The Real Issue

[The Feral Underclass]

If people take the time to study communism properly you can see that it is based on logical conclusions and can't really be disproven by rational argument. We get so many people in opposing ideologies however who whine on about how communism wishes to restrict freedoms and how wonderful capitalism is etc etc etc.

But what is it that is getting at these people really? What are these freedoms communism is wanting to restrict? Why is capitalism so good?

The people who come on here and bash on are really only bothered about one thing. They are worried about whether or not they can have talking fridges or three cars in their drive ways. These freedoms we want to restrict are their country club status and their abilities to buy huge yachts and fly first class to the seychelles. What these people hate about communism is that we refuse to cater for their material whims, and it scares them...Imagine living in a world without gold credit cards and platinum credit, $10,000 watches and Armani suits :o

I think what we need to remember is that these people, who are all middle class, have nothing to do with working class struggle. Their attacks on communism are not because the ideology is generally flawed, it's because we mean to smash down these selfish material desires, and they just cant handle it!

[A Pict]

If people take the time to study communism properly you can see that it is based on logical conclusions and can't really be disproven by rational argument

Edit out spam please. Circulus in demonstrando. This is the point you are trying to make, not a premise.


The people who come on here and bash on are really only bothered about one thing. They are worried about whether or not they can have talking fridges or three cars in their drive ways. These freedoms we want to restrict are their country club status and their abilities to buy huge yachts and fly first class to the seychelles. What these people hate about communism is that we refuse to cater for their material whims, and it scares them...Imagine living in a world without gold credit cards and platinum credit, $10,000 watches and Armani suits


The list of luxuries we are wishing to protect (and you have stated to destroy) is much longer then that.

Our ability to dance on sundays, or to enjoy alcoholic beverages, or to drive a car rather then walk, or to sleep on a bed rather then on a mat (eventually in the mud).

[Hoppe]

blablablablabla

Though there are certain fundamental differences, there is probably only one question that interest people in OI: "how is the implementation of communism not going to end up in another totalitarian state?"

No one seems to be able to answer this, and thus people have a legitimate reason to oppose your views.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Our ability to dance on sundays, or to enjoy alcoholic beverages, or to drive a car rather then walk, or to sleep on a bed rather then on a mat (eventually in the mud).

You're obviously fucked up in the head and get tell the difference between communists and religious fundamentalists. Get a grip.

You're in my pocket now.


Though there are certain fundamental differences, there is probably only one question that interest people in OI: "how is the implementation of communism not going to end up in another totalitarian state?

Anarchists and communists, as opposed to marxist-leninists, wish to abolish the state.
without a state how can there be tyranny?

[Hoppe]

Some of you think that Hobbes' nature state only applies to capitalism and that for some devine reason we could all live like hobbits.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And now you're talking out of your ass.

[Hoppe]

Am I?

[dancingoutlaw]

Anarchists and communists, as opposed to marxist-leninists, wish to abolish the state.
without a state how can there be tyranny?

There is the problem. Without the state there can be no tyranny but also no security. I cannot believe that the marxist futurist plan of one day the state packing up and going home is ever going to happen. The State which in many capacities serves to provide for the security of it's citizens also exsists to perpetuate itself onto the end of time. It is my belief that these two needs have to find a balance for there to be a just sysytem. The problem is that that line is smaller than the one that defines too hot and too cold while taking a shower.

When I speak of security provided by the state I mean many things.
-Security of infrastructure. I do not beleive that capital projects such as the building and maintenence of bridges, tunnels, roads, trains, etc. can exsist without an overseeing authority whether it be public or private. Also the generation and distrobution of power and water along with the removal and treatment of waste and sewage.

- Security of trade. Whatever you may say trade will always exsist in some form. There will always be scarcity of recources (steel doesn't grow on trees) so decisions of what to do with one's time will have to come into play. The best representation of what I technicallly call "stuff" is money. A dollar or yen or seashells is just an indicator of your share of wealth. However much or how it is gained does not conflict with the fact that money is simply a tool, a very efficient one at that. It is much easier to carry around currency in any form to trade than say keep a couple of chickens in your pocket. As long as there is money there will be a state. As long as there is money there will be those that have more and those that have none. I have not seen a convincing argument about how a moneyless society will work so I still believe it will not.



As for the luxeries... I do not care for luxeries so much. If I were to become rich beyond all imagination today I doubt I would spend on luxeries too much. I find it all pretty wasteful.

peace

[The Feral Underclass]

A Pict


Edit out spam please. Circulus in demonstrando. This is the point you are trying to make, not a premise.

What?


Our ability to dance on sundays, or to enjoy alcoholic beverages, or to drive a car rather then walk, or to sleep on a bed rather then on a mat (eventually in the mud).

Ignorance is bliss isnt it. It means you dont have to think so hard. Since when have beds, drinking booze and dancing on the weekend been a communist platform of restriction :blink:

[The Feral Underclass]

Hoppe


Though there are certain fundamental differences, there is probably only one question that interest people in OI: "how is the implementation of communism not going to end up in another totalitarian state?"

No one seems to be able to answer this, and thus people have a legitimate reason to oppose your views.

I must have answered this question to you a thousand times.

[The Feral Underclass]

dancingoutlaw

In answer to your questions on economics

Conquerst of Bread - Anarcho-Communism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)

[A Pict]

club status and their abilities to buy huge yachts and fly first class to the seychelles....gold credit cards and platinum credit, $10,000 watches and Armani suits


What do all these items have in common? They are luxuries.



Our ability to dance on sundays, or to enjoy alcoholic beverages, or to drive a car rather then walk, or to sleep on a bed rather then on a mat (eventually in the mud).

What do all these items have in common? They are luxuries.




Where do you draw the line? The fact of the matter is you just excplictly said you define all luxuries as something you wish to destroy.

[Bolshevika]

I do not believe socialist state should be one of robots. Most socialist states have had community movie theatars, resorts, gyms, on weekends and holidays paid for by the state. Most people in socialist countries have basic things like television, radio, etc etc.

Now compare that to the luxuries the common worker in any third world capitalist country has? Oh yeah, that's right, they look at grass all day.

Socialists are not opposed to luxuries, they are necessary to improve human life, however, we do oppose unnecessary abundence. Things like owning countless cars, ultra expensive garments, helicopters, etc are completely unnecessary.

[Soviet power supreme]

Our ability to dance on sundays, or to enjoy alcoholic beverages, or to drive a car rather then walk, or to sleep on a bed rather then on a mat (eventually in the mud).

Soviets liked to dance ripaska. :)
They did like to drink lots of vodka.
The car thing is tricky.I think that we should put more effrot to create the better mass transit system and taking cars out of the use.It is pure egological matter.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 5 2004, 11:31 PM
Where do you draw the line? The fact of the matter is you just excplictly said you define all luxuries as something you wish to destroy.
We don't draw the line, the line is determined by what can be afforded, if someone can afford to buy a car then they can buy one. What dosn't happen in commuism is a situation where one person is rich enough to buy entire nations whilst as a result many others scrape by from one day to the next not knowing if they'll be able to afford food.

[A Pict]

I do not believe socialist state should be one of robots. Most socialist states have had community movie theatars, resorts, gyms, on weekends and holidays paid for by the state. Most people in socialist countries have basic things like television, radio, etc etc.

Now compare that to the luxuries the common worker in any third world capitalist country has? Oh yeah, that's right, they look at grass all day.

Socialists are not opposed to luxuries, they are necessary to improve human life, however, we do oppose unnecessary abundence. Things like owning countless cars, ultra expensive garments, helicopters, etc are completely unnecessary.


So are alcoholic beverages completely unnecessary. Armani suits makes human life better for those who wear them. And it doesn't bother those who don't wear them at all.

Your logic is sick and twisted- You think by destroying that which is great, you make everyone seem richer. I don't give a shit about if i am in the top 10% or the bottom 10% as long as I live well.

An equivalent intellectual arguement is "Kill the Geniuses, so then we will all seem smarter!" And don't say " WE don't want to kill smart people!" the point is the logic is the same.

So again- Where do you draw the line?




We don't draw the line, the line is determined by what can be afforded, if someone can afford to buy a car then they can buy one.


So if someone can afford a car, that is fine, but if they can afford an Armani Suit, that is not okay? But I thought the line was determined by ability to purchase!



What dosn't happen in commuism is a situation where one person is rich enough to buy entire nations whilst as a result many others scrape by from one day to the next not knowing if they'll be able to afford food.

Ugh, do i have to do this again!

State your premise for this assertation. Here ill do it for you---

"Wealth is static."


Which is faulty, as I have shown countless times and will have to do countless more, in every thread until i get a refutation.

Wealth is not static. It can be created. If it was static, why do we have more wealth then did our ancestors 400 years ago?

Therefore, those who are rich did not do so at the expense of ANYONE. They created it, and no one was made poorer by it.

