"I perceive slavery as an involuntary state. No one is forcing you to go to work for anyone. You need food and water to survive, however I am not obligated to give that to you for then I would become the slave."
You're implying too many things here that I can't understand your meaning.
"I think that is a very good question for you to answer also. For you said that everyone owns everything therefore how can I be robbed of a comb when I never actually completely owned it. Such is the same for life. I myself believe in private property rights so I would say yes you can be robbed of your life and your comb."
I backpedalled the original statement.
"So that is how you see the world working out? Everyone forced to making everything for themselves? Let us hope we all know how to be doctors, mechanics, contractors and every other profession with stunning brilliance lest we be forced to live in a brutish, short dismal life."
No, that would be individualism Anarchy where you were trade your goods for other goods. I advocate for collective Anarchy in which all the goods are then pooled and taken according to need.
"Millions of people starved to death in that period, mate. Many others were executed for withholding their crop from "the collective". Joys indeed."
Under the given conditions I would say that was quite the accomplishment.
"A.) False government figures"
I'd like to see sources of the real figures then.
"B.) Up to 1200 people were being killed in purges...a day."
Most regrettable under such a despotic gov't
"C.) The Russian economy was so dismal from shortages and famines that it couldn't get any lower."
Now imagine how it would've been if a Capitalist had taken ownership of one of those places and ordered people to work for him instead of working the fields himself.
"D.) Between 1932-1933 7 million people died."
Again, given the conditions that's not all that bad.
That_Which_Isnt:You're implying too many things here that I can't understand your meaning.
Slavery is to me defined as an involuntary state of being. You cannot really choose to be a slave. That being said, by choosing to be employed at Company X you are not becoming a 'wage-slave.' You are trading your time and labor for a certain amount of compensation. If you agree to such a contract then that establishes that you value the money they are giving you more then the time you are losing. Do you understand what I mean?
That_Which_Isnt:I backpedalled the original statement.
Ok, what to? Is everything owned communally?
That_Which_Isnt: No, that would be individualism Anarchy where you were trade your goods for other goods. I advocate for collective Anarchy in which all the goods are then pooled and taken according to need.
Well who establishes what 'need' is? Perhaps I need a steak dinner every night and the company of the opposite sex in my bedroom. How does your hypothetical system deal with such a need?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
So what's the point of laboring, then? If nothing is going to be traded and everything is going to be doled out according to "need" then I can sit on my ass all day simply eating and drinking water...
Hard Rain:If nothing is going to be traded and everything is going to be doled out according to "need" then I can sit on my ass all day simply eating and drinking water...
It's quite amazing isn't it? The incentive problem has been around since the 12th century and people still fall into it nearly 9 centuries later.
"Slavery is to me defined as an involuntary state of being. You cannot really choose to be a slave. That being said, by choosing to be employed at Company X you are not becoming a 'wage-slave.' You are trading your time and labor for a certain amount of compensation. If you agree to such a contract then that establishes that you value the money they are giving you more then the time you are losing. Do you understand what I mean?"
Yes, now I have your meaning.
As an anti-statist I'm SURE you can see the flaw in thinking that choosing your master is any sort of freedom. You only choose to trade such time for money because the alternative is starving in a shorter amount of time, so you ultimately make off with more time than you would have. The alternative to this being you work and manage your own labour on your own terms, receiving the fruit of your labour directly.
"Ok, what to? Is everything owned communally?"
There would be a shift to communal ownership of factories under collectivised society yes. But reffering to possession, that's something that youa ctively use, so if several people actively use it, it becomes communal.
"Well who establishes what 'need' is? Perhaps I need a steak dinner every night and the company of the opposite sex in my bedroom. How does your hypothetical system deal with such a need?"
Need is insofaras it does not infringe on anyone else's liberty, and then if you work, your survival needs will be met, and anything extra effort you exert will also be rewarded depending upon how much the community values your efforts and how much supply of whatever it is you want the community has.
"So what's the point of laboring, then? If nothing is going to be traded and everything is going to be doled out according to "need" then I can sit on my ass all day simply eating and drinking water..."
FROM EACH ACCORDING TO ABILTIY. If all you can do is sit there on your ass EG are physically and mentally retarded to the point you cannot labour, then yes.
That_Which_Isnt: FROM EACH ACCORDING TO ABILTIY. If all you can do is sit there on your ass EG are physically and mentally retarded to the point you cannot labour, then yes.
