to display wealth in order to confirm one's social status, since there will be no social status. The few outliers to this trend will probably have trouble convincing people that others need to clean after them, but if they do (I would suggest the local BDSM club), let them knock themselves out.

So basically, human nature has to change before communism can work.

If this is the case, I wonder why you are a revolutionary leftist? I mean given that humanity has been conditioned by centuries of capitalism to be pugnacious and acquisitive, what's the point in imposing a communist revolution? Won't you only discredit the movement even more when it inevitably fucks up?

If what you say is true ( and i agree with you---that a transformation of human nature, or maybe "human habit" is a better term, since behaviors and attitudes are transient), is required before communism can please people), shouldn't you be working on changing peoples outlooks? What you are talking about is more off a "cognitive revolution" more-so than a political revolution.

[#FF0000]

However, I do think I might be able to acquire enough goods and marketable adroitness to trade with others who do have the dexterity.

Skills that would be pretty useless in a society which is all about meeting human need and want without concern for profit.

[evermilion]

So basically, human nature has to change before communism can work.

If this is the case, I wonder why you are a revolutionary leftist? I mean given that humanity has been conditioned by centuries of capitalism to be pugnacious and acquisitive, what's the point in imposing a communist revolution? Won't you only discredit the movement even more when it inevitably fucks up?

I'd have to ask, then, why it is that feudalism gave way to capitalism if revolutionary social transformation is a question of human nature and human nature is immutable? Why have there been several different species of class society and why do class contradictions tend to simplify?


If what you say is true ( and i agree with you---that a transformation of human nature, or maybe "human habit" is a better term, since behaviors and attitudes are transient), is required before communism can please people), shouldn't you be working on changing peoples outlooks? What you are talking about is more off a "cognitive revolution" more-so than a political revolution.

Ideological work plays an important role, but material empowerment of the proletariat is key to socialist revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So basically, human nature has to change before communism can work.

"Human nature" is an ideological, pseudo-biological term that is only useful in "justifying" slaveowning, feudal or bourgeois dictatorships. It has no place in a materialist analysis of society. At most, one could say that there is a tendency, conditioned by the present mode of production, to symbolise one's social status through unnecessary wealth.


If this is the case, I wonder why you are a revolutionary leftist? I mean given that humanity has been conditioned by centuries of capitalism to be pugnacious and acquisitive, what's the point in imposing a communist revolution? Won't you only discredit the movement even more when it inevitably fucks up?

If what you say is true ( and i agree with you---that a transformation of human nature, or maybe "human habit" is a better term, since behaviors and attitudes are transient, is required before communism can please people), shouldn't you be working on changing peoples outlooks? What you are talking about is more off a "cognitive revolution" more-so than a political revolution.

Consciousness is conditioned by the material basis of society, particularly the mode of production. One can't simply "change people's outlook" as one likes. Features of the social superstructure that are associated with capitalism will disappear when capitalism has been overthrown.

If, at present, people tend to be "pugnacious and acquisitive", that is good - the communist, in fact, supports the desire of the proletariat and of the oppressed groups to acquire much, much more than they have at present. And they advocate revolutionary violence in order to further that goal. If the former oppressors are not pleased with the result, that is too bad - for them.

[liberlict]

Not the Atlas who can shrug off the need for social production, huh?

Not sure what this means. I mean i get the Rand derision. I'm not a fan of hers but realistically not even she would deny "the need for social production", if I'm understanding that term correctly.

[liberlict]

Skills that would be pretty useless in a society which is all about meeting human need and want without concern for profit.

Yeah .. fairy land.

[liberlict]

I'd have to ask, then, why it is that feudalism gave way to capitalism if revolutionary social transformation is a question of human nature and human nature is immutable? Why have there been several different species of class society and why do class contradictions tend to simplify?



I just view it as different available technology. Which I don't think is all that inconsistent with Marx. Though he obviously goes in a different direction with it heh.

btw, I'm not saying human nature is immutable.

[evermilion]

Yeah .. fairy land.

Profit is really what hinders progress in terms of productive capability. In the early days of capitalism, culminating in the Industrial Revolution, the mode of production actually served a purpose in developing productive capacity. Mass production could create more than guilds of craftsmen could and at a cheaper cost. As a consequence, craftsmen, once owners of their own businesses, became proletarian, forced to sell their labor to the very people who destroyed their previous lives.

Productive capacity has not been significantly revolutionized. Scale and speed have increased, but there's been no fundamental transformation of the way society produces things since the advent of mass production. Production costs have been driven down and productivity is up, but the real wages of the workers, considering inflation, have actually decreased. Profit hinders further progress in that profit depends on scarcity: the scarcity of material resources, the scarcity of work, etc. So the bourgeoisie really have no need to explore revolutionary methods of production and distribution. Take away the profit incentive, and you've got productive means operating at optimum capacity, resulting in an abundance of consumer goods to which everyone has access.

[evermilion]

I just view it as different available technology. Which I don't think is all that inconsistent with Marx.

You're right in that it isn't at all inconsistent with Marx. But technological capacity is only one part of the equation. We have to also consider the political realities of the world and acknowledge that individuals don't always have the free agency to enter into contracts on completely level footing. Without the proletariat, the bourgeoisie would collapse, but without me, the specific firm for which I want to work will find someone else to do the work. Collectively, the proletariat is the key to the continued life of capitalist economies, but individually we're all interchangeable parts to the bourgeoisie. Marxism is what recognizes this imbalance as systemic.

[liberlict]

"Human nature" is an ideological, pseudo-biological term that is only useful in "justifying" slaveowning, feudal or bourgeois dictatorships. It has no place in a materialist analysis of society. At most, one could say that there is a tendency, conditioned by the present mode of production, to symbolise one's social status through unnecessary wealth.

I partly agree, but not for your reasons. Human nature is not a good term because it's incredibly vague. In its essence it's getting at the idea that the human species of mammal has genetic dispositions. And I don't think that any educed person could deny homo sapiens have these dispositions; If they do, they don't deserve to be listened to.

To intelligently discuss human nature you have define exactly what kind of behavior can be predicted. As it happens, evolution is driven by adaptation. Humans that have adapted to new environments have passed on their genes. Thus adaptability is an extremely important part of capability. In this sense socialists are right in predicting that we are malleable to new circumstances. But we are not malleable to the extent that we can be conditioned to act contrary to our self interests. Whatever adaptability there is, it can only be so that people act differently in their own self interest.

[liberlict]

You're right in that it isn't at all inconsistent with Marx. But technological capacity is only one part of the equation. We have to also consider the political realities of the world and acknowledge that individuals don't always have the free agency to enter into contracts on completely level footing.

People have different purchasing power, this is true. So what. Capitalism is the only system that rewards you for giving people what they want. Thus the things that most people want have the lowest price--like bread and water. The alternative is to have a committee meeting every to determine the availability of essential commodities. This is only much less efficient, it gives no incentive to the people responsible for catering to peoples wants.

[liberlict]

Congratulations. You now have a state, unless you plan on this coalition of neighbors protecting the property of the neighborhood through persuasive debate alone.

Not really. A community could feasibly protect itself in the way you describe; They could debate about how to protect their collective property at the local community hall. Most likely the decision would be to hire an agreed upon security firm. Personally, I would prefer a limited state to perform this service. But in theory there is no reason why security, which is just another commodity after all, couldn't be determined at one of the barn-yard meetings you fantasize about.



Police or super civilian or private guard, their use of violence to protect property is, as it stands, sanctioned by the state. But the places of business that are most often robbed do not have private guards nor are they staffed or patronized by "super citizens" (Bruce Wayne?) and proprietors willing to put their lives on the line just for the money in the register.

So if it wasn't sanctioned by the state, because there was no state, and was just determined by citizens in community halls, would this be ok with you?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I partly agree, but not for your reasons. Human nature is not a good term because it's incredibly vague. In its essence it's getting at the idea that the human species of mammal has genetic dispositions. And I don't think that any educed person could deny homo sapiens have these dispositions; If they do, they don't deserve to be listened to.

To intelligently discuss human nature you have define exactly what kind of behavior can be predicted. As it happens, evolution is driven by adaptation. Humans that have adapted to new environments have passed on their genes. Thus adaptability is an extremely important part of capability. In this sense socialists are right in predicting that we are malleable to new circumstances. But we are not malleable to the extent that we can be conditioned to act contrary to our self interests. Whatever adaptability there is, it can only be so that people act differently in their own self interest.

Well, in a communist society, it's in one's self-interest to make sure it stays that way, since if society were to return to a previous mode of production, their hierarchical nature means that one is more likely to end up as a peon or wage-slave rather than a noble or a high-flying capitalist.


People have different purchasing power, this is true. So what. Capitalism is the only system that rewards you for giving people what they want.

You know that demand can be manufactured, right? Especially if there's profit to be made in convincing people they "need" iPads, Coca-Cola, whatever, that sort of thing.


Thus the things that most people want have the lowest price--like bread and water.

Overly simplistic. Water can command a high price in areas where it's hard to acquire, despite the fact that it's one of life's essentials.


The alternative is to have a committee meeting every to determine the availability of essential commodities. This is only much less efficient, it gives no incentive to the people responsible for catering to peoples wants.

"The" alternative? Don't you think there might be others?

[evermilion]

People have different purchasing power, this is true. So what. Capitalism is the only system that rewards you for giving people what they want. Thus the things that most people want have the lowest price--like bread and water. The alternative is to have a committee meeting every to determine the availability of essential commodities. This is only much less efficient, it gives no incentive to the people responsible for catering to peoples wants.

It isn't solely a question of purchasing power, though. It's a question of ownership of means of production.


Not really. A community could feasibly protect itself in the way you describe; They could debate about how to protect their collective property at the local community hall. Most likely the decision would be to hire an agreed upon security firm. Personally, I would prefer a limited state to perform this service. But in theory there is no reason why security, which is just another commodity after all, couldn't be determined at one of the barn-yard meetings you fantasize about.

I'm not sure what you're talking about in reference to a barnyard, but what you're describing is still a state. A state is the organized use of violence to enforce property. So unless this security firm exclusively relies on persuasive rhetoric to protect property, what you've got is a state.



So if it wasn't sanctioned by the state, because there was no state, and was just determined by citizens in community halls, would this be ok with you?

It's not really about whether anything is okay by me. I'm just saying that the state is organized violence that enforces property. Property implies coercion.

[Conscript]

There's nothing "simple" about this approach. Are all houses going to be the same value? Who gets all the houses on the beach and yachts? Even simple products like flour; as any chef knows, there are different grades of flower, and some of them are very expensive. You could maybe do like labor vouchers or time-banks, but this is just as vulnerable to corruption as money.



You can already see the seeds of totalitarianism in this statement.

It's not an approach, it's how people will interact with the economy naturally without property. Houses have varying use values and varying labor costs, so no, they do not all have the same value. Quality products almost always have extra labor put into them to make them such, otherwise they would be standard, so there's no issue of value in socialism here. How are labor vouchers 'corruptible'?

[liberlict]

what you're describing is still a state.

If that's what a state is, then I'm pretty confident a 'state' will always exist, even if a communist utopia eventuates. Unless you think nobody will ever trespass on property in a communist society. Even if its community owned, I'm sure there will eventually be one individual who decides to vandalize community property. When the local committee goes through all its democratic and works out a method to restrain the vandal (assuming the meeting didn't take too long and allow the vandal to leave ), the response to stop him will equate to "organised violence to protect property", therefore a state. The only other option for you is that you believe people will be so perfect under communism there will never be a vandal.

[evermilion]

If that's what a state is, then I'm pretty confident a 'state' will always exist, even if a communist utopia eventuates. Unless you think nobody will ever trespass on property in a communist society. Even if its community owned, I'm sure there will eventually be one individual who decides to vandalize community property. When the local committee goes through all its democratic and works out a method to restrain the vandal (assuming the meeting didn't take too long and allow the vandal to leave ), the response to stop him will equate to "organised violence to protect property", therefore a state. The only other option for you is that you believe people will be so perfect under communism there will never be a vandal.

This is an interesting point, but you've made a noticeable mistake in assuming that property is even a valid concept at the point of communism. Remember, communism is an epoch unto itself. By this time, there is government without state. Property will not exist because profits won't exist. Personal defense and the defense of personal affects are not the same as coercive enforcement of property. No one's pickpocketing if they can eat freely. Vandalism may occur out of the turmoil of adolescence or even the expression of an artist, but that's damage that can be measured in labor. The kind of damage that can't be measured is the violence done to the people by the state under capitalism. There's no need for violence at that point. I doubt "vandalism" will be a pervasive problem if you mean violence towards the structure of physical objects. If you mean graffiti, we'll probably recognize it as a form of popular expression by then.

[liberlict]

Well, in a communist society, it's in one's self-interest to make sure it stays that way, since if society were to return to a previous mode of production, their hierarchical nature means that one is more likely to end up as a peon or wage-slave rather than a noble or a high-flying capitalist.

Not really, even if a communist society is the wonderland you believe it will be, it will still be more rational to maximize your opportunities within that society. People don't stop dreaming of something better just because of prosperity. After-all, we're no less acquisitive than we were 1000 years ago, even though we're much better off.

Of course, I believe that any attempts to implement communism will reduce human welfare, so opposition to it will be rational in the sense you speak of as well.



You know that demand can be manufactured, right? Especially if there's profit to be made in convincing people they "need" iPads, Coca-Cola, whatever, that sort of thing.


For real? Please PM me the formula. I'm always on the ball for an easy get rich quick plan. I'd love to manufacture some demand for grains of sand :D

[liberlict]

This is an interesting point, but you've made a noticeable mistake in assuming that property is even a valid concept at the point of communism. Remember, communism is an epoch unto itself. By this time, there is government without state. Property will not exist because profits won't exist. Personal defense and the defense of personal affects are not the same as coercive enforcement of property. No one's pickpocketing if they can eat freely. Vandalism may occur out of the turmoil of adolescence or even the expression of an artist, but that's damage that can be measured in labor. The kind of damage that can't be measured is the violence done to the people by the state under capitalism. There's no need for violence at that point. I doubt "vandalism" will be a pervasive problem if you mean violence towards the structure of physical objects. If you mean graffiti, we'll probably recognize it as a form of popular expression by then.

You can call it "private property", "communal property", "property", or whatever you like. If you accept that there will have to be protection of property in a communist society, what you are talking about is functionally equivalent to what you call a state in capitalism.

I mean things like theft, murder and such. 1 in 100 people are psychopaths. Even if the rest of us become altruists in the communist society, those people have a genetic disposition to manipulate others.

[Bardo]

For real? Please PM me the formula. I'm always on the ball for an easy get rich quick plan. I'd love to manufacture some demand for grains of sand :D

Step 1 - Purchase vast amounts of sand
Step 2- Own a marketing and advertising firm
Step 3 - Pay off national children's television networks for commercial air time
Step 4 - Pay off Hannah Montana to hold a bag of Super Awesome Magic Sand ® on her show
Step 5 - Profit!!!