There, that is taken care of. AGAIN.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 6 2004, 12:08 AM
So if someone can afford a car, that is fine, but if they can afford an Armani Suit, that is not okay? But I thought the line was determined by ability to purchase!

if they're really stupid enough to buy an armani suit then thats fine but they'd probably have to choose between that and a house.

[dancingoutlaw]

Anarchist Tension,

I read the article but I found it very light on specifics. None of the questions that I asked seemed to be answered with anything better than "well it should be this way" and "imagine it and it will happen." It seemed mainly an appraisal of the present workers, technology and the blood and sweat of the workers of the past. The nuts and bolts are not laid out. How would recources to build large things that are needed for societal development to be done without overseeing authority? How will society function without a currency to at the very least track production of goods versus their consumption? Without a state these things can never happen. With a state Marx's final phase of civilization will never happen.

peace

[synthesis]

Wealth is not static. It can be created. If it was static, why do we have more wealth then did our ancestors 400 years ago?

Therefore, those who are rich did not do so at the expense of ANYONE. They created it, and no one was made poorer by it.

Are you completely unaware of the concept of appropriation of labor?

[A Pict]

Fallacy of interrogation.

[BuyOurEverything]

Communism is not at all opposed to luxeries. Like Bolshevika touched on, communism opposes wealthy people having oodles of luxeries while the people that make them live in abject poverty and can't even afford basic food and shelter. If everyone could sleep in king size beds with silk sheets and get drunk and dance everyday, that would be great, but it can't happen. In order for people to live like that, other people have to go without neccessities.

There is also a difference between wealth for comfortor neccessity and wealth for status. Buying a nice bed, a functional car, decent food and the like is fine. Things like $200 bottles of wine, Armani suits, Rolex watches and expensive sports cars exist solely to make their owners feel superior to people that don't have them.

[A Pict]

if they're really stupid enough to buy an armani suit then thats fine but they'd probably have to choose between that and a house.

I see. But if they can afford both, its fine?



Like Bolshevika touched on, communism opposes wealthy people having oodles of luxeries while the people that make them live in abject poverty and can't even afford basic food and shelter. If everyone could sleep in king size beds with silk sheets and get drunk and dance everyday, that would be great, but it can't happen. In order for people to live like that, other people have to go without neccessities.


And as I countered Wealth isn't static. How did my armani suit take away the food of someone else?



Things like $200 bottles of wine, Armani suits, Rolex watches and expensive sports cars exist solely to make their owners feel superior to people that don't have them


What is the difference, and what is the line? they are both comfronters.

Does morality change with degree? Is it good to kill one man, but not three? The depth may change, but not the absolute symbol of whether an action is good, or bad.

[BuyOurEverything]

And as I countered Wealth isn't static. How did my armani suit take away the food of someone else?

Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Armani suit could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.


What is the difference, and what is the line? they are both comfronters.

Yes, the line can get somewhat blurred sometimes but what you need to consider is why are they comforts? Does it really comfort you to have a thousand dollar watch, or does it comfort you to have something that most other people don't have? The point is that in the current society, people are driven to aquire as much as they can, regardless of whether they actually need or even want it and thus, labour, the ultimate source of value, is wasted on useless things when many people go without neccessities.


Does morality change with degree? Is it good to kill one man, but not three? The depth may change, but not the absolute symbol of whether an action is good, or bad.

Killing one or three people can either good or bad. I understand what you are saying but not your point.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 6 2004, 01:43 AM
Fallacy of interrogation.
Stop this arrogant 'logical fallacy' bullshit. No one cares if you have a fucking 'debate' dictionary you can use to try to look smart. The fact of the matter is that you are coming here claiming to have a basic knowledge of Marxist ideology and terminology and the fact that you don't know anything about the concept that our entire movement is based around shows that you shouldn't be here trying to ruin our shit when you don't even know anything about the shit it is you're trying to ruin.

http://www.marxists.org

Look it up there. We're not your poli-sci teachers, but we could be if you stopped being confrontational and started trying to learn something.

[A Pict]

Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Armani suit could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Beer could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Mattress-Beds could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The time that went into Dancing on Sunday could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the cars could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.



Stop this arrogant 'logical fallacy' bullshit. No one cares if you have a fucking 'debate' dictionary you can use to try to look smart

Ive given you my sources, so we can have a coherent debate. Ill do it again

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html


There ya go.

The thing is, how can we have any sort of intelligent discussion if you don't follow the rules? Logic is what keeps from being a rant fest, as you have to address points and counter them in kind.






The fact of the matter is that you are coming here claiming to have a basic knowledge of Marxist ideology and terminology and the fact that you don't know anything about the concept that our entire movement is based around shows that you shouldn't be here trying to ruin our shit when you don't even know anything about the shit it is you're trying to ruin

Stop pointing me to links with rehased Manifestos. Ive read it. I used to be a quasi-communist myself (till last summer). If you have any issues with what i said, defend your position and counter what ive said.




Killing one or three people can either good or bad. I understand what you are saying but not your point


Okay, ill demostrate. Lets suppose the police have captured a red political activist, and decide rather then release him, they shoot him. That was bad. Now lets suppose they capture 10 red political activists, and shoot them as well. That is also bad. The number changes the degree of the goodness/badness, BUT NOT whether it is a good or bad action.

[LSD]

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Beer could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Mattress-Beds could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The time that went into Dancing on Sunday could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the cars could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.


Exactly. But the point is not to make a moral statement on luxuries, but to equalize society. You seem to be confusing communism with puritanism. You don't eliminate all luxuries, you elminate the exessive luxuries which are only going to a select few. Luxuries will still be there, but they will be luxuries which all members of society will partake in. Therefore there can still be beds and dancing and beer, but there will be beds and dancing and beet for all. This will lead to less dancing, beer and beds for some, but it will lead to far more for most.



Okay, ill demostrate. Lets suppose the police have captured a red political activist, and decide rather then release him, they shoot him. That was bad. Now lets suppose they capture 10 red political activists, and shoot them as well. That is also bad. The number changes the degree of the goodness/badness, BUT NOT whether it is a good or bad action.


Again, it's not a moral issue. There is no question of "goodness/badness." Luxuries are not immoral per say, luxuries which take resources away from needed areas are acommunist, luxuries which only a small group of society can enjoy are acommunist. Once a luxury can be enjoyed by everyone, than communism has no problem with it.

[synthesis]

I simply asked you a question. Do you know what appropriation of labor is? Understanding it is central to understanding Communism, which I am not convinced you do or ever did.

It is somewhat unwieldy to explain, so if you knew the basics of it already, it would at least save me some time.


Ive given you my sources, so we can have a coherent debate. Ill do it again

I have already read both of those pages, and while I agree that they are an important read for anyone wishing to debate, my question was not supposed to serve as an argument in and of itself.

It was a question; you claimed to have once been a communist. As communists should be aware of the aforementioned idea, I was assuming that remembering the concept would provide you with your own answer to the question you asked.

[Bolshevika]

And as I countered Wealth isn't static. How did my armani suit take away the food of someone else?

It isn't that simple. The reason your Armani suit is stolen is because it was probably made by a bunch of 8 year old children in Myanmar who make pennies a day, whilst you probably payed hundreds of dollars to the owners of the factory, rather than equally distributing the majority of the product/profit of the factory workers labour.

The science of it is here: people make these items for extremely meager pay, whilst their bosses trade the labour put into making the suit, etc as a commodity. It is slavery in a sense, you put your sweat and tears into making a product, yet other people profit off of it without engaging in any labour, hence they are trading your labour, not you trading your labour or atleast your labour being distributed to who it should be distributed.

Instead labour is wasted on making menial garbage like a 2,000 dollar piece of cloth you call a "suit".

In order to end this form of slavery peoples must work in a collective form that reinforces the old socialist slogan of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his necessities", ie, economic cooperation rather than a small minority profitting off the labour of people.

Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, a few countries from the Eastern Bloc, and others did a very good job at this, at producing in a collective manner, setting industrial goals and distributing products to where they were most needed.

[Germanator]

Communism's downfall is that it is based entirely on economics and doesn't take human psychology into the equation. Humans possess an inherent desire to be superior, be it for self-gratification or for the purpose of attracting mates. Money is merely one facet of demonstrating superiority. But when you get rid of money, it breaks down to one thing: skill. No society can be equal unless everyone can operate on the same skill level, that way you will be judged not by how skillful you are, but how you utilize those skills, be it for good or evil.

[synthesis]

Humans possess an inherent desire to be superior, be it for self-gratification or for the purpose of attracting mates.

You know, I never thought A Pict's links would come in handy so quickly.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic...ic.html#natural (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#natural)

You have no business making conclusions as to what 'human nature' leads people to do. You can examine the attitudes of those around you, and then anyone else is free to point out the distinct possibility that what may appear to be 'human nature' may simply be a by-product of the times in which we live.