Um, no, I'm very capable of labour. In fact, I'm tall and strong so I'm more capable than the average person but I choose not to labour at all because regardless of how hard I work or my "ability" I still get the same as everyone else. So I'm gonna sit on my ass... what are you going to do about it?
"Um, no, I'm very capable of labour. In fact, I'm tall and strong so I'm more capable than the average person but I choose not to labour at all because regardless of how hard I work or my "ability" I still get the same as everyone else. So I'm gonna sit on my ass... what are you going to do about it?"
You can't half follow rules sorry, you must have missed the first part I put in all caps.
"It's quite amazing isn't it? The incentive problem has been around since the 12th century and people still fall into it nearly 9 centuries later."
Incentive has never been a problem, why am I replying to this post? Not because I'm being paid, but to further my cause. Some people enjoy pursing Science, others love computers. I have a friend who designs OS's just for the hell of it. You don't honestly think profit is any real motive do you? Profit motivates people to make a profit, not to do a good job.
That_Which_Isnt: As an anti-statist I'm SURE you can see the flaw in thinking that choosing your master is any sort of freedom
As an anti-statist I'm SURE you can see the flaw in thinking that choosing your master is any sort of freedom
I don't see in choosing a boss how that is anti-freedom? I choose experts all the time with my teeth and my health. Certainly I am not becoming a slave simply because I don't know how to give myself an extensive physical exam with medical technology.
That_Which_Isnt:You only choose to trade such time for money because the alternative is starving in a shorter amount of time, so you ultimately make off with more time than you would have. The alternative to this being you work and manage your own labour on your own terms, receiving the fruit of your labour directly.
Some people do not wish to go through the hassle of establishing capital. Think of it like real estate. Renters in many respects have it a lot better then actual home owners. No property taxes, low maintenance costs, little out of pocket spending, low rates, no mortgage. However, there is a trade off. They cannot suddenly convert the house into something brand new. The situation of an individual sometimes calls for a specific choice. Such as if you are constantly moving your local, then it is better to rent. If you are staying in the same area for 30-50 years, it is better to buy. I don't see renting as degrading, nor do I see home buying grandiose.
That_Which_Isnt:There would be a shift to communal ownership of factories under collectivised society yes. But reffering to possession, that's something that youa ctively use, so if several people actively use it, it becomes communal.
In terms of principles, what is the difference between a comb and a factory?
That_Which_Isnt:Need is insofaras it does not infringe on anyone else's liberty, and then if you work, your survival needs will be met, and anything extra effort you exert will also be rewarded depending upon how much the community values your efforts and how much supply of whatever it is you want the community has.
Well you are contradicting yourself in a single paragraph. You say need in so far as it doesn't infringe on rights of others and yet someone has to till the food to feed me, someone has to gather the water to quench my thirst. They are my slave to the degree in which they work for my needs and not theirs.
That_Which_Isnt: "Um, no, I'm very capable of labour. In fact, I'm tall and strong so I'm more capable than the average person but I choose not to labour at all because regardless of how hard I work or my "ability" I still get the same as everyone else. So I'm gonna sit on my ass... what are you going to do about it?" You can't half follow rules sorry, you must have missed the first part I put in all caps.
I can't half-follow the rules? "From each according to his ability", does this mean you're gonna coerce me into labouring? Or are you just gonna deny me my "needs" because I refuse to work?
That_Which_Isnt:Incentive has never been a problem, why am I replying to this post? Not because I'm being paid, but to further my cause. Some people enjoy pursing Science, others love computers. I have a friend who designs OS's just for the hell of it. You don't honestly think profit is any real motive do you? Profit motivates people to make a profit, not to do a good job.
Firstly, profit is only achieved on a free market by doing a good job for the greatest amount of people. I can also think of several historical examples in which the incentive problem presented itself under a socialist economy. You seem to have never entered into a group project in academia where there is always one individual who does sub-par work and yet gets all the fruits of the grade.
"I don't see in choosing a boss how that is anti-freedom?"
The same way choosing a President to represent you is anti-freedom, all you get to do is choose your master.
"I choose experts all the time with my teeth and my health. Certainly I am not becoming a slave simply because I don't know how to give myself an extensive physical exam with medical technology."
Horizontal Hierarchy, again I have no problem with this.