You're welcome.

[liberlict]

Step 1 - Purchase vast amounts of sand
Step 2- Own a marketing and advertising firm
Step 3 - Pay off national children's television networks for commercial air time
Step 4 - Pay off Hannah Montana to hold a bag of Super Awesome Magic Sand ® on her show
Step 5 - Profit!!!

You're welcome.

If you think people are that stupid, there is no way they will ever be enlightened enough to participate in communism.

[Bardo]

I don't expect nor desire children to participate in the labor force under any social or economic order. They are however, a very valuable target for industry under the current one.

It's like selling candy to a baby....

[liberlict]

I don't expect nor desire children to participate in the labor force under any social or economic order. They are however, a very valuable target for industry under the current one.

It's like selling candy to a baby....

It's a great tribute to capitalism that people have disposable incomes to the extent that they can waste it on useless shit.

[Bardo]

It's a great tribute to capitalism that people have disposable incomes to the extent that they can waste it on useless shit.

And it's an inexcusable failure of capitalism that the useless shit that a small minority frivolously purchases is produced by an impoverished majority who can't even afford what they're producing.

[liberlict]

And it's an inexcusable failure of capitalism that the useless shit that a small minority frivolously purchases is produced by an impoverished majority who can't even afford what they're producing.

If you're talking about the developing world, the reason they are poor is because they are underdeveloped. You need capitalism to be productive. Even lord Marx said so.

[Rurkel]

It's a great tribute to capitalism that people have disposable incomes to the extent that they can waste it on useless shit.
Yes, some workers, while still exploited, live relatively well compared to the 19th century. Is it a tribute to capitalism, or to workers' struggles inside the capitalistic system? Even pro-labour liberals wouldn't accomplish a thing haven't it been for labour unrest and the implicit threat of anti-capitalist violence.


If you're talking about the developing world, the reason they are poor is because they are underdeveloped. You need capitalism to be productive. Even lord Marx said so.
That's simplistic. Capitalism doesn't necessary mean "development", capital is perfectly content with leaving some areas undeveloped, as long as it is profitable. "Development" is not the goal of capitalism, though, as it pursues profits, some "development" can occur, yes - and some can be prevented.

[liberlict]

I never said capitalism means development. You need a few things to develop prosperity. Capitalism is one. You also need development. You also need cultural capital, good government, environmental stability, and others. Overall prosperity is a tricky balance of factors.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I partly agree, but not for your reasons. Human nature is not a good term because it's incredibly vague. In its essence it's getting at the idea that the human species of mammal has genetic dispositions. And I don't think that any educed person could deny homo sapiens have these dispositions; If they do, they don't deserve to be listened to.

To intelligently discuss human nature you have define exactly what kind of behavior can be predicted. As it happens, evolution is driven by adaptation. Humans that have adapted to new environments have passed on their genes. Thus adaptability is an extremely important part of capability. In this sense socialists are right in predicting that we are malleable to new circumstances. But we are not malleable to the extent that we can be conditioned to act contrary to our self interests. Whatever adaptability there is, it can only be so that people act differently in their own self interest.

None of this makes much sense, for several reasons. First of all, genetic change happens over time scales that are significantly bigger than the characteristic time scales of cultural change. Human "malleability", as you put it, is not the result of biological evolution, but technological development etc. etc.

Second, "self interest" is an ideological term. The Christian thinks that it is in his self interest to live a life of deprivation, for example.

Third, under the most common modern notions of "self interest", the communist revolution is very much in the interest of the proletariat. That is what communism is - not some paternalistic attempt to Do The People Good, but the movement of the proletariat and of the oppressed classes to destroy the present society that is holding them back.

[liberlict]

None of this makes much sense, for several reasons. First of all, genetic change happens over time scales that are significantly bigger than the characteristic time scales of cultural change. Human "malleability", as you put it, is not the result of biological evolution, but technological development etc. etc.

Um, no. The reason the cat species are not very malleable is because they lack higher mental functions like language, creativity, introspection, imagination etc. Homo sapiens evolved these processes, and they are the sole reason why we can develop any kind of complex culture at all, let along a dynamic culture that changes rapidly.


Second, "self interest" is an ideological term. The Christian thinks that it is in his self interest to live a life of deprivation, for example.

Some, do. Most don't now that they have the option not to. The congruence of prosperity and the decline of religion is not a coincidence.


Third, under the most common modern notions of "self interest", the communist revolution is very much in the interest of the proletariat. That is what communism is - not some paternalistic attempt to Do The People Good, but the movement of the proletariat and of the oppressed classes to destroy the present society that is holding them back.

The proletariat is not a monolith. It is made up of individuals. Thinking, reasoning, calculating individuals.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not really, even if a communist society is the wonderland you believe it will be, it will still be more rational to maximize your opportunities within that society.

How so? Since unequal societies have a majority of have-nots, the greater the chances are that one will get screwed.

That is neither rational nor in one's self-interest.


People don't stop dreaming of something better just because of prosperity. After-all, we're no less acquisitive than we were 1000 years ago, even though we're much better off.

Problem is that for the vast majority of people on this planet, capitalism doesn't guarantee a better life.


Of course, I believe that any attempts to implement communism will reduce human welfare, so opposition to it will be rational in the sense you speak of as well.

Except that you're wrong. Communism would represent an enormous improvement in human welfare, even including those who would be divested of absurd sums of wealth. If for no other reason that they would no longer be alienated from the rest of the world.


For real? Please PM me the formula. I'm always on the ball for an easy get rich quick plan. I'd love to manufacture some demand for grains of sand :D

There isn't a specific formula, in fact why should there be? If you can convince people to pay over the odds for some mediocre product on the power of branding alone, then you can sell your grains of sand.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Um, no. The reason the cat species are not very malleable is because they lack higher mental functions like language, creativity, introspection, imagination etc. Homo sapiens evolved these processes, and they are the sole reason why we can develop any kind of complex culture at all, let along a dynamic culture that changes rapidly.

The point was not that culture is, somehow, not based on the biological characteristics of the human species, or that these characteristics are not the result of evolution. Obviously, culture emerges from biological phenomena and biological characteristics are determined by evolutionary processes (though it should be noted that this does not mean every trait represents an adaptation to some niche). The point was, and that should have been clear from the context, is that your attempt to "prove" the "malleability" of the human species from its potential for genetic change simply does not work. In fact, bacteria have a far greater potential for genetic change and have adapted to a wider variety of environments, but obviously they are not as "malleable" as humans.


Some, do. Most don't now that they have the option not to. The congruence of prosperity and the decline of religion is not a coincidence.

It might not be a coincidence, but prosperity does not directly cause the decline of religion - otherwise the United States should be far less religious than China. This is besides the point, in any case. There are several notions of what is in any individual's interest, so any theory that acts as if there exists some supra-social standard of interest has to select one of those notions and argue that it is the "correct" one. You seem to have simply assumed that your notion of self-interest is the only one, period.


The proletariat is not a monolith. It is made up of individuals. Thinking, reasoning, calculating individuals.

What does it mean to say that the proletariat is "made up of" individuals? Obviously this is true in a trivial sense, but so is the statement that the proletariat is made out of phospholipids. The implication seems to be that the proletariat is simply a temporary grouping of individuals, without any other distinguishing features or explanatory value. And that is blatantly false. No theory that focuses on individuals has been able to explain anything about the structure and development of society, whereas those theories that disregard individuals and focus on classes, tendencies, strata, etc. etc., have.

[liberlict]

How so? Since unequal societies have a majority of have-nots, the greater the chances are that one will get screwed.

That is neither rational nor in one's self-interest.



I thought we were talking about how a person would act in a communist society, so there wouldn't be any "have nots".?




Problem is that for the vast majority of people on this planet, capitalism doesn't guarantee a better life.

Indeed. But it is the only system that has generated wealth so far. Your claims remain theoretical.




Except that you're wrong. Communism would represent an enormous improvement in human welfare, even including those who would be divested of absurd sums of wealth. If for no other reason that they would no longer be alienated from the rest of the world.

That's a big assertion, and there's no historical evidence to back it.




There isn't a specific formula, in fact why should there be? If you can convince people to pay over the odds for some mediocre product on the power of branding alone, then you can sell your grains of sand.

If you can convince people to waste their money, which you're right you can, it suggests things are pretty good. Any artificial demand is at a huge disadvantage to an actual demand. So in the cut and thrust of capitalism they will be the first weeded out.

[liberlict]

your attempt to "prove" the "malleability" of the human species from its potential for genetic change simply does not work. .

No not from the "potential" for genetic change, from the fact that adaptability at the organism level is a trait that humans have been selected for. Lord, obviously I'm not suggesting that humans might have future mutations that might be useful in allowing cultural change.




It might not be a coincidence, but prosperity does not directly cause the decline of religion - otherwise the United States should be far less religious than China. This is besides the point, in any case. There are several notions of what is in any individual's interest, so any theory that acts as if there exists some supra-social standard of interest has to select one of those notions and argue that it is the "correct" one. You seem to have simply assumed that your notion of self-interest is the only one, period.

Identifying a persons particular meaning system, goals, whatever, is irrelevant. The point is that a person can be expected to act strategically to peruse their goals, whatever they are, not this abstraction called workers--which at this point will more or less encompass everybody in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory


What does it mean to say that the proletariat is "made up of" individuals? Obviously this is true in a trivial sense, but so is the statement that the proletariat is made out of phospholipids. The implication seems to be that the proletariat is simply a temporary grouping of individuals, without any other distinguishing features or explanatory value. And that is blatantly false. No theory that focuses on individuals has been able to explain anything about the structure and development of society, whereas those theories that disregard individuals and focus on classes, tendencies, strata, etc. etc., have.

It means that members of the proletariat in a communist society will peruse goals independently, not on behalf of the proletarian class.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought we were talking about how a person would act in a communist society, so there wouldn't be any "have nots".?

You said that it would be rational in a communist society to "maximise your opportunities", which I took to mean "start acting like a capitalist and/or try to bring capitalism back", since you didn't otherwise elaborate.

I'm saying that it wouldn't be rational to do so because bringing back capitalism is likely to make things worse for oneself for the reason I was explaining.


Indeed. But it is the only system that has generated wealth so far.

Nonsense. Slave and feudal societies also generated wealth.


Your claims remain theoretical.

So what? Capitalism was also theoretical at one point.


That's a big assertion, and there's no historical evidence to back it.

My argument wasn't based on history. It was based on the fact that while there is a whole lot of wealth in the world, it's mostly under the control of a tiny fraction of the people involved in actually creating it.

I also hardly think it controversial to assume that being rich enough never to have to worry about a steady income or paying the bills or whatever is going to give one a distorted view of economic justice


If you can convince people to waste their money, which you're right you can, it suggests things are pretty good.

No, it suggests that humans are not completely rational economic actors.

[liberlict]

You said that it would be rational in a communist society to "maximise your opportunities", which I took to mean "start acting like a capitalist and/or try to bring capitalism back", since you didn't otherwise elaborate.

I'm saying that it wouldn't be rational to do so because bringing back capitalism is likely to make things worse for oneself for the reason I was explaining.

No single individual can be expected to reckon that his own actions, in this case acting in an entrepreneurial manner, will bring about the downfall or communism. Because rationally, it won't. The sum of many mens actions, of course, will affect the whole. An historical example is the kulaks --they were better off under the Bolsheviks, because the landowners has been run off the farms. But they never reckoned that by being traitors to the revolution, and hording and selling their grain on the black market, they would be fucking up the socialist agenda. People dont think collectively they think individually.




Nonsense. Slave and feudal societies also generated wealth.

Yeah, extremely concentrated wealth.




So what? Capitalism was also theoretical at one point.

Not really. Capitalism was never a conscious movement. It just evolved.



No, it suggests that humans are not completely rational economic actors.

They are rational in the sense that they can be expected to peruse their goals. Not much more can be said for sure, although I certainly have my speculations.

[Rurkel]

You also need development. You also need cultural capital, good government, environmental stability, and others.
Capitalism doesn't have a good record on environmental stability, and capitalistic states' governance often would not be described as "good" by many people who happened to fall under it. Capitalism can easily promote backwardness - uneven and combined development and all that.


Yeah, extremely concentrated wealth.
The measure of wealth redistribution under capitalism is not achieved out of capitalists' kindness. Individual capitalists could practice charity, but modern class compromise (that isn't doing that well recently anyway) is a result of worker's struggle.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No not from the "potential" for genetic change, from the fact that adaptability at the organism level is a trait that humans have been selected for. Lord, obviously I'm not suggesting that humans might have future mutations that might be useful in allowing cultural change.

You seemed to be saying that cultural adaptability hinges on genetic adaptability. In any case, it is far from obvious that "adaptability at the organism level" is a trait humans have been selected for; it seems more likely to me that it is a consequence of other, more relevant traits, the increased capacity for tool use (including the use of complex schemata) for example.


Identifying a persons particular meaning system, goals, whatever, is irrelevant. The point is that a person can be expected to act strategically to peruse their goals, whatever they are, not this abstraction called workers--which at this point will more or less encompass everybody in the world.

Again, there is nothing abstract about the proletariat or about the community. This narrow model of "perfect economic rationality" simply does not describe how humans act.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

It should be noted that game theory "proved" that Reagan's budget cuts would result in decreased spending. They did the exact opposite. Game theory is a popular subject for those that try to explain society in an idealistic manner because it has a scientific aura, and is sufficiently "cute" for popular consumption, but its actual successes are... well they're inexistent.


It means that members of the proletariat in a communist society will peruse goals independently, not on behalf of the proletarian class.

There will be no proletarian class in communist society, nor any class for that matter. Once again, people do not always act out of individual interest, and individual, corporate and mass interest need not conflict. In fact, at present there is no conflict between the individual interest of most proletarians and the interest of the proletariat as a class. There is quite a conflict between both of those interests and the interests of the bourgeoisie, both as individuals and as a class - good riddance to the bourgeoisie, then.

[Roberto]

As a libertarian I feel I can give you all the information you might want about this trend.

instead of writing so much I decided to give you some examples of what makes people realise they in fact support personal freedom and small state.
Add these parts to youtube url:

Bill Whittle:
battle of ideas
watch?v=_dwz_Z62e0s

free enterprise
watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE&list=PLABCC53F051B98328&index=44

wealth creation
watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q&list=PLABCC53F051B98328&index=46

natural law
watch?v=7TSiJ2Gp058&list=PLABCC53F051B98328&index=47


Milton Friedman:
greed
watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

respocibility to the poor
watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA

pay equality
watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

robin hood myth
watch?v=5Wx5PYZIWcQ

[liberlict]

You seemed to be saying that cultural adaptability hinges on genetic adaptability. In any case, it is far from obvious that "adaptability at the organism level" is a trait humans have been selected for; it seems more likely to me that it is a consequence of other, more relevant traits, the increased capacity for tool use (including the use of complex schemata) for example.