After all, were there any modern sociologists or psychologists around to observe the practices of Native Americans wherein most or all personal belongings were given away or destroyed?

Not to hijack the thread, but I believe that these conclusions that human nature precludes communism have gone far enough.

[BuyOurEverything]

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Beer could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the Mattress-Beds could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The time that went into Dancing on Sunday could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

I see. Wealth is a product of labour. The labour that went into making the cars could have been used to produce other things, like food and the like.

There is enough labour to produce food, shelter and other neccessities as well as luxeries but neccessities should always take precidence. I challenge you to argue that your Armani suit is more important than an eight year old's dinner.

[A Pict]

1st- I don't agree with Germ. Communism doesn't take economics into consideration. It doesn't rational consider anything.

But anyway


You have no business making conclusions as to what 'human nature' leads people to do. You can examine the attitudes of those around you, and then anyone else is free to point out the distinct possibility that what may appear to be 'human nature' may simply be a by-product of the times in which we live

Actually, that fallacy refers to something being natural automatically being true/good etc.



There is enough labour to produce food, shelter and other neccessities as well as luxeries but neccessities should always take precidence. I challenge you to argue that your Armani suit is more important than an eight year old's dinner.

My Armani suit caused that 8 year olds dinner. If i abstained from buying it, he wouldn't be making "pennies" he'd be making nothing.

Not that it matters, I am not bound by duty to prevent him from living his life in the style that he wants to.


Also, why is their enough labour? There wasn't enough labour to produce all those luxuries 300 years ago. Don't say because of increase of population, because that also increased the number of luxuries needed.

[LSD]

Actually, that fallacy refers to something being natural automatically being true/good etc.


Ok, this logcial fallacy shit it getting old. If you have a problem with someone's logic, S P E L L I T O U T. Explain yourself, because no one gives a shit exactly which latin phrase describes it best.



My Armani suit caused that 8 year olds dinner. If i abstained from buying it, he wouldn't be making "pennies" he'd be making nothing.


um.....right.....if you didn't buy that suit. But no one is arguing about what you do. We are proposing to fundamentally change the system such that child will not starve, such that he will not be forced to work on your goddamn suit. You are arguing in favor of capitalism from within a capitalist framework. Your statement is predicated on the assumption that capitalistic economic rules always apply, but it is those very rules which are being challenged. In a communist society that child would be taken care of by society, effectively what you are arguing is that in the current capitalistic system the kid is screwed, which I really don't care to disagree with....



Also, why is their enough labour? There wasn't enough labour to produce all those luxuries 300 years ago. Don't say because of increase of population, because that also increased the number of luxuries needed.


What the hell are you talking about?? That labour is more efficient now than 300 years ago? Of course it is, it's called technology.

[A Pict]

Ok, this logcial fallacy shit it getting old

I agree, all this logical fallacy shit is getting old.




What the hell are you talking about?? That labour is more efficient now than 300 years ago? Of course it is, it's called technology

Very good. Who caused technology?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People aren't paid to invent things, if that's what you are implying. People are paid (Or not as the case may be) FOR inventing things.

If I paid you to invent the warp drive it would be a waste of money.
Progress does not need capitalism.

[LSD]

Very good. Who caused technology?


You're right, I forgot, when the wheel was invented it was immediately marketed (with a significant mark up) as a commercial appliance. How about the urban revolution, I suppose that was a capitalis coup as well? Agriculture? Horticulture? Clothing? The Plough? Domestication?

Technology does NOT need capitalism. There have been technological advances in capitalist states, but considering that capitalism is only about 300 years old, the vast majority of technological innovations were not made under capitalist environments. We may be more efficient than 300 years ago, but they were more efficient than those 300 years before, and they were more efficient than those 300 years before that, and on and on and on (save the dark ages in Europe) all the way back through history.....

[Hoppe]

Technology does NOT need capitalism. There have been technological advances in capitalist states, but considering that capitalism is only about 300 years old, the vast majority of technological innovations were not made under capitalist environments. We may be more efficient than 300 years ago, but they were more efficient than those 300 years before, and they were more efficient than those 300 years before that, and on and on and on (save the dark ages in Europe) all the way back through history.....

Is it? Were the Greek, Roman, Egyptian or Persian societies based on collective control of the means of production?

Yet is very well possible that the improvement of the way private property was protected (and I don't mean armies) have increased the growth in technology.

[LSD]

Is it? Were the Greek, Roman, Egyptian or Persian societies based on collective control of the means of production?


That's irrelevent. The point is that once you accept that innovation does not require capitalism there is no reason to believe that it could not occur within communism (unless you provide one, which you haven't)



Yet is very well possible that the improvement of the way private property was protected (and I don't mean armies) have increased the growth in technology.


A lot of things are possible, do you have any reason to claim this or are you just speculating (don't feel bad, it's what most capitalists do instead of reasoning).

[Hoppe]

That's irrelevent. The point is that once you accept that innovation does not require capitalism there is no reason to believe that it could not occur within communism (unless you provide one, which you haven't)

First we have the problem of inappropriability or the divergence between social and private benefit. Why would I invent a hydrogencell if I would only benefit little and society inmeasurably. And we already know that incentive is a big problem in a communist society.

Secondly, also in a capitalist society the risk is huge, we don't know the outcome. How would you decide to allocate scarce resources to a project of which the outcome is not known?


A lot of things are possible, do you have any reason to claim this or are you just speculating (don't feel bad, it's what most capitalists do instead of reasoning).

Haha, strange conclusion from someone who's ideology is based on shaky premises........ But no, these things have been researched extensively by for instance Hernando de Soto.

[LSD]

First we have the problem of inappropriability or the divergence between social and private benefit. Why would I invent a hydrogencell if I would only benefit little and society inmeasurably.

maybe because it would "benefit...society immeasurably." Within such a society the collective as a whole would decive what areas need research/exploration. Someone with an idea can present it to the community. The issue of private benefit does not apply as within this society they will be provided with all that they need. Therefore a scientist will work for the pure love of the science, a doctor will research so they can help others. And the areas of research will not be dictated by corporations out to make a protif but by the people themselves.


And we already know that incentive is a big problem in a communist society.

We do? Within a communist collective the incentive is that one must work a certain amount as a member of the society, in exchange all they require is provided for by society. If one refuses to work than the entire community must deal with it. But like any other social norm, it will quickly become socially unacceptable to refuse to work, much as how today many social mores are not legislated but are remarkable rare.


Secondly, also in a capitalist society the risk is huge, we don't know the outcome. How would you decide to allocate scarce resources to a project of which the outcome is not known?

You're right, funds may not be allocated. But as you admit often in capitalism funds are not allocated. More often research which would be socially usefull are not even undertaken, instead research which is likely to sell is. This research will certainly not be funded, which is only good.



Haha, strange conclusion from someone who's ideology is based on shaky premises

Name one.


But no, these things have been researched extensively by for instance Hernando de Soto.

look, historically great inovation have been made under nearly every system. I know I've written this before, but the early innovations (the wheel, agriculture) were made under very communalistic environments.

[Hoppe]

maybe because it would "benefit...society immeasurably." Within such a society the collective as a whole would decive what areas need research/exploration. Someone with an idea can present it to the community. The issue of private benefit does not apply as within this society they will be provided with all that they need. Therefore a scientist will work for the pure love of the science, a doctor will research so they can help others. And the areas of research will not be dictated by corporations out to make a protif but by the people themselves.


Yes, but based on what rationality? I know next to nothing about medication, how will I decide to allocate funds for doctor A's research to an extremely rare disease opposed to let's say, a much needed airco?


We do? Within a communist collective the incentive is that one must work a certain amount as a member of the society, in exchange all they require is provided for by society. If one refuses to work than the entire community must deal with it. But like any other social norm, it will quickly become socially unacceptable to refuse to work, much as how today many social mores are not legislated but are remarkable rare.

Well maybe. But this won't prove innovation will somehow come about.


You're right, funds may not be allocated. But as you admit often in capitalism funds are not allocated. More often research which would be socially usefull are not even undertaken, instead research which is likely to sell is. This research will certainly not be funded, which is only good.

I do not deny that there are some problems, especially with respect to medicines (here is still a heavy debate), not really in other fields. This primarily has to do with the question whether there will be innovation without patents or copyrights.

Nevertheless, not all research done now is solemly based on how much future revenue it will generate. It is impossible to research everything. In that respect researcher are also scarce.

My basic problem is still that in my opinion you have two problems (irrational allocation & incentive) which I somehow don't see solved this easily.


look, historically great inovation have been made under nearly every system. I know I've written this before, but the early innovations (the wheel, agriculture) were made under very communalistic environments

Yes, but they were simple. And I doubt farmer A would have found it OK if lazy person B stole his crop. Anyhow I don't deny that people will find improvements but at a certain moment you still have the same aforementioned problems. All inventions that dramatically changed people's lives were done in a capitalistic system.