"Some people do not wish to go through the hassle of establishing capital. Think of it like real estate. Renters in many respects have it a lot better then actual home owners. No property taxes, low maintenance costs, little out of pocket spending, low rates, no mortgage. However, there is a trade off. They cannot suddenly convert the house into something brand new. The situation of an individual sometimes calls for a specific choice. Such as if you are constantly moving your local, then it is better to rent. If you are staying in the same area for 30-50 years, it is better to buy. I don't see renting as degrading, nor do I see home buying grandiose. "
This example is making the assumption of private property. In such a situation without private property, the traveling man/woman could lodge in the communal housing with the rest of the community
"In terms of principles, what is the difference between a comb and a factory?"
In my example, a factory was a tool of oppression, and a comb is not. It depends on how you use it though, a comb could be a tool of oppression too if you rent it to someone, the same way a factory could be communal property if those that use it reap its benefits.
"Well you are contradicting yourself in a single paragraph. You say need in so far as it doesn't infringe on rights of others and yet someone has to till the food to feed me, someone has to gather the water to quench my thirst. They are my slave to the degree in which they work for my needs and not theirs."
I said liberty, there is no contradiction. Their labours also meet their own needs, by feeding themselves too, and by feeding you they reap the benefits of your job too. Working together is nice :)
"I can't half-follow the rules? "From each according to his ability", does this mean you're gonna coerce me into labouring? Or are you just gonna deny me my "needs" because I refuse to work?"
The latter.
"Firstly, profit is only achieved on a free market by doing a good job for the greatest amount of people. I can also think of several historical examples in which the incentive problem presented itself under a socialist economy. You seem to have never entered into a group project in academia where there is always one individual who does sub-par work and yet gets all the fruits of the grade."
High fructose corn syrup is added to tons of food, yet is totally unnecessary and could be replaced with something for more healthy. Why isn't it? Because it's cheaper to use HFC. I have entered in such groups before, I made sure the individual was working as best they could, and as long as they were I was fine with it, if they were refusing to work I refused to group with them plain and simple.
That_Which_Isnt: "I can't half-follow the rules? "From each according to his ability", does this mean you're gonna coerce me into labouring? Or are you just gonna deny me my "needs" because I refuse to work?" The latter.
Okay, so I starve to death because of the unincentivized system I live in. I am forced to work to live, therefor I am a slave.
What happened to freedom in your society? What happened to that only happening with the evil capitalists?
"Okay, so I starve to death because of the unincentivized system I live in. I am forced to work to live, therefor I am a slave.
What happened to freedom in your society? What happened to that only happening with the evil capitalists?"
No, you got to do what you want, sit around and starve, you're drawing a false parallel, in Capitalist society it's either be exploited or starve, in the society I advocate for it's work or starve, big difference. You knew the consequences of refusing to work. i don't advocate for Freedom either, that's absurd, Liberty is what I advocate for, the ability to act upon your own will in such a way that does not infringe on others ability to act on their own will.
That_Which_Isnt: The same way choosing a President to represent you is anti-freedom, all you get to do is choose your master.
A president is forced onto you. A boss isn't since I can theoretically work for myself through subsistence farming.
That_Which_Isnt:Horizontal Hierarchy, again I have no problem with this.
Why is oppression from above unacceptable but oppression from peers not?
That_Which_Isnt:This example is making the assumption of private property. In such a situation without private property, the traveling man/woman could lodge in the communal housing with the rest of the community
Well we are talking about why some people don't buy capital and setup their own businesses so of course it assumes private property.
That_Which_Isnt:In my example, a factory was a tool of oppression, and a comb is not. It depends on how you use it though, a comb could be a tool of oppression too if you rent it to someone, the same way a factory could be communal property if those that use it reap its benefits.
So it is not that factories themselves are oppressive, just how they are used?
That_Which_Isnt:Their labours also meet their own needs, by feeding themselves too, and by feeding you they reap the benefits of your job too. Working together is nice
Well this is strange. You are against choosing 'masters' yet you openly declare it is positive that individuals are subjugated to the needs of others in order to sustain livelihood. I have a premise that I think you cannot disapprove of according to this very theory you postulate. Say there is a gathering of CEO's without anything to labor on. They would require workers to labor for them in order for their livelihood to be sustained since their labor requires the commanding of others to do tasks. They are CEO's, that is what they are trained to do. So in order for these CEO's to actual labor and be productive, they need other individuals to subordinate themselves to the will of the CEO's in order for the CEO's to exist and sustain themselves.