Good for you. Well, Darwin disagreed and so do I:

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.
- Charles Darwin"




"there is nothing abstract about the proletariat or about the community."

Er, yes there is. Pretty much all the terms we think and speak in are abstractions. There are some debatably non-abstract "first-principles" like numbers, mathematical operators, "I think therefore I am", and shit like that. Logical Positivism tried to build a system based on such fundamental axioms, and it's generally considered to have failed. Like it or not, abstractions are the main currency of communication, particularly in disciplines like sociology or politics etc. The question is not about whether something is abstract, it's about how useful a particular abstraction is for explaining reality; It's "cash value" as William James put it. Marx though that "proletariat" was a very important abstraction. Hitler thought that "German" was. There are many useful places to begin analysis. Communists are obsessed with the idea of class. But it's a very narrow view of the world, and a failed one in application.




game theory "proved" that Reagan's budget cuts would result in decreased spending.

No It didn't. Game theory cannot deal with phenomena like that.




here will be no proletarian class in communist society, nor any class for that matter. Once again, people do not always act out of individual interest, and individual, corporate and mass interest need not conflict. In fact, at present there is no conflict between the individual interest of most proletarians and the interest of the proletariat as a class. There is quite a conflict between both of those interests and the interests of the bourgeoisie, both as individuals and as a class - good riddance to the bourgeoisie, then.


No-one's suggesting that people always act selfishly. The point is that they act differently. Even on a tiny scale in a unit such as a family, which has shared genes, individuals frequently act in a way that damages the group. Such can be expected in any group, including the "proletariat". Your conception of a world full of people all acting out of primary regard for the group is foolish. It sounds awful too.

[evermilion]

You can call it "private property", "communal property", "property", or whatever you like. If you accept that there will have to be protection of property in a communist society, what you are talking about is functionally equivalent to what you call a state in capitalism.

The post you're quoting in your response ought to have pretty clearly indicated that I don't accept that there is protection of property.


I mean things like theft, murder and such. 1 in 100 people are psychopaths. Even if the rest of us become altruists in the communist society, those people have a genetic disposition to manipulate others.

I'm not only certain that estimate is wrong, but pretty sure, too, that those with mental struggles who harm people are not getting sufficient treatment. Communists expect that kind of a problem to have been solved by this point as well. Again, if you're talking about petty theft, what would be the point when there's free access to anything you could need? And what would be the damage if someone took something that was in some other guy's house? It'd be at most an inconvenience.

Keep in mind defense of life and limb isn't the same as protection of private property.

[liberlict]

Communists expect that kind of a problem to have been solved by this point as well.

Lucky for your movement, mostly they don't. Well at least not the ones I've spoken to. I don't think you should appoint yourself as a spokesman for communism. You don't represent your comrades well.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Bill Whittle:
battle of ideas
watch?v=_dwz_Z62e0s


So I watched this one and It's ridiculous. It's comparison of the French and American revolutions completely ignores the fact that the former represented an overthrowing of an entrenched class in power while the latter was a war of independence. The American enemy was across the sea or in uniform for the most part, the French was far less open. This is nonsense idealism that clings to bourgeois ideas of morality. Why is it wrong to take action to cause or secure an overturning of a social order for the betterment of society? He quoted Hobbes which I thought was funny because he ignores the fact that Hobbes accepted the right to defend yourself from aggression with aggression in the absence of mediating structures. Aggression in the form of the oppression of one class by another, with the state as little more than an arm of the oppressor class, would justify aggression back under Hobbesian thought, but that wouldn't fit the nonsense narrative he's trying to draw. America's political elite wasn't much changed by its revolution because it wasn't that kind of revolution and that is why it didn't have the same violence as the French.

He also strangely asserts that jury trials are antithetical to the so called "unconstrained" theories and somehow ignores the democratic nature of many of those theories. It's just more AMERICA CAPITALISM ALL GOOD NEVER BAD. ALL OTHER FORMS BAD nonsense. Like capitalism hasn't killed millions.

[Roberto]

ignores the fact that the former represented an overthrowing of an entrenched class in power while the latter was a war of independence.

Why is it wrong to take action to cause or secure an overturning of a social order for the betterment of society?

He quoted Hobbes.

America's political elite wasn't much changed by its revolution because it wasn't that kind of revolution and that is why it didn't have the same violence as the French.

He also strangely asserts that jury trials are antithetical to the so called "unconstrained" theories and somehow ignores the democratic nature of many of those theories. It's just more AMERICA CAPITALISM ALL GOOD NEVER BAD. ALL OTHER FORMS BAD nonsense.

Like capitalism hasn't killed millions.

The circumstances of the enemy being close or far are irrelevant to the case. Both were revolutions of people who did not want to be ruled by a monarch.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

So I don`t know what are you talking about.

He quoted Hobbes on the nature of humans not on other things, if Stalin said something correct I can quote him without taking his whole worldview. For instance I could not agree more that 1 death is a tragedy and million is a statistic.

You are not presenting any constructive criticism you are only spitting out hate and repulsion towards him and his `america-loving right-wing reactionarysm` you are not debating you are ranting my good man.

If any of those theories were democratic in nature we would not see splits between social-democracts, communists, anarchists, trotskyites or even modern day purge-happy nature of leftists movements and their social constructions.

[evermilion]

Lucky for your movement, mostly they don't. Well at least not the ones I've spoken to. I don't think you should appoint yourself as a spokesman for communism. You don't represent your comrades well.

I'm not sure who the hell you've been talking to. All over this board I've seen you insist up and down things about communism that, even across the spectrum, no communist is actually endorsing. Given that, you're not one to talk about misrepresenting my comrades.

[liberlict]

I'm not sure who the hell you've been talking to. All over this board I've seen you insist up and down things about communism that, even across the spectrum, no communist is actually endorsing. Given that, you're not one to talk about misrepresenting my comrades.

Maybe I've just been lucky, but in my experience most communists don't envision that a society will ever be free from deviance, mental illness and crime.

Anyway, in regard to your treatment idea for psychopaths. Here's what professionals have to say about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Management

Clinical management [edit]
Psychopathy has often been considered untreatable. Harris and Rice's Handbook of Psychopathy says that there is little evidence of a cure or effective treatment for psychopathy; no medications can instill empathy, and psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy might become more adept at manipulating others and more likely to commit crime.[98] The only study finding increased criminal recidivism after treatment was in a 2011 review a retrospective study with several methodological problems on a today likely not approved treatment program in the 1960s. Some relatively rigorous quasi-experimental studies using more modern treatment methods have found improvements regarding reducing future violent and other criminal behavior, regardless of PCL-R scores, although none was a randomized controlled trial. Some other studies have found improvements in risk factors for crime such as substance abuse. No study had in a 2011 review examined if the personality traits could be changed by such treatments.[5] It has been shown in some studies that punishment and behavior modification techniques may not improve the behavior of psychopaths.[99]

[evermilion]

Maybe I've just been lucky, but in my experience most communists don't envision that a society will ever be free from deviance, mental illness and crime.

Then who, in a society of abundance, is thieving? Who, in a society of comprehensive mental and physical health care and a totally shifted paradigm with regards to cognitive differences, is dangerously insane? Who, in a society without a state, can possibly commit a crime?

"Lucky" isn't the word I'd use, exactly.

And I see no reason as to why I shouldn't except the inevitability of the social integration of those suffering from psychopathy.

[liberlict]

Ok. I see that there is no hope for you. Good bye.

[evermilion]

Ok. I see that there is no hope for you. Good bye.

That's one way to admit you have no business on these boards.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

@Roberto
I thought that point was pretty clear since I stated it explicitly at the end of the first paragraph: "America's political elite wasn't much changed by its revolution because it wasn't that kind of revolution and that is why it didn't have the same violence as the French." You, Thomas and I seem to be united in opposition to what was said in the video. Violence was necessary to overthrow the old order.

The Hobbes point is significant because my conclusion follows directly from Hobbes' hypothesis about the natural state of man. Unless you are willing to drop the natural rights to life, liberty and property and the right to use force to protect them my conclusion is inevitable. I'm not even going to bother dealing with your Stalin straw man, my defense of socialism doesn't require a defense of every human who's ever called themselves a socialist.

What I said is only a rant because you disagree with it (or perhaps because you don't understand the points being made?). I first dealt with his strange moralistic argument that because the American revolution was less violent it must be the right ideology. Then I pointed out the contradictions in his conclusions about man (i.e. that under his hypothesis one has the right to protect themselves with violence). Finally I did a bit of housekeeping and pointed out jury trials and democracy are fully consistent with socialism. I responded exactly to what was in the video, if you're not going to actually think about the arguments made then there's no point in debating.

Your suggestion that parties can't split in a democracy is almost beneath acknowledging at all. Do parties in bourgeois democracies not expel members who work against what the party believes?

[sierranegra]

Then who, in a society of abundance, is thieving? Who, in a society of comprehensive mental and physical health care and a totally shifted paradigm with regards to cognitive differences, is dangerously insane? Who, in a society without a state, can possibly commit a crime?

"Lucky" isn't the word I'd use, exactly.

And I see no reason as to why I shouldn't except the inevitability of the social integration of those suffering from psychopathy.

I generally agree with what you have said to librlict, but I'm not so sure that in a communist society there would be no violence of the kind he's cocnerned about. I agree that such a society implies a radical transformation of how we experience our being in the world, but is that an insurance in regards of a complete lack of violence? Out of curiosity, how do you propose a communist society deal with someone who murders?

[Comrade Anarchist]

Let us bring our heads from asses and see. Communism / marxism/ social anarchism/ social democrats/ revleft, are ideologies that exist almost solely on the internet in the first world. You have a little march every now and then and some college kids have little badges that make them feel good and different as they yell occupy or some other horse shit. But really all these ideologies are dead to the real world and only find homes in poor countries not allowed to develop for some reason or in the hearts and computers of annoying teens, lazy young adults, and power hungry old fucks. And by the way how would you describe 90% of this site - "mostly white, male, middle class teenagers and young adults, who spend lots of time on the Internet."

Now to your question. Libertarians have been around since the earliest form of anarchism. They are just the full expression of classical liberalism. There are some notable anarchists who leaned towards a libertarian mindset Spooner, Tucker come to mind. But for your more modern day disciples it is more of an extreme form of or intellectual reaction to the populism that is being revitalized in this country. They are just as fringe as everyone here and always will be because the middle majority will always prefer a strong state that they complain about but are glad is there to wipe their ass.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Let us bring our heads from asses and see. Communism / marxism/ social anarchism/ social democrats/ revleft, are ideologies that exist almost solely on the internet in the first world.
That's quite odd, because last I checked, a good friend of mine escaped from a third-world country two decades ago solely because he was being targeted for being a member of one of the above groups you've mentioned.

Seriously, bud. Even as a form of slander that was absolutely piss poor.


You have a little march every now and then and some college kids have little badges that make them feel good and different as they yell occupy or some other horse shit.



But really all these ideologies are dead to the real world and only find homes in poor countries not allowed to develop for some reason

Could that 'some reason' be because of a real, existing economic system based around maximizing profit, part of which includes keeping the living standards of historically colonialised nations low so that higher surplus can be extracted from them?

These ideologies are 'dead' because of the enormous (and often extremely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%931974) militant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d'%C3%A9tat)) backlash against them over the past century by a majority of - shock and awe! - capitalist governments.


or in the hearts and computers of annoying teens, lazy young adults, and power hungry old fucks.
All of whom must be whipped back into shape and work for their kind, egalitarian businesses without question! Lazy bums, not following your dated and obnoxious protestant work-ethic.

Love the addition of the 'power hungry' line.


And by the way how would you describe 90% of this site - "mostly white, male, middle class teenagers and young adults, who spend lots of time on the Internet."

While I concede to you on this point that the majority of this website includes such demographics, there are clearly many other members who are much older than that, are not white skinned, have been involved in actual struggles and are not internet lovers (not to say this is mutually exclusive).

I also disagree with the original poster's sentimental repudiation in the first place - It's just that libertarianism can quite clearly be observed as an extremely popular political orientation among webgoing teenagers (at least, those who don't have jobs yet).


But for your more modern day disciples it is more of an extreme form of or intellectual reaction to the populism that is being revitalized in this country.
The populism that's being revitalised? Hello!? It never went away! What about the red trials, Vietnam, the war on drugs, etc?


They are just as fringe as everyone here and always will be because the middle majority will always prefer a strong state that they complain about but are glad is there to wipe their ass.

I seriously don't know what to say to this democrat-esque bile. Claiming that the 'fringe' (republicanism was once fringe politics - I would've thought that at least a Stirnerist would understand that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy) is worthless as the middle-class, that arbitrary labeling based on ones' salary and not ones' place in economic structures, will for some reason always wish for a strong and capitalist state to 'wipe their arse', even though half of Europe is currently being shot with austerity measures, is just too stupid, essentialist and detached a claim to even warrant a response.

[Orange Juche]

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I see the growing popularity of libertarianism (in the United States particularly) as almost being a 21st century parallel to fascism in the early portion of the 20th century.

We're in a time of economic crisis, and people are grasping for something appealing with pretty jargon that makes the world make sense... a solution that makes them feel like everything can be safe and ok and wonderful. People, at least in the US, are largely scared of words like "socialism" and "communism" and "anarchism" largely as a leftover due to the red scare, (and I'm not trying to start a tendency war) and because the versions of "socialism" we have seen haven't played out well. Fascism has an even worse image in the public eye. Libertarianism is all that's left.

[Marxaveli]

Fascism has an even worse image in the public eye.

I wouldn't say that is entirely true. Both communism and fascism are hated in the US, but I would say the latter less so. Although America decries fascism in general, it nevertheless has had a soft spot for it (many people may not like the ideology in general but are attracted to certain elements of it i.e. a fostering of strong nationalism/patriotism, preservation of traditional values, anti-communist rhetoric, etc). And, it has also sponsored fascist dictatorships in the past, and is a strong supporter of Israel and Zionism (which can be argued as being a form of Israeli fascism). And the US itself is beginning to have many characteristics of fascism (although we resemble Mussolini's form of it much more so than Hitler's Germany).

[Doflamingo]

That's one way to admit you have no business on these boards.

Nah, that's just what rightists do when you prove them wrong. They get passive-aggressive. :laugh:

[Atilla]

Libertarians in the US are strange mostly i.e: tea partiers.

[Forward Union]

Alright people we can end this thread now, Chomsky has spoken.

a1rK4PsP0zY

[Doctor Hilarius]

I think many of you underestimate the American libertarians.