[Guest1]

The thing is, under Anarcho-Communism, anything that benefits society, benefits you directly. Society is not just an abstract idea when there's no state, society is your collective, it is you and your neighbours.

Let's say you are a farmer along with a few of your neighbours. A few others work on a vineyard. A few others work making tractors. You all provide for each other. You are particularly inclined towards scientific endeavours. You have a pretty good idea, and decide you can increase the yield of the crop. So your fellow farmers say, if you go off and work on that, you don't have to work on the farm while you do it. So you have no more physical labour.

Let's say your idea works, and the yield is brought up by 50%. You've helped everyone quite a bit. Now you have two choices. Return to the farm and keep working till you get another idea, or dedicate yourself to scientific endeavours in general. There's now more food for everyone, so everyone respects you and supports you while you work on improving the collective.

Someone on the vineyard starts the same process. Then someone making tractors. So now you've got a scientific group rising from each profession, with intimate knowledge of that profession.

[LSD]

I do not deny that there are some problems, especially with respect to medicines (here is still a heavy debate), not really in other fields. This primarily has to do with the question whether there will be innovation without patents or copyrights.

Nevertheless, not all research done now is solemly based on how much future revenue it will generate. It is impossible to research everything. In that respect researcher are also scarce.

My basic problem is still that in my opinion you have two problems (irrational allocation & incentive) which I somehow don't see solved this easily.


I think I've already covered incentive, but as to allocation, it is a problem. But it is a problem in every system. When things get complex and specialized (medicine is a great example) it is indeed possible that people may make the wrong allocation. But even so I trust the people more than the so-called "market forces" which after all just means what rich people are willing to buy. Both ways you end up having to trust people, under capitalism it is the rich ones, under communism all of them


All inventions that dramatically changed people's lives were done in a capitalistic system.

I still deny this. Early inventions are a good example, as are later urban developments. Remeber capitalism is a very recent development.

[Hoppe]

The thing is, under Anarcho-Communism, anything that benefits society, benefits you directly. Society is not just an abstract idea when there's no state, society is your collective, it is you and your neighbours.


Thus? I can turn it around and say that my egoism benefits me and ultimately society.


I think I've already covered incentive

Ehmmm, I was sorry but it wasn't very convincing.


When things get complex and specialized (medicine is a great example) it is indeed possible that people may make the wrong allocation.

Well, we're almost near the calculationproblem in your society. There is no rational way to solve this, except maybe go to a market-socialist environment. The rest is simply irrational. A hammer is a simple invention, a computerchip will probably be impossible to invent.


I still deny this. Early inventions are a good example, as are later urban developments. Remeber capitalism is a very recent development.

So which brilliant mind changed the world indeffinantly? Private property goes way back and just because someone puts a nametag on it doesn't mean it was invented.

[Germanator]

You have no business making conclusions as to what 'human nature' leads people to do. You can examine the attitudes of those around you, and then anyone else is free to point out the distinct possibility that what may appear to be 'human nature' may simply be a by-product of the times in which we live.

No psychologist would agree with that conclusion. Our behavior is shaped by a combination of environmental and biological factors. There have been schools of thought who focused on one extreme or the other and both failed to produce conclusive results (Skinnerians and Rogerians).

You also have the tough issue of dealing with the fact that all "attempts" at authoritarian socialism have churned up oppressive quasi-capitalist societies in which the party members are superior to the rest of society. Everywhere you go there is a caste system. One can logically conclude that there may be an evolutionary explanation for it.


After all, were there any modern sociologists or psychologists around to observe the practices of Native Americans wherein most or all personal belongings were given away or destroyed?

Nor were there any historians to record whether or not those stories were true. Native Americans didn't believe in possessing land, but they did believe in possessing resources. Lakota and Crow faught one another in order to dominate the resources necessary for their survival, just like any other culture. Romanticized tales are typically innacurate.

[synthesis]

No psychologist would agree with that conclusion.

Time for me to bust this out again: (thanks, A Pict)

Scroll to #4 (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

Also, consider this: Psychology did not exist before capitalist times.


You also have the tough issue of dealing with the fact that all "attempts" at authoritarian socialism have churned up oppressive quasi-capitalist societies in which the party members are superior to the rest of society. Everywhere you go there is a caste system. One can logically conclude that there may be an evolutionary explanation for it.

This was because of two reasons. If I explained them, would you listen? Or should I just leave it at the fact that I'm not an authoritarian socialist?


Nor were there any historians to record whether or not those stories were true.

Great argument.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tut...ions/coast.html (http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/firstnations/coast.html)

[synthesis]

From the website I provided:


The potlatch system was a means of rising on the social scale and re-distributing wealth. The system ensured no free person of the clan starved or lived without essential goods.

[Xprewatik RED]

( I know the Soviet Union isn't the example of perfect Communism your looking for but it does have some good sides)

Although the USSR had its down sides(like waiting in line 30 minutes for a cabbage, 20 years for a car etcc...) it also had some good sides.
Imagine noone had to worry about the futures. Parents wern't up all nights worrying about their smart kid not getting into a "good" college. Maybe your boss at work was an ass but he couldn't fire you so you didn't have to worry. You always had something, life was some what good. When times came for celebration we ate and drank alot with no worries. Things were cheap you could afford everything even if it wasn't necessarily on the shelfs.

[LSD]

The thing is, under Anarcho-Communism, anything that benefits society, benefits you directly. Society is not just an abstract idea when there's no state, society is your collective, it is you and your neighbours.


Thus? I can turn it around and say that my egoism benefits me and ultimately society.

Except it doesn't. Because the system you are describing (capitalism) has shown itself to not be working. If there is one thing that the last 300 years of shown it's that contrary to capitalist propaganda, egoism has led to personal gain (big surprise) and person acquisition of wealth has lead to starvation and poverty for others.



I think I've already covered incentive

Ehmmm, I was sorry but it wasn't very convincing.

Allright let's look:


Che y Marijuana
The thing is, under Anarcho-Communism, anything that benefits society, benefits you directly. Society is not just an abstract idea when there's no state, society is your collective, it is you and your neighbours.

Let's say you are a farmer along with a few of your neighbours. A few others work on a vineyard. A few others work making tractors. You all provide for each other. You are particularly inclined towards scientific endeavours. You have a pretty good idea, and decide you can increase the yield of the crop. So your fellow farmers say, if you go off and work on that, you don't have to work on the farm while you do it. So you have no more physical labour.

Let's say your idea works, and the yield is brought up by 50%. You've helped everyone quite a bit. Now you have two choices. Return to the farm and keep working till you get another idea, or dedicate yourself to scientific endeavours in general. There's now more food for everyone, so everyone respects you and supports you while you work on improving the collective.

Someone on the vineyard starts the same process. Then someone making tractors. So now you've got a scientific group rising from each profession, with intimate knowledge of that profession.

and


me
Within a communist collective the incentive is that one must work a certain amount as a member of the society, in exchange all they require is provided for by society. If one refuses to work than the entire community must deal with it. But like any other social norm, it will quickly become socially unacceptable to refuse to work, much as how today many social mores are not legislated but are remarkable rare.

Yah, I think it was covered.




When things get complex and specialized (medicine is a great example) it is indeed possible that people may make the wrong allocation.

Well, we're almost near the calculationproblem in your society. There is no rational way to solve this, except maybe go to a market-socialist environment. The rest is simply irrational. A hammer is a simple invention, a computerchip will probably be impossible to invent.

Exactly how is a "market-socialist environment" to solve this problem. The same problem exists in capitalism. People are making the wron allocation now. Pharmacutical companies, drug manufacturers, for profit hospitals, HMOs... Do not tell me that the capitalist medical system works. The fact is (again) that under both systems ultimately someone has to make these determinations, be it the "market" (i.e, rich people) or the collective (i.e, all people). Of course under anarcho-communism there is far more freedoms. Ass all aspects of society are cared for, it is quite realistic that a scientist/doctor would come up with an idea on their free time (they will have far more of it), work on it, and then have something concrete to propose. Within the capitalist framework, however, there is no such time. Everything must be quick, proposals immediate, so that profit can be maximized. Therefore there is actually both greater freedom and greater lattitude within the anarcho-communist medical system.




I still deny this. Early inventions are a good example, as are later urban developments. Remeber capitalism is a very recent development.

So which brilliant mind changed the world indeffinantly?

the man who invented the wheel. The man who invented the plough, or agriculture.... we don't know their names because they had no way of recording the, does that make their inventions any less significant?



just because someone puts a nametag on it doesn't mean it was invented.

Absolutely! But isn't that what capitalism does, slap nametags and patents on things, claim they are "owned" by someone and then force everyone else to pay to use them / make them? Under communism this would not be an issue, people would invent for the joy of inventing or for the social acclaim gained by creating a new ---------. It isn't about wealth anymore.

