NationStates Jolt Archive

Proponents of capitalism make numerous contradictions. For example, they say that the rich get paid the most because they contribute the most. If that's true, then what about actors vs. farmers? We can live without entertainment, but not without food. So why are actors paid more than farmers?

Capitalists also claim that capitalism is voluntary and that workers choose to work. They then say that anarcho-communism would suffer from rampant laziness. How does that work? Why will workers work in capitalism but not anarcho-communism if both are voluntary?

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Proponents of capitalism make numerous contradictions. For example, they say that the rich get paid the most because they contribute the most. If that's true, then what about actors vs. farmers? We can live without entertainment, but not without food. So why are actors paid more than farmers?
(Famous) Actors make more because people are willing to pay them more. That's the big secret.

Capitalists also claim that capitalism is voluntary and that workers choose to work. They then say that anarcho-communism would suffer from rampant laziness. How does that work? Why will workers work in capitalism but not anarcho-communism if both are voluntary?
Workers do work in capitalism because they get paid for their labour with agreeable terms. If they can't find someone willing to pay them for their work, then they don't work. This is not a complex concept.

(Famous) Actors make more because people are willing to pay them more. That's the big secret.

But they aren't more important than farmers. Is a system that rewards entertainment over survival rational? Why should actors get paid so much when farmers are so much more important?

After, CEOs are more important than workers and thus get paid more, right?

Workers do work in capitalism because they get paid for their labour with agreeable terms. If they can't find someone willing to pay them for their work, then they don't work. This is not a complex concept.

If they don't work, they starve, or nowadays rely on welfare, though that is hardly an empowering and rewarding existance. You can't have it both ways. Either capitalism is non-voluntary or people wouldn't become lazy in anarcho-communism.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

too true.

In the communist state, working is not really voluntary, neither is it in the capitalist state. In communism, in order to get the benifits of the state, you have to contribute to the state, i.e. - work. That's the process known as 'working socialism' or 'practical communism'. Each person works according to their skills, and they recieve all the benifits that state affords them. (Housing, cars, food, day care, health care, education, etc. . .)

In the capitalistic state, the worker has no choice but to work either, the worker needs to survive, creating the need for monetary goods, linking back to the idea of production of monetary assets - work. However, in the capitalistic state, the worker must pay for all he wishes to recieve. The worker must then work in the means of production to earn the paycheck which is then exchanged for whatever goods the worker can afford to purchase with that paycheck. (For a good example, read Jennifer Government, by our local god, Max Barry).

Unfortuantly, the worker may not always be able to afford what he/she requires. In a sense, this is why I believe the communist system to be better equipped for society. In communism, what the person needs is taken care of by the government. In capitalism, that need may never be met.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/data.jpg
Do actors work harder than farmers? Do people who inherit their wealth work harder than janitors?

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

(Famous) Actors make more because people are willing to pay them more. That's the big secret.

But they aren't more important than farmers. Is a system that rewards entertainment over survival rational? Why should actors get paid so much when farmers are so much more important?

After, CEOs are more important than workers and thus get paid more, right?

The market system allows for people to be paid what they are "worth," that is, what people are willing to pay them. Actors get paid such large amounts because of the number of people willing to pay a comparatively small amount to them. Each person spends more money on food than movies, but there are many more farmers than famous actors so each one gets less money. As a collective, farmers make much more money than actors, though each individual might not make as much. I'd also like to note briefly that, in the U.S. at least, the number of farmers is not very high and that each farming company makes a huge amount of money, far more than any actor.

Workers do work in capitalism because they get paid for their labour with agreeable terms. If they can't find someone willing to pay them for their work, then they don't work. This is not a complex concept.

If they don't work, they starve, or nowadays rely on welfare, though that is hardly an empowering and rewarding existance. You can't have it both ways. Either capitalism is non-voluntary or people wouldn't become lazy in anarcho-communism.

In any system of economic organization people have to work, otherwise products aren't produced and everyone suffers. There is no reason to believe that people would not work in a communistically organized system, though there motivation would have to be different from those living in Capitalism. With that said, it would be very difficult at best for people to make the transition, because any system of motivation is deeply engrained into the minds of the population.

Essentially you can view money as units of security. It brings you food to keep you alive and shelter to protect you from the elements and predators, and it brings you social status to provide for the best situation for creating and raising offspring. In Communism money is replaced with social benifit. In essense taking out the middleman that is money. There is no particular benifit to this, because social status becomes currency rather than currency buying status, but at the same time there is no real loss when money is eliminated.

People won't become lazy, necessarily, in Communism, but removing the possibility of benifit beyond need will lower a person's motivation no matter how you look at it. If you switch the currency from little pieces of paper to social standing that's fine, but removing all currency entirely would destroy people's motivation to work.

In capitilism the amont of money you earn is equal to how hard you work. Lets face it Capitilism is the best economic system their is. It is either that or Communism or Fascism which both lead to dictatorships.

Also, you need to learn a lot about economics. Fascism is a form of government, not an economic system, for one thing.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The market system allows for people to be paid what they are "worth," that is, what people are willing to pay them. Actors get paid such large amounts because of the number of people willing to pay a comparatively small amount to them. Each person spends more money on food than movies, but there are many more farmers than famous actors so each one gets less money. As a collective, farmers make much more money than actors, though each individual might not make as much. I'd also like to note briefly that, in the U.S. at least, the number of farmers is not very high and that each farming company makes a huge amount of money, far more than any actor.

And yet farmers aren't rich. Why? Because they are being denied the full product of their labor. The fact remains that capitalism doesn't reward hard work at all.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

It doesn't matter who "works harder" or "is more important". Compensation doesn't fall from the sky. What determines your wage is what someone else is willing to pay you for it. I'm willing to pay $2 for a loaf of bread, and $8 for a movie ticket. If that means that a farmer makes a little and an actor makes a lot, so be it.