They have the "Free State Project", where they move to New Hampshire and change law through civil disobedience and politics.

In many respects, they have been more successful than the left. Those of you who claim that they are confined to the internet are really downplaying something that is relatively serious.

[Orange Juche]

In many respects, they have been more successful than the left. Those of you who claim that they are confined to the internet are really downplaying something that is relatively serious.

I keep saying that they're the 21st Century's answer to Fascism. At least in America, the idea of what Franco or Mussolini or Hitler did just isn't in the mix, due to culture and history. The right won't buy into that.

But its rise, to me, resembles fascism. As the economy drags along and people continue to suffer, more and more people are suddenly attracted to this new (right wing) idea that seems to have all the answers. Those who oppose it are "idiots" and "sheeple", there's a clear view that anyone who disagrees is of lesser intelligence and are slaves to the current order (in their minds). They seem to fall quickly in line, questioning nothing (bring up any strong evidence that makes Ron Paul look bad and the libertarians backpedal and repeat the same nonsense over and over, for example). The anarcho-capitalists are just a more arrogant, self-entitled, ignorant and clearly sheltered in privilege version of traditional right wing libertarianism.

People are turning right (in that direction) more than they are left, at least in America. The left still has a black eye from McCarthyism, and that's our biggest challenge - realistically - in America. Overcoming that ever pervasive social acceptance of the idea that "socialism obviously fails".

[liberlict]

I agree that such a society implies a radical transformation of how we experience our being in the world, but is that an insurance in regards of a complete lack of violence? Out of curiosity, how do you propose a communist society deal with someone who murders?

There wouldn't be anybody who murders or steals or rapes or sins in a communist society. Because, you see, crime is a product of inequality and in the future communist fantasy land we will all simply work and chant and hold hands.

[Fourth Internationalist]

There wouldn't be anybody who murders or steals or rapes or sins in a communist society. Because, you see, crime is a product of inequality and in the future communist fantasy land we will all simply work and chant and hold hands.

There wouldn't likely be no crimes because most are, as you said, a product of class society. However I would imagine there would be a future justice and prison system for the few cases of crime and the prison population would be incredibly small (like, very very small) and more about rehabilitation than punishment.

[liberlict]

there would be a future justice and prison system for the few cases of crime and the prison population would be incredibly small (like, very very small) and more about rehabilitation than punishment.

Sounds lovely.

[Craig_J]

I think many of you underestimate the American libertarians.

They have the "Free State Project", where they move to New Hampshire and change law through civil disobedience and politics.

In many respects, they have been more successful than the left. Those of you who claim that they are confined to the internet are really downplaying something that is relatively serious.

I agree, don't underestimate them. They even have the Tea Party in America which is very similar to anarcho-capitalism, it has been refered to 'minarchism' with a miminal state only interested in crime. They wouldn't interfer witht he economy at all and would leave capitalism to itself. They have got fairly signifcant support in America, certainly much more support than the left does.

[Craig_J]

There wouldn't be anybody who murders or steals or rapes or sins in a communist society. Because, you see, crime is a product of inequality and in the future communist fantasy land we will all simply work and chant and hold hands.

From every post I've read from you I've thought that you're not a leftist, to be honest it seems like you're more of a wind up merchant than someone of any political position.

Yes, there probably would be reduced crime in a equal society. What's the point in stealing of everyone when they have nothing more to steal then you do. There would be no point in stealing something upon which you have no ownership of. There'd be no fraud, corprate and white-collar crime as the instituions wouldn't exist to promote the need, create the means and supply the methods which are needed in order to do this.

There would of course still be other crime going on, rape being one of them. Yeah it wouldn't go away because of communism. But by the same note it wouldn't go away under capitalism. It will likely always exist, reducing it and reprimanding offenders is the only thing you can do.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Sounds lovely.

I know that's why I'm a socialist and why you should be one too. :D

[Doctor Hilarius]

I keep saying that they're the 21st Century's answer to Fascism. At least in America, the idea of what Franco or Mussolini or Hitler did just isn't in the mix, due to culture and history. The right won't buy into that.

But its rise, to me, resembles fascism. As the economy drags along and people continue to suffer, more and more people are suddenly attracted to this new (right wing) idea that seems to have all the answers. Those who oppose it are "idiots" and "sheeple", there's a clear view that anyone who disagrees is of lesser intelligence and are slaves to the current order (in their minds). They seem to fall quickly in line, questioning nothing (bring up any strong evidence that makes Ron Paul look bad and the libertarians backpedal and repeat the same nonsense over and over, for example). The anarcho-capitalists are just a more arrogant, self-entitled, ignorant and clearly sheltered in privilege version of traditional right wing libertarianism.

People are turning right (in that direction) more than they are left, at least in America. The left still has a black eye from McCarthyism, and that's our biggest challenge - realistically - in America. Overcoming that ever pervasive social acceptance of the idea that "socialism obviously fails".

I honestly think much of this is the result of better funding for the libertarian movement. They have more outreach and more money. The Koch brothers support a lot of it.

It is overshadowing the left right now because the left has almost no visibility. There are exceptions with organizations such as Food Not Bombs (which should be a model for the left imo).

You can't argue with giving food to the homeless, and the crackdown on them from time to time unmasks the power and true nature of the society in which we live.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ok, guys like the poster above me said, lolbertarians are not winning people over because their message is so strong. They're winning because they have heavy financial backers. They have billionaires willing to donate as much as it takes to introduce right wing market and libertarian ideas into society.

[liberlict]

I know that's why I'm a socialist and why you should be one too. :D

Well, I mean if we are going to countenance whatever nirvana fallacy seems most appealing, I suppose the hand-holding visions of communists are worth considering. Even so, I'm not sure it would be my choice. Involves a bit too much group think for my tastes.

[Captain Ahab]

Well, I mean if we are going to countenance whatever nirvana fallacy seems most appealing, I suppose the hand-holding visions of communists are worth considering. Even so, I'm not sure it would be my choice. Involves a bit too much group think for my tastes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
What groupthink? Have you seen the immense diversity of socialists out there?

[#FF0000]

Involves a bit too much group think for my tastes.

I've disagreed with literally every communist I've ever met.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Better than that, take a look at the other bits of this forum. Ideological shit-fights and sectarian bickering ain't exactly hard to come by.

There are things we agree on, certainly. However, everything else is quite literally up for argument.

Besides, if the radical left really suffered from groupthink, you would have thought that we would have fewer plaintive calls for radical left unity.

[liberlict]

Better than that, take a look at the other bits of this forum. Ideological shit-fights and sectarian bickering ain't exactly hard to come by.

There are things we agree on, certainly. However, everything else is quite literally up for argument.

Besides, if the radical left really suffered from groupthink, you would have thought that we would have fewer plaintive calls for radical left unity.

I don't mean so much that left-wing revolutionaries suffer from groupthink. I mean that for this global workers paradise to come about it would require a golden age of groupthink.

[RadioRaheem84]

If anything is groupthink its bourgeoise capitalists in their insistence that anything contrary to liberal democratic capitalism is vulgar and immature.

The thing that gripes me the most about the left is the lack of unity and the sectarian fights that happen all the time.

[liberlict]

If anything is groupthink its bourgeoise capitalists in their insistence that anything contrary to liberal democratic capitalism is vulgar and immature.

It's not just 'bourgeois capitalists' who dismiss the left. It's ''proletarians" [using scare quotes because I reject these taxa] as well. I am not a capitalist. "vulgar" is not the adjective I would use either. Maybe 'naive'.


The thing that gripes me the most about the left is the lack of unity and the sectarian fights that happen all the time.

[#FF0000]

Yo I wish people would stop using "capitalist" to describe people who think capitalism is a good thing. "Capitalist" isn't someone who subscribes to an ideology. It's a class/a member of the "capitalist" class.

[Captain Ahab]

I don't mean so much that left-wing revolutionaries suffer from groupthink. I mean that for this global workers paradise to come about it would require a golden age of groupthink.
As if it were impossible for large groups of individuals to want or desire communism. I wonder if you would have agreed with similar assessments of the democratic republic in feudal times.

[liberlict]

As if it were impossible for large groups of individuals to want or desire communism. I wonder if you would have agreed with similar assessments of the democratic republic in feudal times.

I think it's possible for large groups of people to desire communism. During crisis, people can easily become radicalized to put their faith in all sorts of things, communism being one. It's the actual functioning of communism that I think requires an unappealing and impossible level of mindless conformity to the group at the expense of the individual.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's the actual functioning of communism that I think requires an unappealing and impossible level of mindless conformity to the group at the expense of the individual.

What on earth is this supposed to mean? Mindless conformity to the group?

How does workers' control over the means of production translate into 'everyone wears the same clothes and eats the same food' for you people?

[liberlict]

It's because there can be no markets, or free enterprise, or private property. Stripping workers of the opportunity to own things like property and technology asks them to make a sacrifice for the sake of the group. I personally don't want to live in a society like this.

[#FF0000]

It's because there can be no markets, or free enterprise, or private property. Stripping workers of the opportunity to own things like property and technology asks them to make a sacrifice for the sake of the group. I personally don't want to live in a society like this.

Woah, who said people can't have technology, though? And what do you mean when you say "property", exactly?

[BIXX]

It's because there can be no markets, or free enterprise, or private property. Stripping workers of the opportunity to own things like property and technology asks them to make a sacrifice for the sake of the group. I personally don't want to live in a society like this.

You know nothing of communism.

[liberlict]

Woah, who said people can't have technology, though? And what do you mean when you say "property", exactly?


I mean, O.K, for example: say I invent something. Some kind of means of production. Like a computer. Or a steam engine. Under communism I cannot sell that technology to other people to use, or hire to people to work for me using that technology.

By property, I mean, like a 'house'.

[liberlict]

You know nothing of communism.

I'm here to learn my friend.

[#FF0000]

I mean, O.K, for example: say I invent something. Some kind of means of production. Like a computer. Or a steam engine. Under communism I cannot sell that technology to other people to use, or hire to people to work for me using that technology.

Yep you got that part right.


By property, I mean, like a 'house'.

There's a distinction between "private property" and personal property, though. Consumer goods, things you produce and make yourself, and land that you live on are all personal property. Private property refers to "the means of production".

[liberlict]

Yep you got that part right.



There's a distinction between "private property" and personal property, though. Consumer goods, things you produce and make yourself, and land that you live on are all personal property. Private property refers to "the means of production".

I can own land under communism?

[#FF0000]

I can own land under communism?

Yeah -- to live on.

[liberlict]

Yeah -- to live on.

Do I get to choose where it is?

[#FF0000]

Do I get to choose where it is?

Sure.

[liberlict]

Sure.

Oh come on, you know that's not true. Land is scarce. There's no way every person can choose to live where they want to.

[#FF0000]

Oh come on, you know that's not true. Land is scarce. There's no way every person can choose to live where they want to.

Oh I thought you were trying to set something up with that line of questions.

But yeah it's obvious not gonna be as simple as "i want that patch of land pls". There would have to be some way to distribute land and housing but I don't think it's even possible to give any definitive answers on how that would be done. It would be pure speculation.

[liberlict]

Yeah, so basically it gets down to the 'community' deciding where I can live. Does not appeal to me.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, so basically it gets down to the 'community' deciding where I can live. Does not appeal to me.

They already sort of do, though. Just the community would get together in some way to figure out the zoning and planning for the city. From there, who knows, but I can think of a few ways to pick who gets what individual house/apartment. As it is now, people moving into certain apartments have to apply for them. So, there could be something like that. Maybe a lottery system for highly contested houses or something.

To be honest given the problems associated with capitalism (Homelessness, poverty in the midst of plenty), this seems like a minor inconvenience to deal with.

[liberlict]

Maybe a lottery system for highly contested houses or something.



That's interesting. Seems bizarre to me though to leave it to rank luck. I mean why not use labor vouchers or something, and try to give the high demand real estate to those who contributed the most?

[BIXX]

Oh come on, you know that's not true. Land is scarce. There's no way every person can choose to live where they want to.

Be careful of the word scarce. While it seems to imply there is a shortage of something, it does not mean that. It simply means there is not an infinite supply. So I guess that means it's great that we have a finite number of people. I did some calculations, and it resulted in 224,974.1375 sqft per person. Not per family, per person, in the whole world. Of course I was assuming that everyone would also be willing to set aside enough land to grow crops and stuff, but the point is that we have more than enough room. 1 person can sustain themselves on far less than an acre, and there are examples of families of 5 living off of three, and my calculations show that one person could get 5 acres. I highly doubt people would be unwilling to set aside land for cultivation, due to these high numbers.

Plus, you actually could get pretty much a house that suited you every time. I mean, every now and then (if say, you moved twice a year) you wouldn't be able to find a house you liked. But for the most part people have different preferences, so it wouldn't be hard to get a house for each individual that they would like.

However, I fail to see why you not getting an amazing perfect house and being able to keep it all to yourself is seen as a failure. I mean, these days, for the most part, people do not get to love in an amazing house, and most of them do not get to own it at all. Why should it matter if you are asked to make room for other people?

And on a final note, what constitutes "high demand" real estate? The size of the house? That would imply that mansions would be in extremely high demand . However, this would only create labour do the residents, because in the absence of maids and money to give people to clean your house, it is most likely that others would not go and clean your house. So, you'd have people live with you and everyone would clean their section. Thus, making that idea of high demand irrelevant.

Maybe high demand is decided based on the ease of living? Well, that one is easy: under communism people could make any house the way they like it, so "ease of living" is fallacious right out of the gate. It assumes that someone cannot modify their house.

Now, haha, I can't say that the view a house has will change under communism, or that it would be irrelevant for some reason.

[Conscript]

Yeah, so basically it gets down to the 'community' deciding where I can live. Does not appeal to me.

Like it or not it already does through the market.

Land is scarce, yes, but so is every other commodity. It still manages to be distributed somewhat according to preference, with a lot of based on feasibility. It will be no different in communism, although to achieve relative abundance of land is different from other commodities since we can't really 'produce' it.

People more productive have more to choose from. If you want more, do something more of value, or create technology that helps alters the supply of land to make it more abundant. There has to be a balance or nobody gets anything they want, it is the same way in the market.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm always perplexed by the libertarians guffaw sort of reactions to Marxist solutions to things and how they think they're not adequate enough solutions. Like when they say that giving health care to everyone means that they'll get sub par quality care, meaning they won't all get the golden door champagne suite hospital rooms celebs have their babies in. The luxuries will be limited. But do they not realize that adequate health care is still health care? That dealing with problems in a post capitalist society is better than dealing with capitalist externalities?

How can they sneer at the solutions we come up while defending the massive inequalities left in the wake of their beloved system?

[MarxArchist]

Yo I wish people would stop using "capitalist" to describe people who think capitalism is a good thing. "Capitalist" isn't someone who subscribes to an ideology. It's a class/a member of the "capitalist" class.