[Hoppe]

Except it doesn't. Because the system you are describing (capitalism) has shown itself to not be working. If there is one thing that the last 300 years of shown it's that contrary to capitalist propaganda, egoism has led to personal gain (big surprise) and person acquisition of wealth has lead to starvation and poverty for others.

This is imply bs. Did our present wealth just fall out of the sky? Capitalism and freedom have led to more prosperity for more people than all others things. You can call this propaganda but then you then you probably have spend your whole life in a shack in Siberia with no interaction whatsoever.


Yah, I think it was covered.

You can make some assumptions how it would idealistically work, but that is simply wishfull thinking. And pls, do you actually think that your argument is prove enough that innovation will happen?


The same problem exists in capitalism. People are making the wron allocation now

As I said, there is always a uncertainty. There is no way you can deal with this. Precisely because communism doesn't have "markets" people came up with market socialism because it turned out that under communism you can't have a rational economy, under capitalism you have. There must be a thread somewhere on this board about market-socialism.


Absolutely! But isn't that what capitalism does, slap nametags and patents on things, claim they are "owned" by someone and then force everyone else to pay to use them / make them? Under communism this would not be an issue, people would invent for the joy of inventing or for the social acclaim gained by creating a new ---------. It isn't about wealth anymore.

No. As you can read it my posts above I already explained that patents are not necessary probably.

I think I have to stop the discussion now because it is impossible to discuss reasonably with you. All your claims are based on an ideallistical view on how things ought to be but are simply unrealistic.

[LSD]

This is imply bs. Did our present wealth just fall out of the sky? Capitalism and freedom have led to more prosperity for more people than all others things. You can call this propaganda but then you then you probably have spend your whole life in a shack in Siberia with no interaction whatsoever.


Who's present wealth? It's all about how you define 'wealth.' If you mean that the modern lifestyle is better than that of the 1600s then, again, it is a matter of technology. You can argue that that technology emerged in a capitalist environment, but if you acknowledge that the present lifestyle (in certain western countries of course) is because of technological development and not because people intrinsically live better in a egoist society than at least we're hetting somewhere.


You can make some assumptions how it would idealistically work, but that is simply wishfull thinking. And pls, do you actually think that your argument is prove enough that innovation will happen?

Well, you asked how innovation would occur in a communist environment, and since there is presently no such environment and we are hypothesising, of course it;s "wishfull thinking." What, you want me to point to specific examples? No I cannot prove that innovation will occur, I also cannot prove that aliens will not invade tommorrow, but I am reasonably sure that the former will happen and the latter will not.


As I said, there is always a uncertainty. There is no way you can deal with this. Precisely because communism doesn't have "markets" people came up with market socialism because it turned out that under communism you can't have a rational economy, under capitalism you have. There must be a thread somewhere on this board about market-socialism.

You have not shown in a single instance why trusting the collective or the collective workers of an industry to make allocations is any less effective than trusting the "market forces." If you are saying that trusting a bureaucrat, such as under state-capitalism or state-socialism than you are correct, but that is not what I am espousing.


I think I have to stop the discussion now because it is impossible to discuss reasonably with you. All your claims are based on an ideallistical view on how things ought to be but are simply unrealistic.

And all your claims are based on an ideallistic view of how things are. You have not provided a single justification for any of your statements. Your posts are full of assertations and assumptions (e.g, " Capitalism and freedom have led to more prosperity for more people than all others things.") Who's unrealistic?

[Hoppe]

You have not shown in a single instance why trusting the collective or the collective workers of an industry to make allocations is any less effective than trusting the "market forces."

That is not what I am pointing at. The basic fact that a market exists will allow different entrepreneurs to allocate scarce resources. The fact that there is uncertainty will sometimes cause misallocation, soit. If you abolish the "market" no such thing as prices etc exist. This would be perfect if we would live in a ideal world with perfect competition and full knowlegde, but we don't, even under communism.

And as I said, what you do is strictly irrational, so every prove you give me will be wishfull thinking. That's no real problem to me, as long as I don't have to be part of this experiment.


Capitalism and freedom have led to more prosperity for more people than all others things

So what has caused the prosperity if it wasn't our capitalist system?

[LSD]

That is not what I am pointing at. The basic fact that a market exists will allow different entrepreneurs to allocate scarce resources. The fact that there is uncertainty will sometimes cause misallocation, soit. If you abolish the "market" no such thing as prices etc exist.

different entrepeneurs...........right........because they know what's best.
Under communism individual workers collectives, as in those who know the industry in question best, will be the ones who choose the resource and time allocation. "Scarce resources" are thereby allocated not only differently but by people who are actually qualified to allocate them.


This would be perfect if we would live in a ideal world with perfect competition and full knowlegde, but we don't, even under communism.


"perfect competition"? competition does not exist under communism, what you describe is a form of distilled capitalism but not communism.


And as I said, what you do is strictly irrational, so every prove you give me will be wishfull thinking.That's no real problem to me, as long as I don't have to be part of this experiment.

It's actually quite reasonable, far more than capitalism which basically advocated that society is best served by everyone thinking only of themselves. If you would like a more complete description of how it would work check out the 'anarcho-communism' thread.


So what has caused the prosperity if it wasn't our capitalist system?

Again, prosperity for who? If you look at who has bennefitted the most from the capitalist system it has clearly not been the workers.

If you mean rising living standards that has nothing to do with the system but rather with technological innovation.
But If you mean that thanks to capitalism some have acquired a greater concentraion of resources than at any other time in history, you are correct. But they have done this at the cost of everyone else.

[Hoppe]

Under communism individual workers collectives, as in those who know the industry in question best, will be the ones who choose the resource and time allocation. "Scarce resources" are thereby allocated not only differently but by people who are actually qualified to allocate them.


How are you going to judge which collective produces the best product given the available resources?

And why qualified? Since the resources belong to everyone, everyone must decide, not simply some "qualified" people.


"perfect competition"? competition does not exist under communism, what you describe is a form of distilled capitalism but not communism.

Neither does perfect knowledge so you'd still have the same problem.


It's actually quite reasonable, far more than capitalism which basically advocated that society is best served by everyone thinking only of themselves. If you would like a more complete description of how it would work check out the 'anarcho-communism' thread.


I have, but it doesn't answer any questions. And I won't even reply on this silly accusation.


Again, prosperity for who? If you look at who has bennefitted the most from the capitalist system it has clearly not been the workers.

If you mean rising living standards that has nothing to do with the system but rather with technological innovation.
But If you mean that thanks to capitalism some have acquired a greater concentraion of resources than at any other time in history, you are correct. But they have done this at the cost of everyone else.

No, workers are still extremely poor and starved while they have to work 15 hours to support their families........

But we're going in circles. Better instutions to safeguard private property (capitalism) have spurred these developments. You still have to prove this comes about, at least from an economic point of view, under communism.

Who has btw benefitted more from his company, Bill Gates or society?

[LSD]

How are you going to judge which collective produces the best product given the available resources?


That's exactly the point it is not a matter of competition, different collectives are not competing to 'get the best product out as fast as possible'. For example a farmer's collective may allow one of its workers to take a break from regualr labour to work on an idea he has for improving effecience, you know it works if it works. This idea is then, of course, available for everyone, and maybe another worker will have another idea and on and on.... the point is that the inventor is creating because he wants to improve his chosen field and therefore not only does he know a great deal on the subject, but he also has a social interest in making it better, not to mention the social esteem from improving efficiency for all his fellow workers.


And why qualified? Since the resources belong to everyone, everyone must decide, not simply some "qualified" people.

You're looking at this from too much of a capitalist perspective, it is not an issue of funding, since money will not exist. Rather it is that a collective of, say, steel workers will be the ones who decide if one of their members can research a more efficent mining method. Plus it is the workers themselves who will choose whether or not to implement this program, so yes the more qualified ones, the workers of the field are ultimately going to decide whether or not an invention should be looked into, and whether or not it should be applied. But you're right, someone can invent on their free time using the resources that are available to the entire population, they would have less time then one who has been given extra time, but they can still do it. And if successful than it will be implemented as well. Under communism there will be far more people working on innovation and far more resources (since these resources will be available to everyone) than under capitalism.



Neither does perfect knowledge so you'd still have the same problem.


Perfect knowledge? If you mean collectives informing one another of their needs, this knowledge is far from perfect and is easily transmittable.


No, workers are still extremely poor and starved while they have to work 15 hours to support their families........

Again, you are pointing to an increase in standard of living which is attributable not to the economic system but to technological improvements. To judge the system you must look at the difference in wealth between the rich and the poor, the concentration of wealth if you will. And that gap has not narrowed.


But we're going in circles. Better instutions to safeguard private property (capitalism) have spurred these developments. You still have to prove this comes about, at least from an economic point of view, under communism.