That_Which_Isnt:High fructose corn syrup is added to tons of food, yet is totally unnecessary and could be replaced with something for more healthy.
Because not everyone is so incensed that fructose corn syrup is in there food.
That_Which_Isnt:I made sure the individual was working as best they could, and as long as they were I was fine with it, if they were refusing to work I refused to group with them plain and simple.
Yes and that is analogous to a socialist economy in which everyone owns everything and receives the same rations. [ sarcasm ]
That_Which_Isnt: in Capitalist society it's either be exploited or starve, in the society I advocate for it's work or starve, big difference.
in Capitalist society it's either be exploited or starve, in the society I advocate for it's work or starve, big difference.
Well, that about sums it up.
I'm sorry, I don't see how this is different from being "exploited". I am compelled and coerced by circumstance to engage in an activity that is only beneficial to me at the most basic level without ever having the opportunity to improve my lot.
This is absurd.
We've drawn out your political ideals to their logical conclusion: Everyone will be forced to labour for the most meagre of subsistence living. Your society isn't free, it isn't anarchic and it isn't remotely "fair". It is, quite simply, an equal sharing of misery for everyone. But so long as you get to call it "equal" it's fair in your mind.
I've engaged in this for far too long. You're a closeted Marxist-Communist who's drunk rebranded Kool-Aid and believes what he peddles is "Anarchism". I assure you, it is not.
And with that, I bid you goodnight.
"A president is forced onto you. A boss isn't since I can theoretically work for myself through subsistence farming."
A president is not forced onto you since you can theoretically move to a desert island.
"Why is oppression from above unacceptable but oppression from peers not?"
Because if it comes from above then you are unequal with your oppressor and cannot consent.
"Well we are talking about why some people don't buy capital and setup their own businesses so of course it assumes private property."
I'm not sure how we came to this point, it seems incredibly irrelevant.
"So it is not that factories themselves are oppressive, just how they are used?"
Precisely, they're all tools.
"Well this is strange. You are against choosing 'masters' yet you openly declare it is positive that individuals are subjugated to the needs of others in order to sustain livelihood. I have a premise that I think you cannot disapprove of according to this very theory you postulate. Say there is a gathering of CEO's without anything to labor on. They would require workers to labor for them in order for their livelihood to be sustained since their labor requires the commanding of others to do tasks. They are CEO's, that is what they are trained to do. So in order for these CEO's to actual labor and be productive, they need other individuals to subordinate themselves to the will of the CEO's in order for the CEO's to exist and sustain themselves."
We can easily replace CEO with Slavedrivers and Employee with Slave and this analogy would remain the same. In your example, The CEO's are holding out on the means of production, they can do nothing with it, the workers would be wise to work the means of production but then take the fruits for themselves considering the CEO does nothing to contribute to the process. Of course then the Capitalist will call in the Army or whatever so the workers have to have their Revolution.
"Because not everyone is so incensed that fructose corn syrup is in there food."
"Firstly, profit is only achieved on a free market by doing a good job for the greatest amount of people."
Which is it?
"Yes and that is analogous to a socialist economy in which everyone owns everything and receives the same rations"
Just using the given example.
"I'm sorry, I don't see how this is different from being "exploited". I am compelled and coerced by circumstance to engage in an activity that is only beneficial to me at the most basic level without ever having the opportunity to improve my lot.
We've had drawn out your political ideals to their logical conclusion: Everyone will be forced to labour for the most meagre of subsistence living. Your society isn't free, it isn't anarchic and it isn't remotely "fair". It is, quite simply, an equal sharing of misery for everyone. But so long as you get to call it "equal" it's fair in your mind."
It's different from being exploited because you get the full value of your labour, that is you get EXACTLY what you produced. Everyone is forced to labour for food anyway. Nobody can sit around and do nothing unless they have a valid excuse. False conclusions.
I've already made the distinctions between Marxism and Anarchism about 5 times now so I won't bother. I only believe what has been passed around for the past few hundred years, you're the new kid on the block prove yourself.
G'night to ya
That_Which_Isnt: FROM EACH ACCORDING TO ABILTIY.
FROM EACH ACCORDING TO ABILTIY.