It would be more fitting to describe them as suffering the mental disorder below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Or in the broader non racial sense an uncle Tom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

In a historical sense like the misguided serfs who defended their feudal lords as other serfs rebelled. Like the slaves in Rome who took up arms against fellow slaves in the various slave revolts/wars. We can just call them reactionary idiots.

[liberlict]

Like it or not it already does through the market.

If you want more, do something more of value, or create technology that helps alters the supply of land to make it more abundant.

So under communism I will be rewarded for satisfying demand? I thought it was 'for each according to his ability', not 'for each according to his ability to solve the land scarcity problem'?

[BIXX]

So under communism I will be rewarded for satisfying demand? I thought it was 'for each according to his ability', not 'for each according to his ability to solve the land scarcity problem'?

Did you read my post? At all? No real land scarcity problem. But also, no, you are just increasing the ability of people to have more land. Also, communism doesn't say everyone gets the same amount of land, rather, you'd get land according to your need, and whatever is left over is divided equally.

If you are so obsessed with being above others (as your rampant inability to accept equality) then you don't belong here.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So under communism I will be rewarded for satisfying demand? I thought it was 'for each according to his ability', not 'for each according to his ability to solve the land scarcity problem'?

If you want to do work on skyscrapers and artificial islands, I'm sure that in a communist society, you and others interested in such endeavours could make the case that the highly inelastic supply of land would be a good argument for resources to be devoted to such efforts. If your work turns out to benefit society, then you'll have a place in the history books as the one who revolutionised urban design and transformed the civic landscape.

I'd certainly support it, because the better use that society makes of the land, the better off I'll be as a member of that society. But under capitalism, skyscrapers and artificial islands aren't constructed for the benefit of society. They're constructed for profit. Which is why we get absurdities like space going to waste (http://hereisthecity.com/2013/06/03/shard-mostly-empty-despite-sky-high-ambitions/) despite the fact that society has the people and resources to take advantage of it; it's just not profitable for certain controlling interests to do so.

[liberlict]

If you want to do work on skyscrapers and artificial islands, I'm sure that in a communist society, you and others interested in such endeavours could make the case that the highly inelastic supply of land would be a good argument for resources to be devoted to such efforts. If your work turns out to benefit society, then you'll have a place in the history books as the one who revolutionised urban design and transformed the civic landscape.

I'd certainly support it, because the better use that society makes of the land, the better off I'll be as a member of that society. But under capitalism, skyscrapers and artificial islands aren't constructed for the benefit of society. They're constructed for profit. Which is why we get absurdities like space going to waste (http://hereisthecity.com/2013/06/03/shard-mostly-empty-despite-sky-high-ambitions/) despite the fact that society has the people and resources to take advantage of it; it's just not profitable for certain controlling interests to do so.

I don't know why you have a problem with empty mansions. They are empty so that people can have a choice whether they want a mansion or not. It is called 'sellers stock'. This place would never have been built in the first place unless somebody thought they were going to get something out of it. It's no more 'absurd' than when you go into Target and see clothes sitting on the rack that haven't been bought yet.

Having said that, way too many homes were built during the housing bubble orchestrated by Alan Greenspan. The bubble burst, and all of that phony home equity disappeared.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know why you have a problem with empty mansions. They are empty so that people can have a choice whether they want a mansion or not.

What about the people who want a roof over their heads? Do they not matter? What about their choices?


It is called 'sellers stock'. This place would never have been built in the first place unless somebody thought they were going to get something out of it. It's no more 'absurd' than when you go into Target and see clothes sitting on the rack that haven't been bought yet.

You will note that in the example I highlighted, the Shard has been mostly empty for over a year since it's construction. The people who own the place aren't getting anything out of it, because empty lots generate no rent.

It would be like a clothing shop that's been open for a year and yet receives only 10% of the customers they were expecting, while at the same time people are shivering outside for a lack of clothing.

Society has no shortage of either clothing or housing, yet people are going without both. How is that not the cruellest of cruel absurdities?


Having said that, way too many homes were built during the housing bubble orchestrated by Alan Greenspan. The bubble burst, and all of that phony home equity disappeared.

You don't seem to realise that I am criticising the socieconomic system that allows such bubbles to happen in the first place. Greenspan is irrelevant in the grander scheme of things because bubbles are perfectly capable of happening without his minor influence.

[Sotionov]

I don't know why you have a problem with empty mansions.
Them being mansions maybe. Something in the manner of:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of nations

[RadioRaheem84]

You don't seem to realise that I am criticising the socieconomic system that allows such bubbles to happen in the first place. Greenspan is irrelevant in the grander scheme of things because bubbles are perfectly capable of happening without his minor influence.


I think this is key to understanding our debates with libertarians, liberals and conservatives. They take the current system as a given, so debating it is like debating why the earth revolves around the sun. It just does, in their eyes.

[Baseball]

You will note that in the example I highlighted, the Shard has been mostly empty for over a year since it's construction. The people who own the place aren't getting anything out of it, because empty lots generate no rent.

It would be like a clothing shop that's been open for a year and yet receives only 10% of the customers they were expecting, while at the same time people are shivering outside for a lack of clothing.

Society has no shortage of either clothing or housing, yet people are going without both. How is that not the cruellest of cruel absurdities?


But what does this have to do with a critique of capitalism in general, as opposed to a critique of the decisions of the owners/managers of the Shard? Surely you do not claim that workers in the socialist community will never make a mistake in their allocation of resources?

[RadioRaheem84]

But what does this have to do with a critique of capitalism in general, as opposed to a critique of the decisions of the owners/managers of the Shard? Surely you do not claim that workers in the socialist community will never make a mistake in their allocation of resources?

Mistakes will be made and corrected but there won't be this whole notion that people without a home or food is just a natural part of life excuse. New problems will arise from a socialist society but they will still be problems that are far better than living under capitalist externalities.

The notion that there is this unfortunate juxtaposition between great wealth and great poverty will not be a presupposition that guides society.

[liberlict]

What about the people who want a roof over their heads? Do they not matter? What about their choices?

"matter"? Matter, is a relative term. My choices preferring to fuck Kate Moss instead of my fairly average girlfriend "matter", in some some sense, to me and my friends, but it's not logical to support a social system based on peoples individual wants. It results in those who have the most power to enforce their wants dominating. Well, I should revise; It's not logical unless inequality is satisfactory to you; it's not logical if what you want is a utilitarian sharing of the worlds productive resources.



You will note that in the example I highlighted, the Shard has been mostly empty for over a year since it's construction. The people who own the place aren't getting anything out of it, because empty lots generate no rent.

"The Shard" is in London.

It would be like a clothing shop that's been open for a year and yet receives only 10% of the customers they were expecting, while at the same time people are shivering outside for a lack of clothing.


"The Shard" is in London. There is not a huge problem with hunger and shivering in London. Where there is, it is attributable to social problems such as drugs and mental illness, which are not something i think it's ethical to dismiss, but they are not something to pin on capitalism. I don't know about you, but I don't think nationalizing The Shard and making it a homeless shelter will really solve anything meaningful. Poverty is most rampant in places where capitalism isn't, like most of Africa, The Middle East, South America, etc. Marx was a complete agreement with me on this, as I'm sure you know. Capitalism must come before communism, according to Marxian lore.


Society has no shortage of either clothing or housing, yet people are going without both. How is that not the cruellest of cruel absurdities?

Capitalist countries don't have a problem with clothing or food. Find me link about a person who starved or froze to death in a capitalist country. Yeah, didn't think you could. In the developing world, which Marx said must rapidly advance to capitalism, then these problems are pandemic. O.K. So the solutions are either (a) Aid. (b) colonialism. Aid doesn't work because underdeveloped nations don't have the institutions to distribute it among themselves. Colonialism is not moral.


You don't seem to realise that I am criticising the socieconomic system that allows such bubbles to happen in the first place. Greenspan is irrelevant in the grander scheme of things because bubbles are perfectly capable of happening without his minor influence.
I'm aware of your convictions.

[liberlict]

Them being mansions maybe. Something in the manner of:

A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of nations

I'm agreeing with Adam Smith here.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"matter"? Matter, is a relative term. My choices preferring to fuck Kate Moss instead of my fairly average girlfriend "matter", in some some sense, to me and my friends, but it's not logical to support a social system based on peoples individual wants. It results in those who have the most power to enforce their wants dominating. Well, I should revise; It's not logical unless inequality is satisfactory to you; it's not logical if what you want is a utilitarian sharing of the worlds productive resources.

Difference being that there's only one Kate Moss, and she's a person with her own goals and aspirations that will likely not include sleeping with you or your friends. Those are not problems with food and shelter, of which there is plenty and none of which has a mind of its own.


"The Shard" is in London. There is not a huge problem with hunger and shivering in London.

Yes there is (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22717665). Homelessness too (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/20/homeless-rough-sleepers-rise-london).


Where there is, it is attributable to social problems such as drugs and mental illness, which are not something i think it's ethical to dismiss, but they are not something to pin on capitalism.

Not in and of themselves, but capitalism can certainly be blamed for exacerbating such problems and/or leaving them to fester. There's little that's immediately profitable about housing the homeless and feeding the hungry (unless you consider healthier and happier people to constitute a material bonus like I do), but there's plenty of quick cash to be made in the War on Drugs and selling off public health services to private interests.


I don't know about you, but I don't think nationalizing The Shard and making it a homeless shelter will really solve anything meaningful.

It won't abolish capitalism that's for sure, but the newly-housed people will be better-off and there'll be no longer usable empty space going to waste, which I consider a superior outcome to what is currently happening.


Poverty is most rampant in places where capitalism isn't, like most of Africa, The Middle East, South America, etc. Marx was a complete agreement with me on this, as I'm sure you know. Capitalism must come before communism, according to Marxian lore. Capitalist countries don't have a problem with clothing or food. Find me link about a person who starved or froze to death in a capitalist country. Yeah, didn't think you could.

All countries are capitalist, so there are plenty of examples.


In the developing world, which Marx said must rapidly advance to capitalism, then these problems are pandemic. O.K. So the solutions are either (a) Aid. (b) colonialism. Aid doesn't work because underdeveloped nations don't have the institutions to distribute it among themselves. Colonialism is not moral.

The developing world is capitalist, what on Earth makes you think it isn't?


I'm aware of your convictions.

Are you aware that economic bubbles precede Mr Greenspan's birth by at least two centuries? That is why I find it utterly ludicrous for you to blame the current crisis on such ideological daemons when it's the same old sorry story of the folly of capital all over again.

[BIXX]

Capitalist countries don't have a problem with clothing or food. Find me link about a person who starved or froze to death in a capitalist country. Yeah, didn't think you could.

http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/HardColdFacts.pdf

"Homeless people die on the streets from exposure to cold"

Second page asswipe. Do some research.

In Moscow, the homeless walk all night trying not to freeze:

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=18057192&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3Dtv HeUdS3CoeniAKYloHwCQ%26q%3Dhomeless%2Bfreezing%2Bd eath%26oq%3Dhomeless%2Bdeaths%2Bfre%26gs_l%3Dmobil e-gws-serp.1.0.0i22i30.19433.27481.0.28725.20.19.1.0.0.1 0.167.2135.6j13.19.0....0...1c.1.20.mobile-gws-serp.XPexx1OvoTI

There is also a hunger problem:

http://huffpost.com/us/entry/2339675


And this is just in the developed countries. Imagine what I would get if I widened my search to every capitalist country- which would mean the entire world.

[liberlict]

Difference being that there's only one Kate Moss, and she's a person with her own goals and aspirations that will likely not include sleeping with you or your friends. Those are not problems with food and shelter, of which there is plenty and none of which has a mind of its own.

I must have mis-conveyed my point. My analogy is not between human beings and inanimate objects, it's just about peoples wants. People's wants do matter, as you argued, and I agree. You can replace Kate Moss's vagina with any scarce object. Say, a Maserati 11,000-Mile Chrysler. My wants for one of these matters, but not as a societal goal.


Yes there is (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22717665). Homelessness too (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/20/homeless-rough-sleepers-rise-london).


Food banks? Food banks being utilized signifies people are NOT starving. Every time a person gets treated at a food bank this is an example of a person who is hungry NOT being left to starve. When I say give me an example of a person starving, I mean a person who is hungry because of a widespread scarcity of food, caused by crop failures, population unbalance, or government policies like you you see in ostensibly socialist ecconomies.
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/starved-of-food-starved-of-the-truth-how-kim-jong-un-suppresses-his-people/story-fndir2ev-1226616134393
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm


Not in and of themselves, but capitalism can certainly be blamed for exacerbating such problems and/or leaving them to fester. There's little that's immediately profitable about housing the homeless and feeding the hungry (unless you consider healthier and happier people to constitute a material bonus like I do), but there's plenty of quick cash to be made in the War on Drugs and selling off public health services to private interests.

There are no solutions to drugs and substance abuse problems. They are just problems that have to be mitigated, like cancer or heart disease; whether it's an X, Y, or Z economy. In any free society there will be people who turn to substance abuse to cope with their mental illness. Self-destruction is part and parcel of being free.




It won't abolish capitalism that's for sure, but the newly-housed people will be better-off and there'll be no longer usable empty space going to waste, which I consider a superior outcome to what is currently happening.

No, because nobody with capital will invest in constructing houses if they know communists are just going to expropriate it to give to the poor. So instead of having an empty mansion, you will have an empty plot of land, which there are plenty of already. Would you prefer empty plots of land to empty mansions?




All countries are capitalist, so there are plenty of examples.


All countries have elements of capitalism, and elements of communism. The failing'capitalist' countries are crippled by mafia economics that depends on symbiotic relationships between business people and government officials, favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme bla bla bla. Marx was quite adamant that capitalism must eclipse these "primal" economies before socialism can be possible, so I don't know why you want to disagree with me on this, even if you diisagree with my overall weltanschauung.




The developing world is capitalist, what on Earth makes you think it isn't?

As above.




Are you aware that economic bubbles precede Mr Greenspan's birth by at least two centuries? That is why I find it utterly ludicrous for you to blame the current crisis on such ideological daemons when it's the same old sorry story of the folly of capital all over again.

Yes I am. I don't think the business cycle is mysterious to anyone who doesn't live under a rock. There are many reasons why there are ebbs and flows in capitalism. Mostly due to credit inflated credit caused by excessive creation of bank credit. Economic cycles are endemic to capitalism, which is an unfortunate part of reality, like cancer and diabetes, but communism is worse.

[liberlict]

http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/HardColdFacts.pdf

"Homeless people die on the streets from exposure to cold"

Second page asswipe. Do some research.