I have already given you several examples of how this would work under communism (some of them reiterated in this post). If you mean concrete proof, empiracle examples, then you have to realize that that is like asking enlightenment thinkers to prove that democracy works. As long as something is theoretical, by definition it has not been proven, and in terms of social and economic theories you really can't prove them until they are actually applied. Communism has not been applied so it cannot be proven, but as I have stated many early inventions were created in communalist societies, which is as close to a concrete example as I can go. But remember that you are the one making the assertation that innovation would not occur and you have given no justification for that save vague references to 'private property'.


Who has btw benefitted more from his company, Bill Gates or society?

Bill Gates. Microsoft bought software from one guy, sold it to another and made a profit along the way. It is the classic example of capitalism. Bill Gates created nothing, he just exploited the creations of others in such a way that he managed to make money from it all. Microsoft is one of the best examples of what is wrong with capitalism.


Look, you seem to object to the notion that anyone would invent or know what to invent under communism, but the fact is that people do not know what to invent under capitalism. The 'market' funds what the 'market' funds, but that is usually not what helps society. Occasionally the interests of society and the interest of the 'market' interract, but those are rare and lucky interactions, there just are so many damn inventors that it seems to happen a lot. Under communism no only would there be more inventors, but it would be the workers themselves deciding what will be invented, the workers themselves choosing, not the capitalist owener, interested in maximizing profits and minimizing time. But, of course, it is all still theoretical, and although I have shown several realisitic possibilities, I cannot know what would occur so let's imagine. Theoretically, you may be right, innovation may be slower under communism, but it would certainly not cease, and I think I've demonstrated that at least. Enough people would still be inventing and enough of them would discover something. If worst comes to worst and innovation slows, at least the people would still be living in an equal and fair society. A decrease in the speed of technological growth is a tiny price to pay if in exchange we eliminate poverty and starvation. But again, that is a worst case scenario, one which you have certainly not proven.

[Hoppe]

You're looking at this from too much of a capitalist perspective, it is not an issue of funding, since money will not exist. Rather it is that a collective of, say, steel workers will be the ones who decide if one of their members can research a more efficent mining method.


No, I am not. I am looking from an economic point of view.


Plus it is the workers themselves who will choose whether or not to implement this program, so yes the more qualified ones, the workers of the field are ultimately going to decide whether or not an invention should be looked into, and whether or not it should be applied. But you're right, someone can invent on their free time using the resources that are available to the entire population, they would have less time then one who has been given extra time, but they can still do it. And if successful than it will be implemented as well. Under communism there will be far more people working on innovation and far more resources (since these resources will be available to everyone) than under capitalism.

Ahh, the tragedy of the commons. The last sentence is again an assumption and perhaps you don't know the meaning of scarcity in economic terms?


Again, you are pointing to an increase in standard of living which is attributable not to the economic system but to technological improvements. To judge the system you must look at the difference in wealth between the rich and the poor, the concentration of wealth if you will. And that gap has not narrowed.

blabla, if you want to remain ignorant pls do.


I have already given you several examples of how this would work under communism (some of them reiterated in this post). If you mean concrete proof, empiracle examples, then you have to realize that that is like asking enlightenment thinkers to prove that democracy works. As long as something is theoretical, by definition it has not been proven, and in terms of social and economic theories you really can't prove them until they are actually applied. Communism has not been applied so it cannot be proven, but as I have stated many early inventions were created in communalist societies, which is as close to a concrete example as I can go. But remember that you are the one making the assertation that innovation would not occur and you have given no justification for that save vague references to 'private property'.

Ehm, excuse me. Communism was tagged irrational a long time ago so if you are willing to refute this all by simple guessing and wishfull-thinking then do so. If you do, you have to give a sound economic justification and "under communism people will be different and bourgeois economics doesn't apply" is not a good one.


Bill Gates. Microsoft bought software from one guy, sold it to another and made a profit along the way. It is the classic example of capitalism. Bill Gates created nothing, he just exploited the creations of others in such a way that he managed to make money from it all. Microsoft is one of the best examples of what is wrong with capitalism

Blablabla. answer my question pls. If the guy who Gates bought from started microsoft himself, you would have come with the same miserable excuses.


A decrease in the speed of technological growth is a tiny price to pay if in exchange we eliminate poverty and starvation. But again, that is a worst case scenario, one which you have certainly not proven.

I have not, others already did so many years ago.

[LSD]

You're looking at this from too much of a capitalist perspective, it is not an issue of funding, since money will not exist. Rather it is that a collective of, say, steel workers will be the ones who decide if one of their members can research a more efficent mining method.


No, I am not. I am looking from an economic point of view.

Whatever you want to label it the point remains that you are assuming that funding is required.


Ahh, the tragedy of the commons. The last sentence is again an assumption and perhaps you don't know the meaning of scarcity in economic terms?

yes it is an assumption, as I stated, but you were making so damn many I thought it was just my turn. You're right there may not be more people working on inventing, there may be less, there may be the same damn number, that is the nature of humanity, it is intrinsically unpredictable. But, again, there will still be technological innovation because there will be incentives to innovate (which I have outlined several times now). As far as scarcity is concerned what's your point? No one is claiming that everyone will be able to do everything they want, but resources are far more plentifull than you may think and you are missing the collective nature of the collective. People won't be given a certain amount, they will be free to use everything that the collective has, therefore different inventors can use the same equipment/supplies.


blabla, if you want to remain ignorant pls do.

Brilliant refutation, really I'm impressed. Good to see you're finally conceeding this.


Ehm, excuse me. Communism was tagged irrational a long time ago so if you are willing to refute this all by simple guessing and wishfull-thinking then do so. If you do, you have to give a sound economic justification and "under communism people will be different and bourgeois economics doesn't apply" is not a good one.

Yes, tagged irrational by who exactly? Could it have been the very people it threatened? And exactly what do you consider a "sound economic justification," I have already explained detailed ways how it could work as well as how it is supportable by current conditions. At this point you'' have to actuall explain what more you want.


Blablabla. answer my question pls. If the guy who Gates bought from started microsoft himself, you would have come with the same miserable excuses.

The thing about Gates is he's such a good example of everything that's wrong with capitalism. But anyway, if that guy had made his own company than he would have made a shit load of money and.........

I think you're trying to argue that that would show something about how capitalism bennefits society but no one is denying that there have been great technical developments under capitalism. That's not the point. The fact that technology has progressed in a capitalist system in no way demonstrates that it would not under another.


I have not, others already did so many years ago.

And yet somehow you're unable to even summarize their arguments.....telling that.....

[Hoppe]

Whatever you want to label it the point remains that you are assuming that funding is required.

No I am not.


As far as scarcity is concerned what's your point? No one is claiming that everyone will be able to do everything they want, but resources are far more plentifull than you may think and you are missing the collective nature of the collective. People won't be given a certain amount, they will be free to use everything that the collective has, therefore different inventors can use the same equipment/supplies.

This is not what scarcity means.


Yes, tagged irrational by who exactly? Could it have been the very people it threatened? And exactly what do you consider a "sound economic justification," I have already explained detailed ways how it could work as well as how it is supportable by current conditions. At this point you'' have to actuall explain what more you want.

No, economists, as they so clearly pointed out that you might have neglected some important things.


I think you're trying to argue that that would show something about how capitalism bennefits society but no one is denying that there have been great technical developments under capitalism. That's not the point. The fact that technology has progressed in a capitalist system in no way demonstrates that it would not under another.

No no no. What I say is that precisely the thing that you want to achieve is achieved under capitalism, with the exception that people will reap the award, which is their incentive. If this is selfish, so be it. The motivation of the inventor isn't interesting, the market will put it to a social end.


And yet somehow you're unable to even summarize their arguments.....telling that.....

I have stated it many times, and if you have never heard of it, read up. Google will give you plenty of information on the calculation problem in socialism (in economics the same as communism) or the problems with incentives. It deasl thouroughly with the allocation mess you'll end up in and problems with respect to incentives or entrepreneurship.

[LSD]

This is not what scarcity means.


um....yes it is. Scarcity: Insufficiency of amount or supply; shortage. In economic terms it refers to demand outweighing supply.



No no no. What I say is that precisely the thing that you want to achieve is achieved under capitalism, with the exception that people will reap the award, which is their incentive. If this is selfish, so be it.

It is not achieved under capitalism because 1) it is hard to get resources/time to invent/innovate under capitalism, most of the workers actually involved in the field in question have neither and 2) research/innovation undertaken for the pure pursuir of profit often leads to research/innovation of absolutely no social value whatsoever.


The motivation of the inventor isn't interesting, the market will put it to a social end.

The motivation of the inventor is very interesting because it directly influences what he invents. And as to the 'market' putting 'it to a social end', what the 'market' does is use the invention to create profit and to acquire wealth. This does usually lead to the technology entering the public at large, but, again, this would occur with greater effect and efficiency under communism.


I have stated it many times, and if you have never heard of it, read up. Google will give you plenty of information on the calculation problem in socialism

oh great.....the calculation problem again....that's a new one.......we are all aware here that this is from the 1920s right?? OK, fine, if you must, here we go....