Where labourers compete to be as inert as possible, so they're not assigned to be worked into exhaustion.
That_Which_Isnt:A president is not forced onto you since you can theoretically move to a desert island.
This seems to be a common fallacy for you. Why must I move to a desert island?
That_Which_Isnt:Because if it comes from above then you are unequal with your oppressor and cannot consent.
And that can apply just as equally to horizontal coercion.
That_Which_Isnt: I'm not sure how we came to this point, it seems incredibly irrelevant.
I find it relevant, I just think you are painting yourself into a corner. This dialogue started with how workers are unable to own the means of production and the paragraph was about how some choose not to own capital because of the risks involved in it.
That_Which_Isnt:Precisely, they're all tools
Ok then your argument is nothing more then a personal preference. Peanut gallery 'I don't like the way you are doing it' mantra.
That_Which_Isnt:The CEO's are holding out on the means of production, they can do nothing with it, the workers would be wise to work the means of production but then take the fruits for themselves considering the CEO does nothing to contribute to the process.
Well even according to your rant, CEO's have something to contribute, namely the means of production which you oddly think are owned by all non-workers, as if property owners don't somehow work. CEO's have something workers want, workers have something CEO's want, such is the basis for trade in a market economy.
phrizek: Reading this thread so far, I assume this person is either: 1. A forum member who started a new account as an intellectual exercise (not a very rigorous one, it appears) 2. A forum member who started a new account for a laugh (brilliant caricature, mate) 3. Absolutely serious (was that a chill that ran down my spine?)
Reading this thread so far, I assume this person is either:
1. A forum member who started a new account as an intellectual exercise (not a very rigorous one, it appears)
2. A forum member who started a new account for a laugh (brilliant caricature, mate)
3. Absolutely serious (was that a chill that ran down my spine?)
It's Mr1001Bolsheviks. It just has to be.
That_Which_Isnt: "Because not everyone is so incensed that fructose corn syrup is in there food." "Firstly, profit is only achieved on a free market by doing a good job for the greatest amount of people." Which is it?
It's both. People happily buy fructose corn syrup products, if they weren't happy to buy them then corporations would be making profits on them.
That_Which_Isnt:Just using the given example
I meant the fact that you can just leave and not still receive the same grade as the do-nothing. Under socialism, everyone owns everything meaning that you cannot simply go off to another place and say 'Ok this is mine'
"Where labourers compete to be as inert as possible, so they're not assigned to be worked into exhaustion."
This is quite an ironic statement considering the USSR killed people for not working hard enough.
"This seems to be a common fallacy for you. Why must I move to a desert island?"
I can't tell if you're serious or not, you suggest I subsistence farm and then question my advocation of moving to a desert island? Please be consistent
"And that can apply just as equally to horizontal coercion."
No, because by definition horizontal hierarchy means you are equal to your peer.
"I find it relevant, I just think you are painting yourself into a corner. This dialogue started with how workers are unable to own the means of production and the paragraph was about how some choose not to own capital because of the risks involved in it."
I thought at one point I said that once they own the means of production they're no longer employees but employers obviously?
"Ok then your argument is nothing more then a personal preference. Peanut gallery 'I don't like the way you are doing it' mantra."
Well yea, I'd prefer you use guns against legitimate terrorists not people sleeping in their beds who've never done anything wrong. Is that an illegitimate argument too?
"Well even according to your rant, CEO's have something to contribute, namely the means of production which you oddly think are owned by all non-workers, as if property owners don't somehow work. CEO's have something workers want, workers have something CEO's want, such is the basis for trade in a market economy."
The principle here is trying to justify private property, the CEO's "own" it in the same sense slaveowners "owned" their slaves. And if you owned the means of production you no longer need to work, you become part of the leech class that just exploits workers.
"It's both. People happily buy fructose corn syrup products, if they weren't happy to buy them then corporations would be making profits on them."
Why, because there's some alternative to HFC on the market? I think not. And what the people do, and what's good for them are not mutually inclusive.
"I meant the fact that you can just leave and not still receive the same grade as the do-nothing. Under socialism, everyone owns everything meaning that you cannot simply go off to another place and say 'Ok this is mine'"
I've already said it's where you own what you work, making the analogy perfect.
That_Which_Isnt: I've already made the distinctions between Marxism and Anarchism about 5 times now so I won't bother. I only believe what has been passed around for the past few hundred years, you're the new kid on the block prove yourself.