In Moscow, the homeless walk all night trying not to freeze:

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=18057192&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3Dtv HeUdS3CoeniAKYloHwCQ%26q%3Dhomeless%2Bfreezing%2Bd eath%26oq%3Dhomeless%2Bdeaths%2Bfre%26gs_l%3Dmobil e-gws-serp.1.0.0i22i30.19433.27481.0.28725.20.19.1.0.0.1 0.167.2135.6j13.19.0....0...1c.1.20.mobile-gws-serp.XPexx1OvoTI

There is also a hunger problem:

http://huffpost.com/us/entry/2339675


And this is just in the developed countries. Imagine what I would get if I widened my search to every capitalist country- which would mean the entire world.

Please do widen your search, because the links are useless.The first one ('second page asswipe'), doesnt give any location where this is happening, which is relevant.


Homeless persons die on the streets from exposure to the cold. In the coldest
areas, homeless persons with a history of frostbite, immersion foot, or
hypothermia have an eightfold risk of dying when compared to matched nonhomeless controls.5

If you follow the reference it says:


O’Connell, Jim, MD. Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations: A Review of the
Literature Nashville: National Health Care for the Homeless Council, December 2005.

I don't have access to this, can you point me to where I can find it?

The huffingtonpost article returns a 404.

The other article is about Russia. I think we all know Russia is a complete fuckhole, fueled by a mafia economy. Blaming Russia's current social ills on capitalism is as illogical as me blaming Soviet Union famines on communism. There is very little capitalism in Russia. And as I keep repeatedly saying, according to you own prophet sire Marx, Capitalism must develop the productive forces before socialism is possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I must have mis-conveyed my point. My analogy is not between human beings and inanimate objects, it's just about peoples wants. People's wants do matter, as you argued, and I agree. You can replace Kate Moss's vagina with any scarce object. Say, a Maserati 11,000-Mile Chrysler. My wants for one of these matters, but not as a societal goal.

So? If there's something that you want which is not available for whatever reason, then you'll have to either make it yourself in your plentiful spare time, become involved with a collective that's doing something similar to what you want, or try to convince enough of your fellows that it would be a worthwhile use of common resources to start making whatever it is on a social scale.


Food banks? Food banks being utilized signifies people are NOT starving.

Nonsense. In the first place, you need to be in a desperate enough situation to be referred to a food bank by JobCentre, Citizen's Advice, etc. Secondly, even if one qualifies for a food bank voucher, most have limits on the amount of times one can redeem vouchers, thus making them not a long-term solution even if we discount the band-aid nature of the help given.


Every time a person gets treated at a food bank this is an example of a person who is hungry NOT being left to starve.

It's not a coincidence that food banks have multiplied in the wake of savage cuts to welfare and benefits. Where people previously could go shopping along with everyone else, now they increasingly turn to charity handouts because the poor are being made to pay for the mistakes of the rich.


When I say give me an example of a person starving, I mean a person who is hungry because of a widespread scarcity of food, caused by crop failures, population unbalance, or government policies like you you see in ostensibly socialist ecconomies.
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/starved-of-food-starved-of-the-truth-how-kim-jong-un-suppresses-his-people/story-fndir2ev-1226616134393
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

So wait a minute, are you saying that someone has to be actually starving to death before you think it's reasonable to give them help? You're saying that you're fine with undernourishment and malnourishment as long as people aren't actually dying because of it? Does it bother you that people suffer poor health because of their shitty diets which are the only thing they can really afford on shitty wages?


There are no solutions to drugs and substance abuse problems. They are just problems that have to be mitigated, like cancer or heart disease; whether it's an X, Y, or Z economy. In any free society there will be people who turn to substance abuse to cope with their mental illness. Self-destruction is part and parcel of being free.

There are solutions. Mental health treatment for anyone who needs it and asks for it. The end of the War on Drugs. Such measures won't create a perfect world, but they would make it considerably more bearable because people with mental issues would be able to get the help they need, and they won't be stigmatised and treated like a criminal for introducing substances into their own bodies.


No, because nobody with capital will invest in constructing houses if they know communists are just going to expropriate it to give to the poor. So instead of having an empty mansion, you will have an empty plot of land, which there are plenty of already. Would you prefer empty plots of land to empty mansions?

Yes, then we could use those empty plots to build some housing that's actually fit for purpose. Oh, you thought "people with capital" actually did the work? Newsflash: they're rent-seeking parasites!


All countries have elements of capitalism, and elements of communism. The failing'capitalist' countries are crippled by mafia economics that depends on symbiotic relationships between business people and government officials, favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme bla bla bla. Marx was quite adamant that capitalism must eclipse these "primal" economies before socialism can be possible, so I don't know why you want to disagree with me on this, even if you diisagree with my overall weltanschauung.

Because none of the shit you mention has anything to do with communism. For a start, there are no "business people" of any kind in a communist society.


As above.

Try again.


Yes I am. I don't think the business cycle is mysterious to anyone who doesn't live under a rock. There are many reasons why there are ebbs and flows in capitalism. Mostly due to credit inflated credit caused by excessive creation of bank credit. Economic cycles are endemic to capitalism, which is an unfortunate part of reality, like cancer and diabetes, but communism is worse.

I don't know how you can say that, since there hasn't yet been a communist society from which to draw a comparison.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is why I hate libertarians. They'll sit there and tell you that people don't starve in the US, that drug addiction is just a natural thing like cancer so it cannot be battled efficiently, crises in capitalism are endemic so the life altering roller coaster that it puts workers through is worse than communism?

How is it that they only see the positives of capitalism in a few select nations among a few select of the population in those select nations? What about the rest of the fducking world? What about the poor in those select nations?

[Baseball]

So? If there's something that you want which is not available for whatever reason, then you'll have to either make it yourself in your plentiful spare time, become involved with a collective that's doing something similar to what you want, or try to convince enough of your fellows that it would be a worthwhile use of common resources to start making whatever it is on a social scale.

But again, the absence of any sort of analysis, from a socialist angle, is missing.

Look at this way:

1. If something you want is not available, why is that the case? You suggest the person could just make it himself (but what if that person simply doesn't have an aptitude for such things?) Its scarcely solves the problem.

2. Join a collective which does similiar things-- but why should people who want certain items have to join and physically build those items. I live in the northeast USA. What if I want lots of bananas? I would suspect banana collectives would be in short supply in my neck of the woods.

3. Convincing other people of the merits of the product so as to convince them to produce it-- that's actually the most fascinating suggestion. Let's think about this-There would first of all need to be a mechanism for people to determine whether the effort of production was worth it. It would have to be a universal mechanism since it must be assumed that products currently in production need some sort of justification for their production. People needing the product-even just one person- cannot be the justification, since after all, you are freely admitting products may not be produced unless there is demonstrable benefit for that production for a larger segment of the population.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But again, the absence of any sort of analysis, from a socialist angle, is missing.

Look at this way:

1. If something you want is not available, why is that the case? You suggest the person could just make it himself (but what if that person simply doesn't have an aptitude for such things?) Its scarcely solves the problem.

Well liberlict was talking about things like luxury cars, which in terms of priority are way down the list compared a whole bunch of other things, including other kinds of motor vehicles made for more utilitarian purposes. So any lack of availability would be down to fact that people are currently devoting labour and resources to other things.

As "problems" go, a lack of luxury cars is hardly a major one.


2. Join a collective which does similiar things-- but why should people who want certain items have to join and physically build those items. I live in the northeast USA. What if I want lots of bananas? I would suspect banana collectives would be in short supply in my neck of the woods.

Doubtless many of your neighbours would want bananas as well, so all of you would have to make some kind of mutual arrangement with other people in other areas who can grow bananas. Although I expect that you personally won't have to do the negotiating - such tasks should be delegated to those who are best at serving the needs of their communities in such a fashion.


3. Convincing other people of the merits of the product so as to convince them to produce it-- that's actually the most fascinating suggestion. Let's think about this-There would first of all need to be a mechanism for people to determine whether the effort of production was worth it. It would have to be a universal mechanism since it must be assumed that products currently in production need some sort of justification for their production.

It sure as hell ain't any kind of price system, since the price of an object and its functional utility are only loosely connected at best. Nice try, though.


People needing the product-even just one person- cannot be the justification, since after all, you are freely admitting products may not be produced unless there is demonstrable benefit for that production for a larger segment of the population.

How the fuck does anyone "need" a luxury motor vehicle? Bananas are a fruit and as such they constitute part of a healthy diet and therefore could reasonably be argued to be "necessary", but people can live perfectly fine without a set of wheels.

That's the fundamental insanity of the capitalist price system - it doesn't compare apples and oranges, at least they're fruits; it treats luxury cars and bananas as completely interchangeable economic objects. Which simply isn't the case.

[liberlict]

So? If there's something that you want which is not available for whatever reason, then you'll have to either make it yourself in your plentiful spare time, become involved with a collective that's doing something similar to what you want, or try to convince enough of your fellows that it would be a worthwhile use of common resources to start making whatever it is on a social scale.

Fortunately, I don't have to organize a collective, I can just go down to the Maserati dealership and purchase one made by specialists who are incentivized to make them at the highest quality for the lowest possible price. :/




Nonsense. In the first place, you need to be in a desperate enough situation to be referred to a food bank by JobCentre, Citizen's Advice, etc. Secondly, even if one qualifies for a food bank voucher, most have limits on the amount of times one can redeem vouchers, thus making them not a long-term solution even if we discount the band-aid nature of the help given.

lol I don't doubt there's a frustrating amount of red tape involved in getting food vouchers and financial insistence etc. Having been on welfare myself this is definitely my experience. But the fact remains people aren't dying of starvation, or coming anywhere close, in developed capitalist countries.




It's not a coincidence that food banks have multiplied in the wake of savage cuts to welfare and benefits. Where people previously could go shopping along with everyone else, now they increasingly turn to charity handouts because the poor are being made to pay for the mistakes of the rich.

I wouldn't have thought it was a 'coincidence', of course not. I wouldn't say is directly because of welfare cuts and such, just a more general downturn in the economy. Segue to you telling me all about the horrible instability in capitalism.



So wait a minute, are you saying that someone has to be actually starving to death before you think it's reasonable to give them help?

No. I'm saying that people have to be manifesting signs of starvation before it reasonable to classify them as starving.


You're saying that you're fine with undernourishment and malnourishment as long as people aren't actually dying because of it? Does it bother you that people suffer poor health because of their shitty diets which are the only thing they can really afford on shitty wages?

Gluttony and the 'western diet' is a problem that transcends class. It's an issue of peoples choices more than an economic one. It's actually cheaper to eat healthy than it is unhealthy. Most people in the west consume too many calories.




There are solutions. Mental health treatment for anyone who needs it and asks for it. The end of the War on Drugs. Such measures won't create a perfect world, but they would make it considerably more bearable because people with mental issues would be able to get the help they need, and they won't be stigmatised and treated like a criminal for introducing substances into their own bodies.

I support ending the war on drugs. I thinking your grossly underestimating the complexity of mental illness though.




Yes, then we could use those empty plots to build some housing that's actually fit for purpose. Oh, you thought "people with capital" actually did the work? Newsflash: they're rent-seeking parasites!

Yeah, I thought that the investors who bought the land put on their Dungarees, hard hats and steel cap boots, and carried out the construction of the place as well. I also naively assumed they do any required maintenance on the place as well. Thanks for that.


Because none of the shit you mention has anything to do with communism. For a start, there are no "business people" of any kind in a communist society.

I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is most of what you criticize as intrinsically 'capitalism', is in fact crony capitalism and mafia economics, which is historically typical of what Marx called "primal capitalism". It doesn't have anything to do with developed capitalism either.




I don't know how you can say that, since there hasn't yet been a communist society from which to draw a comparison.

I know. But there have been many attempts at it. And they all resulted in disaster, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.

[Baseball]

Well liberlict was talking about things like luxury cars, which in terms of priority are way down the list compared a whole bunch of other things, including other kinds of motor vehicles made for more utilitarian purposes. So any lack of availability would be down to fact that people are currently devoting labour and resources to other things.

As "problems" go, a lack of luxury cars is hardly a major one.


Priority to the majority perhaps - though a frequent critique of capitalism by socialists is that the former does not respond to the needs of minorities.
Is a "luxury" car of 1950 still a luxury in 2013? Doubtful.




Doubtless many of your neighbours would want bananas as well, so all of you would have to make some kind of mutual arrangement with other people in other areas who can grow bananas. Although I expect that you personally won't have to do the negotiating - such tasks should be delegated to those who are best at serving the needs of their communities in such a fashion.


OK-- so what would be the basis of a "mutual agreement" between people in banana growing regions and people in non-banana growing regions? It would seem money remains the best medium. Would it be "mutually beneficial" if people in banana growing regions had the same amount of money as they had prior to making an agreement with people in non-banana growing regions?



How the fuck does anyone "need" a luxury motor vehicle? Bananas are a fruit and as such they constitute part of a healthy diet and therefore could reasonably be argued to be "necessary", but people can live perfectly fine without a set of wheels.


And how does your need for a banana place an automatic obligation upon the growers of bananas? What is the nature of the "mutual benefit" which the appointed/elected negotiators debate?

[liberlict]

It sure as hell ain't any kind of price system, since the price of an object and its functional utility are only loosely connected at best. Nice try, though.


O.K, so what then? We all know you hate money, but there has to be some medium of exchange. I mean bartering was worked out to be laborious about the same time the wheel was invented. In a modern economy it would be simply impossible. You're looking for a currency that brings exchange values into alignment with use values. The only thing I can think of, given that labor is all that matters, is labor vouchers. But then you have the problems of quantifying different types of labor, and people having different laboring abilities. And nobody wants to clean toilets.

[BIXX]

O.K, so what then? We all know you hate money, but there has to be some medium of exchange. I mean bartering was worked out to be laborious about the same time the wheel was invented. In a modern economy it would be simply impossible. You're looking for a currency that brings exchange values into alignment with use values. The only thing I can think of, given that labor is all that matters, is labor vouchers. But then you have the problems of quantifying different types of labor, and people having different laboring abilities. And nobody wants to clean toilets.

A gift economy.

Read.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
It's not great but it is better than your understanding.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fortunately, I don't have to organize a collective, I can just go down to the Maserati dealership and purchase one made by specialists who are incentivized to make them at the highest quality for the lowest possible price. :/

Assuming you have the money to do so.

Can I ask why exactly you would want a Maserati? Do you just want a nice car, or are you seeking some kind of economic status symbol/signifier of conspicuous consumption?

Because if it's the latter, I have no problem with that kind of useless, egotistical and completely self-serving activity being curtailed. It's a product of a system that generates misery for billions as well as being a waste of resources that could have been spent on something more worthy.


lol I don't doubt there's a frustrating amount of red tape involved in getting food vouchers and financial insistence etc. Having been on welfare myself this is definitely my experience. But the fact remains people aren't dying of starvation, or coming anywhere close, in developed capitalist countries.