The Calculation problem rests on a lot of assumptoins. One of them is that of central planning. Under a system such as that of the USSR, you're right the Calculation problem occurs and in fact probably did. But under decentralized communist, under anarcho-communism the problem disapears. There is no need to determine a monetary value to goods if these goods are entirely public. What you're talking about is a form of state-socialism, in which people are, say, handed out coupons by the government (in fact that was the example that Mises used), this is not at all what anarcho-communism advocates. There is no need for a common unit of accounting, that need only arrises in capitalist economic exchanges. In capitalism costs are measured by money, it's truistic to claim that only a money-based systen can measure costs this way, of course only a money-based system can measure using money, that doesn't show that it needs to be measured this way.
Furthermore, if money is meant to capture costs in some concrete way than you have to actually show a relationship between these two kinds of 'costs'. Since this would mean actually measuring costs directly and not in terms of money, the argument is entirely inapplicable. There.


or the problems with incentives. It deasl thouroughly with the allocation mess you'll end up in and problems with respect to incentives

Incentives again? The incentive argument seems to rest on the notion that people will just not work if they aren't being paid shit wages to do it. As a member of communist society, one will be required to work along with everyone else (one can always decide not to join this society and sustain themselves, of course). If you mean incentives for innovation than surely you are not claiming that every invention in history was created for the purpose of profit?? Because if you don't than you acknowledge that capitalism is not the sole incentive for innovation and therefore admit that it would occur under a noncapitalist system.


or entrepreneurship.

Just as a side-note, entrepreneurship is one of the most blatantly abusive bourgeouis concepts. Someone gets a bunch of workers to do the work for them, takes their work and labour, sells it for farrrrr more than he pays them, and then is considered a good man.

[Hoppe]

um....yes it is. Scarcity: Insufficiency of amount or supply; shortage. In economic terms it refers to demand outweighing supply

not really. Scarcity in simple words means that use of something by A excludes B from using it.


research/innovation undertaken for the pure pursuir of profit often leads to research/innovation of absolutely no social value whatsoever.


Oh no, really. Can I have a copy of that research?


The motivation of the inventor is very interesting because it directly influences what he invents.

Since when? Are you an inventor yourself, do you invent other things when you feel happy or depressed?


oh great.....the calculation problem again....that's a new one.......we are all aware here that this is from the 1920s right?? OK, fine, if you must, here we go....

Yeah right, I've read these arguments somewhere before. Somehow in your fantasy world the law is scarcity is abolished as we no longer need economic calculation. You cannot just talk this out of existence. And please don't respond with a statement that capitalism produces scarcity.


one can always decide not to join this society and sustain themselves, of course)

There seems t be a real problem here then. Can I step back and decide to start a capitalistic society?

And, if I am not a member of your society anymore, am I allowed to cut some trees to build my house? Or farm? This would give serious problems. If you decide no, I am thus a slave to the people, if yes, away is your Eden.

[Guest1]

You can leave the society. However, you will not be allowed to participate in wage slavery, just as the south was forced not to practice unpaid slavery.

You will be allowed to farm and cut trees of course. If you decided, however, to employ clearcutting techniques, huge oil plants, waste dumping, and other actions against the environment that lead to an unsustainable ecosystem, you would be stopped by your neighbours.

[LSD]

not really. Scarcity in simple words means that use of something by A excludes B from using it.


yes....because...there is an "Insufficiency of amount or supply; shortage", besides you're talking ab out opportunity cost, which is because of scarcity but not strictly the same thing.





research/innovation undertaken for the pure pursuir of profit often leads to research/innovation of absolutely no social value whatsoever.

Oh no, really. Can I have a copy of that research?

What? You honestly deny this?Do you know how much time and resources are devoted into researching different types of aestheic car designs, or creating new soft drinks or designing television/radio/print commericals or you show me the social value of that.




The motivation of the inventor is very interesting because it directly influences what he invents.
Since when? Are you an inventor yourself, do you invent other things when you feel happy or depressed?

Are you honestly that deluded that you don't think the motivation has no effect?? Let's define the word shall we, Motivation: Something that motivates; an inducement or incentive (emphasis added). For someone who talks about incentive so damn much, how can you honestly argue that it had no effect? Furthermore, someone invents something because and only becaue they are motivated to invent that thing. If whoever invented the wheel had had no need for a wheel than he would not of created one. It is the need that produces the desire to create, that is incentive and that is motivation. It matters.


Yeah right, I've read these arguments somewhere before. Somehow in your fantasy world the law is scarcity is abolished as we no longer need economic calculation. You cannot just talk this out of existence. And please don't respond with a statement that capitalism produces scarcity.

Ha! I give you a simple logical explanation for why the 'calculation problem' does not reply and you respond with "you cannot just talk this out of existence." Since all we are doing is talking I don't know what else you think I can do. I disproved your argument through simple yet forcefull logic. The fact that you didn't address one of my arguments shows either that you didn't understand them (I would be glad to explain them if you want) or that you are unable to refute them (because they're right).



There seems t be a real problem here then. Can I step back and decide to start a capitalistic society?


No, I said you can be self-sustaining, you need more than one person for a capitalist society and besides just as you will not be permitted to have slaves, you will not be permitted to have wage-slaves. You can leave the communist society insofar as you will not have to work for it, and you will not recieve its bennefits, but you wil still not be permitted to murder/rape/assault/enslave/molest........


And, if I am not a member of your society anymore, am I allowed to cut some trees to build my house? Or farm? This would give serious problems. If you decide no, I am thus a slave to the people, if yes, away is your Eden.

Of course you can cut trees and build a house/farm. If your actions begin to become harmfull to others (clearcutting, erradiation etc....) than the collective will make you stop.

[Hoppe]

yes....because...there is an "Insufficiency of amount or supply; shortage", besides you're talking ab out opportunity cost, which is because of scarcity but not strictly the same thing.

No but what scarcity implies is that you have to make choices, thus back to the calculation debate.


What? You honestly deny this?Do you know how much time and resources are devoted into researching different types of aestheic car designs, or creating new soft drinks or designing television/radio/print commericals or you show me the social value of that.

If there is demand for these things, yes then it has social value.


Are you honestly that deluded that you don't think the motivation has no effect??

Yes. I am only interested in the end product, not whether someone choose to invent it out selfishness or for the greater good of mankind.


Ha! I give you a simple logical explanation for why the 'calculation problem' does not reply and you respond with "you cannot just talk this out of existence." Since all we are doing is talking I don't know what else you think I can do

Unfortunately Mises critique was/is applicable to all forms, whether state-ownership or common ownership. The fact that scarcity will not be abolished is enough refutation.


No, I said you can be self-sustaining, you need more than one person for a capitalist society and besides just as you will not be permitted to have slaves, you will not be permitted to have wage-slaves. You can leave the communist society insofar as you will not have to work for it, and you will not recieve its bennefits, but you wil still not be permitted to murder/rape/assault/enslave/molest........

Maybe more people come. How can you not permit me if I can leave the community? The latter are also not permitted in a capitalist society so that doesn't mean anything.


Of course you can cut trees and build a house/farm. If your actions begin to become harmfull to others (clearcutting, erradiation etc....) than the collective will make you stop

How is this harmful? If I cut one tree of the common good it should be harmful already as the collective now can't decide to use the tree anymore.

[LSD]

If there is demand for these things, yes then it has social value.


Bullshit.
Besides Coca-Cola, who is bennefitted by Sprite ads?


Yes. I am only interested in the end product, not whether someone choose to invent it out selfishness or for the greater good of mankind.

Allright, than you are claiming that their incentive does not matter which is inconsitent with your earlier comments to the contrary!



Unfortunately Mises critique was/is applicable to all forms, whether state-ownership or common ownership. The fact that scarcity will not be abolished is enough refutation.

Again, you either missing the point or intentionally evading it. Scarcity does not neccessitate monetary accounting. You are taking the exigencies of capital-economics and projecting them as requistite laws of human society. Calculation is not an issue when money (or its capital equivalent) is eliminated. Effectively your claim rests on the assumption that without common unit of value, people would find themselves unable to produce goods and services (because they can't figure out propper uses of capital which are proportional with demand) or to choose goods efficiently (because they can't determine value). This, again, assumes some degree of central planning or at a minimum some degree of state-capitalism.
This is not what i am advocating. That's not even pointing out the the argument is internally inconsistent. Remember my friend, the 'Calculation Problem' is a critisism of socialism/communism. That means the burden of proof lies with it. If the argument is ultimately unconfirmable (like it is) than it can be disregarded.


Maybe more people come. How can you not permit me if I can leave the community?

Like I said, you can leave the community in economic sense (you don't have to work, they don't have to provide for you) but if you should act in such a way that the rest of the community finds dangerous/harmfull than they will stop you.


The latter are also not permitted in a capitalist society so that doesn't mean anything.