This is just bizarre. Clicking your heels and saying "There's no place like home" three times doesn't mean you'll be whisked away home. The same thing stands for your so-called "definitions".
We've been proving all night how your idyllic society crumbles in the face of economic theory. You, unfortunately, are engaged in a delusional jihad against "inequality" at all costs.
Nothing in this world is equal. Not people, not resources, not life, not anything. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources in the most efficient means possible. Your idea is to, quite simply, make people scarcer than their resources.
Good luck taking us back into the Stone Age. I won't be joining you.
Cheers.
"This is just bizarre. Clicking your heels and saying "There's no place like home" three times doesn't mean you'll be whisked away home. The same thing stands for your so-called "definitions".
Cheers."
I'm going to ignore everything in there that wasn't something that bears a resemblance to a point (most of it) and just say that my society has been created before. The Spanish Revolution, the Communes of Aragon and Catalonia were quite nice, up until the Communists disarmed us and allowed the Fascists (backed by Capitalists who would do ANYTHING to get their precious private property back) to trample down the Aragon line.
That_Which_Isnt:I can't tell if you're serious or not, you suggest I subsistence farm and then question my advocation of moving to a desert island? Please be consistent
I am being consistent. Subsistence farming doesn't require you to leave your property. It does not presume to own your property. The government doesn't own the land I live on, therefore why am I required to move?
That_Which_Isnt:No, because by definition horizontal hierarchy means you are equal to your peer.
If you are equal then it is not hierarchical.
That_Which_Isnt:I thought at one point I said that once they own the means of production they're no longer employees but employers obviously?
I can own a means of production without actually employing people.
That_Which_Isnt:Well yea, I'd prefer you use guns against legitimate terrorists not people sleeping in their beds who've never done anything wrong. Is that an illegitimate argument too?
Your statement is simply that you think people doing bad things is bad. [ People abusing combs and factories are bad people ] It is a simple platitude.
That_Which_Isnt:the CEO's "own" it in the same sense slaveowners "owned" their slaves
We are extending slavery to machines now? Machines can be slaves? Because we have defined the means of production as not being apart of the workers. The workers do not supposedly own the means of production, the CEO's do. This whole argument of yours is becoming more convoluted.
That_Which_Isnt:Why, because there's some alternative to HFC on the market? I think not. And what the people do, and what's good for them are not mutually inclusive.
Why isn't there an alternative to HFC? Because hardly anyone is so self conscious to complain about HFC in their food. If you think that wrong then please by all means start a company that is HFC-free. Concerning what people do, of course ex-ante it is good for them, otherwise they wouldn't do it. That is the whole point of human action, to get rid of felt uneasy.
That_Which_Isnt:I've already said it's where you own what you work, making the analogy perfect.
No you didn't. Before you were saying that people are obligated to work for the basic necessities of the community. If one were to own their own work then that implies private ownership. The ability to dictate exclusivity in terms of the fruits of your labor.
That_Which_Isnt: This is quite an ironic statement considering the USSR killed people for not working hard enough.
Great! I'm glad to hear you admit that slogan you adhered to is nonsense.
That_Which_Isnt:Wait I thought we just said that a person's body was property why can't I buy that, are you already instituting regulations? An employer owns the means of production, an employee works them. The employer estimates the value of the employees labour, and pays him less, that is the source of profit, exploitation.
Knight_of_BAAWA: That_Which_Isnt:Wait I thought we just said that a person's body was property why can't I buy that, are you already instituting regulations? An employer owns the means of production, an employee works them. The employer estimates the value of the employees labour, and pays him less, that is the source of profit, exploitation.We have no need for Marxist nonsense here. Please leave.
We tried our best to reason with the fella but somebody has rebranded communism as anarchism and he's drunk the Kool-Aid. It was over when he quoted that epitome "from each according to his ability..."
I am going to ask you the same question that I ask everyone of your political persuasion I have come across. (and have not yet gotten a good answer to)
What is your theory about how a anarcho communist society would work?? Free marketeers of all stripes have well worked out and complex theories about how market society can and does work.
Yet there is no theory from the other side that I know of. Marx did not. The only people who tried to produce a theory that did away with the market were bourgeois economists like Oskar Lange. And they would not be anarchist enough for you.