People don't have to be dying of starvation for their quality of life to be worse than it could otherwise be. Why do you find this simple concept so hard to undserstand?


I wouldn't have thought it was a 'coincidence', of course not. I wouldn't say is directly because of welfare cuts and such, just a more general downturn in the economy. Segue to you telling me all about the horrible instability in capitalism.

Wait a minute, are you seriously trying to tell me that completely unnecessary and ideologically-drive cuts to welfare, which is largely claimed by poor people, doesn't "directly" affect poor people?

Because that's pure nonsense. If one lives in a high-rent area (London) and one's Housing Benefit is reduced meaning one is no longer able to pay the rent, one moves out or is kicked out by the landlord. Since poor people aren't exactly in the best position to pay for the deposit for a new place as well as to move, is it any wonder that homelessness is increasing?


No. I'm saying that people have to be manifesting signs of starvation before it reasonable to classify them as starving.

Malnourishment and undernourishment are problems as well, and are probably more prevalent. In any case, people are suffering and that is a problem, no?


Gluttony and the 'western diet' is a problem that transcends class. It's an issue of peoples choices more than an economic one. It's actually cheaper to eat healthy than it is unhealthy. Most people in the west consume too many calories.

Poverty and obesity in the US (http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full)


How is poverty linked to obesity? It has been suggested that individuals who live in impoverished regions have poor access to fresh food. Poverty-dense areas are oftentimes called “food deserts,” implying diminished access to fresh food (7). However, 43% of households with incomes below the poverty line ($21,756) are food insecure (uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, sufficient food) (7). Accordingly, 14% of U.S. counties have more than 1 in 5 individuals use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The county-wide utility of the program, as expected, correlates with county-wide poverty rates (r = 0.81) (7). Thus, in many poverty-dense regions, people are in hunger and unable to access affordable healthy food, even when funds avail. The double-edged sword of hunger and poor availability of healthy food is, however, unlikely to be the only reason as to why obesity tracks with poverty.

There is evidence of the association between sedentariness, poor health, obesity, diabetes, other metabolic diseases, and premature death (8). Sedentary individuals move 2 h per day less than active individuals and expend less energy, and they are thereby prone to obesity, chronic metabolic disease, and cardiovascular death (9). More than half of county-to-county variance in obesity can be accounted for by variance in sedentariness (Fig. 1B). Overall, the poorest counties have the greatest sedentariness (Fig. 1C) and obesity.

Several reasons may explain why people living in poor counties are less active. One reason may be that violence tracks with poverty, thereby preventing people from being active out-of-doors. Similarly, parks and sports facilities are less available to people living in poor counties (5), and people who live in poverty-dense regions may be less able to afford gym membership, sports clothing, and/or exercise equipment. There are multiple individual and environmental reasons to explain why poverty-dense counties may be more sedentary and bear greater obesity burdens.

Also, you'd hardly call Mexico richer than the US, would you?

Mexico surpasses US in obesity levels (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/10173174/Mexico-surpasses-US-in-obesity-levels.html).


I support ending the war on drugs. I thinking your grossly underestimating the complexity of mental illness though.

Universal free access to mental health facilities can't hurt, though.


Yeah, I thought that the investors who bought the land put on their Dungarees, hard hats and steel cap boots, and carried out the construction of the place as well. I also naively assumed they do any required maintenance on the place as well. Thanks for that.

The point is that capitalists are unnecessary, no matter what John Galt types may say.


I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is most of what you criticize as intrinsically 'capitalism', is in fact crony capitalism and mafia economics, which is historically typical of what Marx called "primal capitalism". It doesn't have anything to do with developed capitalism either.

Capitalists, "crony" or otherwise, have an intrinsic incentive to roll back worker's rights, depress wages, abolish regulations, and so on because they get in the way of the most important thing of all: profits!


I know. But there have been many attempts at it. And they all resulted in disaster, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.

Crushed by overwhelming capitalist forces? Ayup. But that doesn't speak to the utility of communism, since if the situations were reversed then it would be the capitalists being crushed.


Priority to the majority perhaps - though a frequent critique of capitalism by socialists is that the former does not respond to the needs of minorities.

Capitalism responds to the needs of minorities alright, as long as they have enough money. That's the problem, having money is not a reliable indicator of how much one needs shit.


Is a "luxury" car of 1950 still a luxury in 2013? Doubtful.

Relevance?


OK-- so what would be the basis of a "mutual agreement" between people in banana growing regions and people in non-banana growing regions? It would seem money remains the best medium.

That's because you have no fucking imagination, and can only think in terms of money money money.


Would it be "mutually beneficial" if people in banana growing regions had the same amount of money as they had prior to making an agreement with people in non-banana growing regions?

What money, fool? The agreement I was talking about was being made in a context in which money was obsolete.


And how does your need for a banana place an automatic obligation upon the growers of bananas?

It doesn't, hence the need to negotiate a mutual agreement. Good grief, how fucking stupid are you?


What is the nature of the "mutual benefit" which the appointed/elected negotiators debate?

It could be because the banana-growing area needs/wants goods/services that the other area can provide, it could be because of some historical, cultural or political connection between the areas, or it could be for some other reason that I, a single person living in a completely capitalist world, am unlikely to conceive of, the kind of solutions generated by two entire communities of people living in a non-capitalist world.


O.K, so what then? We all know you hate money, but there has to be some medium of exchange. I mean bartering was worked out to be laborious about the same time the wheel was invented. In a modern economy it would be simply impossible. You're looking for a currency that brings exchange values into alignment with use values. The only thing I can think of, given that labor is all that matters, is labor vouchers. But then you have the problems of quantifying different types of labor, and people having different laboring abilities. And nobody wants to clean toilets.

Well, others have mentioned the gift economy, you've mentioned labour vouchers, and my preference is for a system of energy accounting (http://www.eoslife.eu/articles/23-economics/84-energy-accounting).

However, the real world being as messy and complicated as it is, it would not surprise me at all if the actual solution involved a combination of all those things, and maybe more. Gift economies in my estimation would certainly work at the smaller scales, at the level of personal exchange between individuals and for crafted and/or bespoke goods/services provided by individuals or small collectives. On the larger scales, labour vouchers could be refined with concepts from participatory economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics), and would suit for those sections of the economy limited by scarcity. Energy accounting, as a system predicated on abundance, would be suitable for dealing with the abundant sections of the economy and would operate on the "global" scale. Each system would be able to compensate for the shortcomings of the others.

[BIXX]

lol I don't doubt there's a frustrating amount of red tape involved in getting food vouchers and financial insistence etc. Having been on welfare myself this is definitely my experience. But the fact remains people aren't dying of starvation, or coming anywhere close, in developed capitalist countries.

No. I'm saying that people have to be manifesting signs of starvation before it reasonable to classify them as starving.

People starve to death in developed, capitalist countries all the damn time.

Happens in Portland, OR, frequently, and I doubt were too different from most of the US.

Happens in Moscow.

Happens in England.

Fuck you and your lack of research.

[liberlict]

A gift economy.

Read.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
It's not great but it is better than your understanding.

lol gifts? What's wrong with cash? Wouldn't it be better to give each other money than gifts? These 'gift-giving cultures' all relied on some sort of profit-motive, just not money. They all chased status/superstitioun/afterlife. Men can be motivated to do all sorts of stupid things for exotic or religious purposes, like the Aztecs tearing out the heats of live children because they thought they would be rewarded religiously somehow. Ideally though, the best option is money. Kinda like at Xmas time when we all put presents under the tree for traditional reasons. In reality, we all know that we'd prefer cold hard cash than whatever is in the parcel, but we do it because it's a tradition. Cash is better because you decide what to buy. In a gift-giving economy you're reliant on other people deciding what you want. What a vulgar, anonymous tyranny! Oh well, I guess this is where you end up if you follow the labor theory of value to its ultimate conclusion.

BTW, Linus Torvalds didn't give away the Linux Kernel. That's a load of bulllshit. He cobbled most of it together from other sources, most of them commercial (Unix), and din't give much retribution. Open Source software is mostly buggy and shit compared to commercial software. I wish it were otherwise, trust me, I am a software developer. If 'gift giving' is the ultimate aim of the communitarian movement maybe you should ask the owners of this forum why they are using commercial software instead of one of the many free and open source versions available.

http://hellboundbloggers.com/2010/05/18/free-open-source-forums/

[BIXX]

I said it's not great.

Modify it a bit though and it's good.

People just take what they need in a gift economy. They have no need for a money. I'll explain better in an edit.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I used to be one. I've always held extreme opinions, so, naturally, I was attracted to it. When the ''system'' is in trouble, people, primarily the politically and educationally conscious youth, search for alternatives. Anarcho-Capitalism hasn't been tried before, or at least that's what A-cappies argue, that may be another reason why it's attractive. However, I realised (nice1 Marx) the problem is capitalism itself, and no amount of alteration is going to alleviate the socioeconomic problems it causes. Furthermore, I also realised capitalism without the state is a fairytale. And a capitalism that doesn't eventually bring into existence monopolies and huge concentrated interests is a ridiculous notion that isn't based in reality. I do think it's petty-bourgeois utopianism.

I also fucking hate Mises, that snakelike piece of shit.

It's funny because you're now a hardline libertarian who worships Molyneux.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lol gifts? What's wrong with cash? Wouldn't it be better to give each other money than gifts? These 'gift-giving cultures' all relied on some sort of profit-motive, just not money. They all chased status/superstitioun/afterlife.

Presumably the kind of gift economy being operated in a post-capitalist context would be different to the kind of gift economy that operates in pre-capitalist contexts; the former being a conscious economic decision and the latter being an historic tradition.


Men can be motivated to do all sorts of stupid things for exotic or religious purposes, like the Aztecs tearing out the heats of live children because they thought they would be rewarded religiously somehow.

As if people never do desperate and/or stupid things for money.

[Baseball]

That's because you have no fucking imagination, and can only think in terms of money money money



What money, fool? The agreement I was talking about was being made in a context in which money was obsolete.



It doesn't, hence the need to negotiate a mutual agreement. Good grief, how fucking stupid are you?



It could be because the banana-growing area needs/wants goods/services that the other area can provide, it could be because of some historical, cultural or political connection between the areas, or it could be for some other reason that I, a single person living in a completely capitalist world, am unlikely to conceive of, the kind of solutions generated by two entire communities of people living in a non-capitalist world.
.

All this suggestion amounts to is a barter system, which cannot be considered a superior system of allocating resources.

As an aside, the suggestion is made that racial and ethnic considerations could be a major factor in production decisions. Such is odd, considerating socialism claim to be OPPOSED to such things, and its claim that racial divides are a result of capitalist activity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All this suggestion amounts to is a barter system, which cannot be considered a superior system of allocating resources.

It cannot be barter because it is not like-for-like, is on-going for as long as the agreement lasts and is not done for personal profit but for the welfare of the involved communities.

And unlike the capitalist price system, there's no incentive or utility in anyone involved skimming stuff off the top for themselves (typically called corruption but called profit if it is legal).


As an aside, the suggestion is made that racial and ethnic considerations could be a major factor in production decisions. Such is odd, considerating socialism claim to be OPPOSED to such things, and its claim that racial divides are a result of capitalist activity.

You mentioned "racial and ethnic considerations", not me. Stop putting words in my mouth, you shit.

[liberlict]

I have no problem with that kind of useless, egotistical and completely self-serving activity being curtailed.

No doubt. So I guess I can be thankful that people like you have no power then.


Anyway, it was a rhetorical question. I don't actually want a Maserati. They are way too ostentatious for my tastes, and if you have one you are just inviting yourself to have your car vandalized. If I had the choice of my own car, Iwould probably have a suburu. What I'm trying to get you to adress is scarcity. There are not enough resources to supply human wants, so there is always going to be haves and have nots.



People don't have to be dying of starvation for their quality of life to be worse than it could otherwise be. Why do you find this simple concept so hard to undserstand?

I don't. But what you seem to be saying is that you think all people could have the same. I view this as unrealistic. It's not a 'haves vs have nots' thing, its a 'haves vs have mores'




Wait a minute, are you seriously trying to tell me that completely unnecessary and ideologically-drive cuts to welfare, which is largely claimed by poor people, doesn't "directly" affect poor people?

huh? No of course not. I was just saying that I appreciate that there are economic upturns and down turns, and in a downturn it's the poor who are likely to be most effected.





Malnourishment and undernourishment are problems as well, and are probably more prevalent. In any case, people are suffering and that is a problem, no?

Yes, poverty and suffering is a problem. If you are really conscerned about it, research some better mechanisms of aid-delivery and development strategy in the third world, instead of wining about people being too fat in the first world.




Poverty and obesity in the US (http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full)





Oh I see. First poor people are starving, then they're too fat! Brilliant.

Anyway, correlation is not the same as causation. This means poor people tend to make worse dietrary choises. Poor smoke more as well http://www.tobaccofreemaine.org/channels/special_populations/low_income_and_education.php

Perhaps it's an education issue? I think the lower classes aren't aware that their dietary choices have such a bad effect on them. To that end , I really do think that life skills should be taught in school as fundamentals beside writing and arithmetic.

It's possible to live a healthy lifestyle on welfare. Here's a good example from my own neck of the woods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3UJo6gB86I



Mexico surpasses US in obesity levels (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/10173174/Mexico-surpasses-US-in-obesity-levels.html).



Universal free access to mental health facilities can't hurt, though.

Yeah. Who's paying the doctors? In your scheme of things doctors are plentiful the same way Maserati's are, and the doctors are getting paid the same as garbage collectors and the patients they are treating.




The point is that capitalists are unnecessary, no matter what John Galt types may say.


Don't you feel the slightest pang of hypocracy saying this when you are postng on a commercial software forum? If capitalists are so disposable why don't communists write their own? Or use one of the many open source alternatives, like I posted to that other guy?





Capitalists, "crony" or otherwise, have an intrinsic incentive to roll back worker's rights, depress wages, abolish regulations, and so on because they get in the way of the most important thing of all: profits!

"Capitalism" means market economy, not monopoly economy or mafia economy. Especially leftists often confuse this. If there is no free market, there is no capitalism.




Crushed by overwhelming capitalist forces? Ayup. But that doesn't speak to the utility of communism, since if the situations were reversed then it would be the capitalists being crushed.

Sorry, didn't I hear you say once before that 'you can't establish communism by decree' (or something like that)? I'm prettty sure it was you. If so, wouldn't the fact that hitherto communist societies have been imposed from above rather than below be the reason they failed to work?





Capitalism responds to the needs of minorities alright, as long as they have enough money. That's the problem, having money is not a reliable indicator of how much one needs shit.

What about welfare?






Well, others have mentioned the gift economy, you've mentioned labour vouchers, and my preference is for a system of energy accounting (http://www.eoslife.eu/articles/23-economics/84-energy-accounting).