My point was just that these actions would not be permitted in a communist society either and that neither would capitalistic behavior that harmed others. i.e., you can be as capitalistic as you want on your own, but when you start hurting others the community will intervene.


How is this harmful? If I cut one tree of the common good it should be harmful already as the collective now can't decide to use the tree anymore.

It isn't a matter of the collective 'deciding' to use anything. There aren't plenary sessions where determinations are made for which trees ares used. Everything belongs to everyone. If you choose to leave the society, again it is in an economic sense, you cannot take advantage of the labour of that community. However the resources of the natural world are still available....to a point. If you begin to take actions which are considered harmfull by the community, either to them or to the environment, you will be stopped.

[Hoppe]

Allright, than you are claiming that their incentive does not matter which is inconsitent with your earlier comments to the contrary!

Au contraire, there incentive doesn't matter to the market.


Scarcity does not neccessitate monetary accounting. You are taking the exigencies of capital-economics and projecting them as requistite laws of human society. Calculation is not an issue when money (or its capital equivalent) is eliminated.

Scarcity implies making decisions. As scarcity is not abolished under communism, you are still restrained by economic laws. And this is not bourgois capitalistic economic theory.


Effectively your claim rests on the assumption that without common unit of value, people would find themselves unable to produce goods and services (because they can't figure out propper uses of capital which are proportional with demand) or to choose goods efficiently (because they can't determine value).

Oh no, they probably can. But if your desire is to have the same techological level as we experience today, you will have a problem.


This, again, assumes some degree of central planning or at a minimum some degree of state-capitalism.

No the central assumption is the abolishment of markets and collective ownership. Whether there is central planning or decentralization makes no difference.


Remember my friend, the 'Calculation Problem' is a critisism of socialism/communism. That means the burden of proof lies with it. If the argument is ultimately unconfirmable (like it is) than it can be disregarded.

It has been refuted in both theory and practice, how much proof do you need?


If you begin to take actions which are considered harmfull by the community, either to them or to the environment, you will be stopped.

That would be fun. So I can expect a democratically controlled army? :lol:

[LSD]

Au contraire, there incentive doesn't matter to the market.


This whole 'motivation of inventors things comes from this comment of yours:

"No no no. What I say is that precisely the thing that you want to achieve is achieved under capitalism, with the exception that people will reap the award, which is their incentive. If this is selfish, so be it. The motivation of the inventor isn't interesting, the market will put it to a social end." (emphasis added)

So which one is it?? are they inventing to "reap the reward", or is their incentive "not interesting." Because if it isn't interesting then their incentive doesn't matter, and your claim that innovation will halt under communism collapses.


Scarcity implies making decisions. As scarcity is not abolished under communism, you are still restrained by economic laws. And this is not bourgois capitalistic economic theory.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. Of course scarcity requires making decisions, but in the manner you are implying. People will use what use what they need of society's. They do not need to calculate the value of capital goods, they do not need a unit of value. The 'economic laws' you speak of only apply in an acollective environment.


No the central assumption is the abolishment of markets and collective ownership. Whether there is central planning or decentralization makes no difference.

no the central assumption is the neccessity of a unit of value.



Remember my friend, the 'Calculation Problem' is a critisism of socialism/communism. That means the burden of proof lies with it. If the argument is ultimately unconfirmable (like it is) than it can be disregarded.

It has been refuted in both theory and practice, how much proof do you need?

um...what has been refuted....if you mean the 'calculation problem' then you are correct. Again, logically it a is fundamentally inconsitent argument, per my earlier post.


Oh no, they probably can. But if your desire is to have the same techological level as we experience today, you will have a problem.

What, you expect technology to devolve? Why?


That would be fun. So I can expect a democratically controlled army?

Yah, because it would take an army to stop one guy from clear-cutting....... but under some circumstances, yes, it would be neccessary to from a collective militia to deal with threats, say looters or invaders or, yes, clear-cutters. Are you telling me that they shouldn't fight beack against threats? Who's idealistic now??

[Hoppe]

and your claim that innovation will halt under communism collapses

Haha, if it were that easy.....


The 'economic laws' you speak of only apply in an acollective environment.


That's your unfortunate misstake. :(


no the central assumption is the neccessity of a unit of value

No, the assumptions in the calculation debate.


um...what has been refuted....if you mean the 'calculation problem' then you are correct. Again, logically it a is fundamentally inconsitent argument, per my earlier post.

That collective ownership and the abolishment of markets would lead to a disaster was proven. It is easy to call every argument against your fantasy world illogical simply because according to you there will be abundance and everyone will freely devour himself to the benefit of mankind.


What, you expect technology to devolve? Why?

No, that you can never reach the same complex level. You can invent easily a screw-driver but not a television.


but under some circumstances, yes, it would be neccessary to from a collective militia to deal with threats, say looters or invaders or, yes, clear-cutters. Are you telling me that they shouldn't fight beack against threats? Who's idealistic now??

No, it would be extremely funny to watch a democratically run army.

[LSD]

This whole 'motivation of inventors things comes from this comment of yours:

"No no no. What I say is that precisely the thing that you want to achieve is achieved under capitalism, with the exception that people will reap the award, which is their incentive. If this is selfish, so be it. The motivation of the inventor isn't interesting, the market will put it to a social end." (emphasis added)

So which one is it?? are they inventing to "reap the reward", or is their incentive "not interesting." Because if it isn't interesting then their incentive doesn't matter, and your claim that innovation will halt under communism collapses.

Haha, if it were that easy.....


Haha, answer the question.....


That's your unfortunate misstake.

No, it's Mises'


No, the assumptions in the calculation debate.

You do know you need a verb there somewhere, right?


That collective ownership and the abolishment of markets would lead to a disaster was proven. It is easy to call every argument against your fantasy world illogical simply because according to you there will be abundance and everyone will freely devour himself to the benefit of mankind.

If you have a logically coherent argument, let's see it. So far the one you've presented - you know the one from the 1920's?? yah that one - was not. It claims that a monetary unit is neccessary to judge the value of goods, but to claim this neccessitates that this unit reflect an intrtinsic value (be it economic or physical) of the good in question. But to verify this would require comparing the monetary value with this more intrinsic one, which means it must be possible to measure that value, making the use of monetary standards unnescessary in the first place. The argument defeats itself.


No, that you can never reach the same complex level. You can invent easily a screw-driver but not a television.

1) My friend we already have the television, we are speaking about the future, and 2) talk about assumptions! You don't think that, hypothetically, had a true communist revolution happened say 50 years ago, someone would of developed the television?? Of course there is no way to know, so it's all conjecture, but you have no more justification to claim that he wouldn't than I do to claim that he would, and if you don't plan on introducing any evidence, we'll just have to leave it at that.


No, it would be extremely funny to watch a democratically run army. No one said the militia had to be internally democratic, but it would certaibly be more democratic than your standard centralized standing army. Much more temporary too.

[Guest1]

The Anarchist militias in the Spanish civil war had no hierarchy, no officers. They held Franco and his Nazi and Fascist allies off for 4 years. Republicans and Stalinists then betrayed the Anarchists, destroyed the collectives, and forced the militias to turn into an official, organized army, with officers and hierarchy.

Would they have lost had the militias remained decentralized and democratized? Most likely, yes, they would have still been overrun. However, the militias meant two things: they were much better equipped to handle a situation where they were very much outgunned with their small sizes and speed, and they could never have been turned into instruments of state repression and terror.

Thta is why a democratic, all volunteer army, with no career soldiers, is the way to go.

[Hoppe]

It claims that a monetary unit is neccessary to judge the value of goods, but to claim this neccessitates that this unit reflect an intrtinsic value (be it economic or physical) of the good in question.

Hmmm, I was under the impression that the austrians thought value was subjective.


talk about assumptions! You don't think that, hypothetically, had a true communist revolution happened say 50 years ago, someone would of developed the television??

Well let us see, your true society would simply not come about. First all the means will be centralized, your economy collapses, and your final stage won't be reached but will propably end up in a civil war over the resources.

[LSD]

It claims that a monetary unit is neccessary to judge the value of goods, but to claim this neccessitates that this unit reflect an intrtinsic value (be it economic or physical) of the good in question.

Hmmm, I was under the impression that the austrians thought value was subjective.


Now, now, don't stereotype. What can I say? It's intrinsic to the argument!!



Well let us see, your true society would simply not come about. First all the means will be centralized, your economy collapses, and your final stage won't be reached but will propably end up in a civil war over the resources.

Now who's fantasizing.
1) there is no centraliztion because there is no one to centralize.
2) you'll have to expand on "your economy collapses" because on its own the statement seems to be predicated on capitalist economic theory

[LSD]

Oh, by the way, in case you've let it slip your mind:

"So which one is it?? are they inventing to "reap the reward", or is their incentive "not interesting." Because if it isn't interesting then their incentive doesn't matter, and your claim that innovation will halt under communism collapses."