And please do not wave the Spanish civil war in my face. That does not cut it. Has anyone actually put forward a systematic theoretical proposal of how anarco-socialism will work??
Because if there is not then you are just scrabbling in the dark. Is there any reason people should take such a doctrine seriously if that is the case? Moral arguments are one thing but it doesn't mean dick if it is impossible to achieve. And so far silence and Spain are all I get apart from that.
Hard Rain: We tried our best to reason with the fella but somebody has rebranded communism as anarchism and he's drunk the Kool-Aid. It was over when he quoted that epitome "from each according to his ability..."
Since I just can't resist the temptation:
I think we've just seen what happens when a Ferrous Cranus comes face to face with a forum of Capitalistas. Ah, well, you can't win them all. Though, personally, I'd say it was over when he shot himself in the foot saying the Soviet union killed people for not working hard enough and defended mass murder.
Faustus: What is your theory about how a anarcho communist society would work??
What is your theory about how a anarcho communist society would work??
I believe the following quote from him sums up that question quite succinctly:
" in Capitalist society it's either be exploited or starve, in the society I advocate for it's work or starve, big difference."
Big difference, you see
Anarcho-capitalism is a doctrine that claims that the state should not have a monopoly over the production of security and justice (aka sovereignty), but that individuals should decide whom they appeal to for justice and on what terms, including appealing to private companies and industries.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Jesus christ. What a depressing person. I don't even know how to start here. But firstly understand that you are a statist whether you accept this or not, Voluntarism is the only true form of non chaotic Anarchy, and capitalsm is the only system under which people are not exploited. If you want to look up a guy on fringeelements.com called confederalsocialist he used to have the same disease as you but is cured now and Ayn Rand makes some really great points obliterating egalitarianism and altruism. I'm really sorry.... The scary thing is that I truly am.
Hard Rain: That_Which_Isnt: in Capitalist society it's either be exploited or starve, in the society I advocate for it's work or starve, big difference. Well, that about sums it up. I'm sorry, I don't see how this is different from being "exploited". I am compelled and coerced by circumstance to engage in an activity that is only beneficial to me at the most basic level without ever having the opportunity to improve my lot. This is absurd. We've drawn out your political ideals to their logical conclusion: Everyone will be forced to labour for the most meagre of subsistence living. Your society isn't free, it isn't anarchic and it isn't remotely "fair". It is, quite simply, an equal sharing of misery for everyone. But so long as you get to call it "equal" it's fair in your mind. I've engaged in this for far too long. You're a closeted Marxist-Communist who's drunk rebranded Kool-Aid and believes what he peddles is "Anarchism". I assure you, it is not. And with that, I bid you goodnight.
/thread
I could have also argued, under his statement, that workers labor under capitalism but he considers them to be "exploited" because they do not directly keep the fruits of their labour. Yet under his system a worker keeps the fruits of his labor but is still resigned to the measly communal lot.
Oh well, glad he sank back into the abyss...
Just as a postscript to this whole debate I would like to opine that some measure of equality is possible under anarcho-capitalism and even other anarchist ideologies are allowable in that social state. However that equality would be a prefered state of existence or whether it would be technologically feasible at this present time is debatable but indeed equality is not a praxeological given and if there is to be a measure of equality than that equality must be based on some past inequality.
I just wished that we did a better job convincing that person of the wrongness of the labor value theory but rome wasn't built in a day.
Hard Rain: I could have also argued, under his statement, that workers labor under capitalism but he considers them to be "exploited" because they do not directly keep the fruits of their labour. Yet under his system a worker keeps the fruits of his labor but is still resigned to the measly communal lot. Oh well, glad he sank back into the abyss...
I thought you did a good job, most admirable Hard Rain.
The Late Andrew Ryan: I thought you did a good job, most admirable Hard Rain.
Thanks, but there were also many other users who contributed along the way with very important, often economic theory-related points, in an effort to expand this guy's thinking. Laughing Man had a whole other debate going with him as did Esuric.
But even with half a dozen of us on his case at 4am we just couldn't seem to reach him. Oh well, you can't win 'em all. I'm strangely still not convinced he was even a legitimate inquisitor, but anyways...
Yea I wish that I could have taken part in this but it started (in my time) at 2 oclock and seems to have ended rather quickly. Anyway, another one at least fought off although no real ground one.
....Anyone else laughing at the "pretend" part of the title?