However, the real world being as messy and complicated as it is, it would not surprise me at all if the actual solution involved a combination of all those things, and maybe more. Gift economies in my estimation would certainly work at the smaller scales, at the level of personal exchange between individuals and for crafted and/or bespoke goods/services provided by individuals or small collectives. On the larger scales, labour vouchers could be refined with concepts from participatory economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics), and would suit for those sections of the economy limited by scarcity. Energy accounting, as a system predicated on abundance, would be suitable for dealing with the abundant sections of the economy and would operate on the "global" scale. Each system would be able to compensate for the shortcomings of the others.

Ta, I'll have a read through this and get back to you.

[BIXX]

No doubt. So I guess I can be thankful that people like you have no power then.

I guess I can be thankful that you are pretty damn stupid.


What I'm trying to get you to adress is scarcity. There are not enough resources to supply human wants, so there is always going to be haves and have nots.

You should read books.

Especially the conquest of bread.


I don't. But what you seem to be saying is that you think all people could have the same. I view this as unrealistic. It's not a 'haves vs have nots' thing, its a 'haves vs have mores'

Prove it.


Yes, poverty and suffering is a problem. If you are really conscerned about it, research some better mechanisms of aid-delivery and development strategy in the third world,

That doesn't solve the actual problem, which is that capitalism causes poverty.


instead of wining about people being too fat in the first world.

Holy shit you don't understand communism.


Oh I see. First poor people are starving, then they're too fat! Brilliant.

The ones who starve are the ones who cannot pay for food, the ones who get fat can only pay for shitty food. Use your fucking brain.

I can't be bothered to read the rest of your shitty post right now. Maybe later if I remember.

[player-zgb]

It seems to me like this is some kind of new "trend" that started in the US but has also spread to other countries. Followers are mostly white, male, middle class teenagers and young adults, who spend lots of time on the Internet.
Would you say that is correct in so far?
And what's the reason for the rise of those ideologies? I'd say they are petty-bourgeois in nature, because they basically advocate going back to pre-Imperialist capitalism, i.e. free competition etc., which is of course impossible.
What is Libertarianism?

[ВАЛТЕР]

What is Libertarianism?

Extreme laissez-faire capitalist thought. Capitalism without a state to enforce taxes and hinder the free-market, ruin competition, provide a safety net to the poor. They think that this is "crony-capitalism".

They are rather silly and don't exist on a serious level outside of petite-bourgeois student groups and small business owners.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok I read most of this thread, but if I'm repeate arguments I missed too much, I apologize in advance.

It seems to me like this is some kind of new "trend" that started in the US but has also spread to other countries. Followers are mostly white, male, middle class teenagers and young adults, who spend lots of time on the Internet.
Would you say that is correct in so far?Lol, probably.

I've really only met them in real life around college undergrad milues where probably a drum-beat of middle class logic (all throught more eliete schooling from a yound age - and workers in public schools usually get the same spiel too) about "work hard, develop skills to get ahead" makes a narrow sort of (self-flattering) sense to soon-to-be (or strive to be) professionals.

Afterall what is an engineer or medical student or business student trying to do with schooling - and if they work hard and achieve, then it actually does give them a competative edge. Libertarian ideas take this narrow middle class outlook and attempt to generalize onto all of society.


And what's the reason for the rise of those ideologies? I'd say they are petty-bourgeois in nature, because they basically advocate going back to pre-Imperialist capitalism, i.e. free competition etc., which is of course impossible.Yes these ideas do tend to reflect p. bourgeois outlooks (as in my example of professional-striving students). The NY Times did a demographic piece about the tea-party several years ago and they tended to be whiter, richer, and far to the right of most people in the US (including most republicans - the tea party were basically the Republicans who still supported Bush whereas the rest of the party was demoralized and viewed Bush as a disaster for their party of choice). So the hard-core seems to definiately be professionals and small owners and contracters and house-flippers and whatnot.

But I think the important thing is that beyond this hard-core, these ideas have a wider sway (if in a more dilluted form). A section of workers - probably more well-off ones who are also homeowners - have been won to a neoliberal sort of libertarianism. As Keynsianism failed to solve new problems for capitalism towards the end of the 1960s, there was more pressure on workers and politicians started with the refrain "we just don't have the funds...". So in this situation bourgoies and middle class coalitions were able to begin to appeal to some workers on the basis of without steady wage increases and post-war low-costs, tax breaks, property tax freezes, selective subsidies not for social welfare but for "encouraging investment and development" became an alternative argument for preserving the post-war upward mobility achieved by some workers.

This is also why racism seems to always lurk under the surface of the Ron Paul's and so on talk of "liberty". This is the same language originally used by urban developers and bosses to preserve racial codes and restrictions - fair hiring is an attack on the "freedom" of business, de-segregated housing developments are an attack on property holders (really only the banks and developers, but it was a racist appeal too). These methods of over racial control and restriction were replaced with coded language - often overlapping with libertarian arguments.

[liberlict]

I guess I can be thankful that you are pretty damn stupid.



That doesn't solve the actual problem, which is that capitalism causes poverty.



This would make sense if there was no poverty prior to capitalism. So there were no famines prior to capitalism?




Holy shit you don't understand communism.


Perhaps it's you that doesn't understand communism so well, because Marx was very aware that capitalism is far more productive than feudalism and third world economies. He was quite Germanophile about Russia needing to develop capitalism before communism can take over, to say nothing of places like Africa and the Middle East. Marx was a Hegelian remember: The antithesis to capitalism is communism. This doesn't work if there is no capitalism in the first place. So again, instead of blaming every hungry person in the world on capitalism, you should be lobbying for more capitalism in the third world to prepare the stage communism.

Anyway, I agree with you, this thread is getting tedious, I'm going to make another thread on alternatives to money, because I think that is our main point of contention.

[Captain Ahab]

This would make sense if there was no poverty prior to capitalism. So there were no famines prior to capitalism?

According to this logic the H1N1 virus does not cause sickness as there were diseases that existed before it that caused sickness. Marvelous reasoning.


Perhaps it's you that doesn't understand communism so well, because Marx was very aware that capitalism is far more productive than feudalism and third world economies. He was quite Germanophile about Russia needing to develop capitalism before communism can take over, to say nothing of places like Africa and the Middle East. Marx was a Hegelian remember: The antithesis to capitalism is communism. This doesn't work if there is no capitalism in the first place. So again, instead of blaming every hungry person in the world on capitalism, you should be lobbying for more capitalism in the third world to prepare the stage communism.

Capitalism has already developed fully in the the third world. You don't solve a problem caused by A by wanting more of A. Stagism is a pretty irrelevant issue in this day and age.

[liberlict]

Capitalism has already developed fully in the the third world.

Dear lord.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Perhaps it's you that doesn't understand communism so well, because Marx was very aware that capitalism is far more productive than feudalism and third world economies.But what are contemporary thrid world economies if not capitalist or feudal?


He was quite Germanophile about Russia needing to develop capitalism before communism can take over, to say nothing of places like Africa and the Middle East.Yes because working class self-emancipation requires a working class. Even in Africa today tons of people are being pushed or drawn to wage-work in urban areas - there's a boom of workers and capitalists, but it is also contradictory, contested, and creates new kinds of poverty along with increases in wealth (for some) and resistance on a whole range of levels from non-proletarianized people resisting modernization to workers organizing.


Marx was a Hegelian remember: The antithesis to capitalism is communism. This doesn't work if there is no capitalism in the first place. So again, instead of blaming every hungry person in the world on capitalism, you should be lobbying for more capitalism in the third world to prepare the stage communism.Capitalism has and is in this process. The working class is global and the world majority in population today, compared to only really existing in some cities in PARTS of Europe and parts of North America when Marx was writing.

Since there are existing working classes in China, India, Latin America, the Middle East and increasingly in Africa, I think revolutionaries should be supporting workers organizing their own resistance to these processes, their own voice and own movement to contest with what "development" means and on whose terms and in whose interests it's carried out. That way even if there isn't a revolution, in terms of a class war of position, the working class would be in a much stronger and much more independant place when crisis eventually happens.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No doubt. So I guess I can be thankful that people like you have no power then.

Anyway, it was a rhetorical question. I don't actually want a Maserati. They are way too ostentatious for my tastes, and if you have one you are just inviting yourself to have your car vandalized. If I had the choice of my own car, Iwould probably have a suburu. What I'm trying to get you to adress is scarcity. There are not enough resources to supply human wants, so there is always going to be haves and have nots.

If people want cars, then they will be built. While I'll grant that current and likely future resources (barring developments such as the mineral exploitation of asteroids) preclude the provision of everyone with their own personal limousine, not everyone is going to want one in the first place. Not only that, but if you look at the usage patterns of privately-owned motor vehicles, you'll find that most of the time they're not doing anything except depreciating in value on the roadside or on a driveway. This horrific waste of resources would be mitigated significantly if A) public transport and road infrastructure was improved, B) more people had the option of freely hiring from a pool of vehicles on the day of need, with the vehicles being stored/maintained in a communal garage. That would reduce the demand for the cars themselves while at the same time satisfying what it is that people actually want, which is a form of transportation relevant to their interests.


I don't. But what you seem to be saying is that you think all people could have the same. I view this as unrealistic. It's not a 'haves vs have nots' thing, its a 'haves vs have mores'

What I am saying is that we have the capacity to satisfy everybody's needs, but that the current economic and political setup actively prevents that from happening. Everyone needs food, a home, medical care, entertainment, and a sense that their life has meaning and/or purpose. If they don't get those needs satisfied, or if those needs are only satisfied inadequately, then physical/mental health will suffer. Capitalism fails to achieve this basic standard because while meeting peoples' needs can be profitable, it's even more profitable to half-arse it. Legislation can act to counter practices such as substituting real goods for cheaper contaminants, but as the recent horsemeat scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_meat_adulteration_scandal) illustrates, even in the presence of legislation the pressure to put profit before honesty or peoples' health still very much exists.



huh? No of course not. I was just saying that I appreciate that there are economic upturns and down turns, and in a downturn it's the poor who are likely to be most effected.

That's because, in this instance at least, the "economic downturn" is being used as an excuse to destroy the welfare state.


Yes, poverty and suffering is a problem. If you are really conscerned about it, research some better mechanisms of aid-delivery and development strategy in the third world, instead of wining about people being too fat in the first world.

Aid and charity are band-aids, not solutions. Neither should be necessary in the first place.


Oh I see. First poor people are starving, then they're too fat! Brilliant.

Individuals cannot be both overweight and starving, yes. Hopefully I don't need to point out to you that "poor people" are a group comprising of many individuals, each of whom can be fat or starving dependent on their circumstances.


Anyway, correlation is not the same as causation. This means poor people tend to make worse dietrary choises. Poor smoke more as well http://www.tobaccofreemaine.org/channels/special_populations/low_income_and_education.php

Perhaps it's an education issue? I think the lower classes aren't aware that their dietary choices have such a bad effect on them. To that end , I really do think that life skills should be taught in school as fundamentals beside writing and arithmetic.

Education is good, but insufficient if there are food deserts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert) and chaotic lifestyles brought about by crappy wages and anti-social working hours, or the need to hold down more than one job.


It's possible to live a healthy lifestyle on welfare. Here's a good example from my own neck of the woods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3UJo6gB86I

It's possible for certain individuals in certain circumstances, but surely the point behind welfare is (ostensibly) that it's for everybody? It's not much of a "safety net" if it has holes big enough for people to fall through.


Yeah. Who's paying the doctors? In your scheme of things doctors are plentiful the same way Maserati's are, and the doctors are getting paid the same as garbage collectors and the patients they are treating.

In my scheme of things nobody gets paid anything. I want money to be abolished, remember?

Under capitalism, there's more than enough money around to pay for everyone's medical fees, assuming that nobody's being massively ripped off.


Don't you feel the slightest pang of hypocracy saying this when you are postng on a commercial software forum? If capitalists are so disposable why don't communists write their own? Or use one of the many open source alternatives, like I posted to that other guy?

Why should I feel any hypocrisy, when I don't make the decisions around here? The labour pool of conscious communists under contemporary capitalism is far smaller than the labour pool of an entire communist society, so I'm not at all surprised that no communists have written board software that I'm aware of. As for using open source, it would certainly be an option that I would be willing to look into, but like I said that isn't my prerogative.


"Capitalism" means market economy, not monopoly economy or mafia economy. Especially leftists often confuse this. If there is no free market, there is no capitalism.

There are no "free" markets. Such things cannot exist for long, because markets generate monopolies, which are antithetical to the notion of a free market.


Sorry, didn't I hear you say once before that 'you can't establish communism by decree' (or something like that)? I'm prettty sure it was you. If so, wouldn't the fact that hitherto communist societies have been imposed from above rather than below be the reason they failed to work?

Depends on your characterisation of historical "communist societies". The example I was thinking of were the bits of Spain controlled by the anarchists during the civil war, rather than the USSR. I would certainly consider the Soviets as a possible example of failure due to imposition of socialism from above, for certain definitions of "socialism".


What about welfare?

Crumbs from the table, established partly to stem worker radicalisation post-WWII. Of course relief for the poor existed for centuries beforehand (Speenhamland system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system) et al), but it took WWII and the Soviet spectre to organise it properly on a national scale.

But as the USSR is now history and the current state of anti-capitalism sentiment is pretty damn bad in most places, it's clear the capitalist classes feel confident enough to roll back those developments (as well as depress wages) without significant backlash. Here's hoping it comes back to bite them all in the arse.


Ta, I'll have a read through this and get back to you.

OK.

[Lowtech]

they basically advocate going back to pre-Imperialist capitalism, i.e. free competition etc., which is of course impossible.

Libertarianism shouldn't be an 'ism' anymore than choosing to be numb from the neck up is an ism.

also, 'free competition' only exists when people are under normative rules like those used in sports. markets and distorting value with the use of money while deriving economic value via the profit mechanism are the opposite of normative and have no economic purpose.

[Lowtech]

Fortunately, I don't have to organize a collective, I can just go down to the Maserati dealership and purchase one made by specialists who are incentivized to make them at the highest quality for the lowest possible price. :/

market dynamics are not an axiom of economics. and in actuality, the lowest possible price would be production cost, but you wouldn't sell something without a profit would you? that's not capitalist.

the problem with capitalism is that it is not a system of economics. rather, capitalists are viral in nature, being that they lack the ability to metabolize on their own; the rich do not produce economic value; instead they prey on those that do. as such, the rich do not offset their own consumption. and as their consumption is equal to consumption of thousands if not millions of individuals, it must be offset somehow, and it is offset by the labor of the working class. the "profit" that the rich enjoy is a kind of unregulated welfare where the recipients are violently arrogant.

what proponents of capitalism do not understand is that the economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain an entire civilization, not just the rich. and the real economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items. this basic process does not require money, markets, nor the rich.