If someone inherits or is given money, that means that someone else has freely given their property to that person. That property doesn't and will never belong "to the people". It belonged to the original owner who then used it as he saw fit (in this case giving it to someone else he cares about).

Proponents of capitalism make numerous contradictions. For example, they say that the rich get paid the most because they contribute the most. If that's true, then what about actors vs. farmers? We can live without entertainment, but not without food. So why are actors paid more than farmers?
Perhaps this can be explained using a simple concept: scarcity.

In a ‘capitalist’ economic system (Which is not really an existing system but that is another story) reward isn’t about who “contributes” the most, or about “importance”. Price is determined by scarcity. (See Wikipedia definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity) )

Some thinks are really ‘important’ but not scarce. Such as air. Air is VERY important, but doesn’t cost a thing. Now, it is not true that ‘all’ actors are paid more then all farmers because of their social position. The wage of a farmer is determined by the price of food, which is determined by supply and demand.

To get to the ‘contributing’ argument: if there are too many farmers and too little actors, then the wage difference will grow and maybe some farmers will go and follow acting classes because they make more that way. That way, the system stabilises itself so supply and demand become more equal. ;)

I hope this helps.

It doesn't matter who "works harder" or "is more important". Compensation doesn't fall from the sky. What determines your wage is what someone else is willing to pay you for it. I'm willing to pay $2 for a loaf of bread, and $8 for a movie ticket. If that means that a farmer makes a little and an actor makes a lot, so be it.

If someone inherits or is given money, that means that someone else has freely given their property to that person. That property doesn't and will never belong "to the people". It belonged to the original owner who then used it as he saw fit (in this case giving it to someone else he cares about).

Once again, you must concede that capitalism doesn't reward hard work.

Perhaps this can be explained using a simple concept: scarcity.

In a ‘capitalist’ economic system (Which is not really an existing system but that is another story) reward isn’t about who “contributes” the most, or about “importance”. Price is determined by scarcity. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity]Wikipedia ( [url) definition[/url] )

Some thinks are really ‘important’ but not scarce. Such as air. Air is VERY important, but doesn’t cost a thing. Now, it is not true that ‘all’ actors are paid more then all farmers because of their social position. The wage of a farmer is determined by the price of food, which is determined by supply and demand.

To get to the ‘contributing’ argument: if there are too many farmers and too little actors, then the wage difference will grow and maybe some farmers will go and follow acting classes because they make more that way. That way, the system stabilises itself so supply and demand become more equal.

That's stupid. Why should actors get paid more because food is more common even though food is also far more important?

Supply and demand can actually result in some weird results. If most people in one country are poor and there are more rich people in another country, a corporation would be likely to sell food to the richer country because that would be most profitable. The end result is that the poor people starve because it isn't profitable to sell food there.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The market system allows for people to be paid what they are "worth," that is, what people are willing to pay them. Actors get paid such large amounts because of the number of people willing to pay a comparatively small amount to them. Each person spends more money on food than movies, but there are many more farmers than famous actors so each one gets less money. As a collective, farmers make much more money than actors, though each individual might not make as much. I'd also like to note briefly that, in the U.S. at least, the number of farmers is not very high and that each farming company makes a huge amount of money, far more than any actor.

And yet farmers aren't rich. Why? Because they are being denied the full product of their labor. The fact remains that capitalism doesn't reward hard work at all.

Farmers are rich. In what way are they being "denied the full product of their labor?" Capitalism rewards, primarily, adaptability. Capitalism rewards whoever is able to find those places within the system where demand is high but supply is low. Because of this draw toward supply vacuums Capitalism provides for all the wants and needs of its participants in the most effecient way possible. Any planned economy would be necessarily less efficient.

A completly free markets lead to too many inequalities, a reduced group of people can participate of 40% of the Internal Brute Product of a nation while others have to beg for getting a piece of bread, big transnational corps crush small local industries leaving hundreds unemployed and starving, and the same "megacorps" tend to monopolize once competition is out of the way.

Communism is not the way either, as it takes too much freedom from the people if the state decides what should people produce or consume.

The trick is to get an equilibrium between liberalism, to let the people decide, and state intervention, to ensure some degree of economical equality.

It doesn't matter who "works harder" or "is more important". Compensation doesn't fall from the sky. What determines your wage is what someone else is willing to pay you for it. I'm willing to pay $2 for a loaf of bread, and $8 for a movie ticket. If that means that a farmer makes a little and an actor makes a lot, so be it.

If someone inherits or is given money, that means that someone else has freely given their property to that person. That property doesn't and will never belong "to the people". It belonged to the original owner who then used it as he saw fit (in this case giving it to someone else he cares about).

Once again, you must concede that capitalism doesn't reward hard work.

No one ever said it did, to the best of my knowledge. Also, Communism doesn't reward hard work any more than Capitalism. One of the primarly principles of Communism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is fundamentally a statement against rewarding people based on their effort and ability.

Perhaps this can be explained using a simple concept: scarcity.

In a ‘capitalist’ economic system (Which is not really an existing system but that is another story) reward isn’t about who “contributes” the most, or about “importance”. Price is determined by scarcity. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity]Wikipedia ( [url) definition[/url] )

Some thinks are really ‘important’ but not scarce. Such as air. Air is VERY important, but doesn’t cost a thing. Now, it is not true that ‘all’ actors are paid more then all farmers because of their social position. The wage of a farmer is determined by the price of food, which is determined by supply and demand.

To get to the ‘contributing’ argument: if there are too many farmers and too little actors, then the wage difference will grow and maybe some farmers will go and follow acting classes because they make more that way. That way, the system stabilises itself so supply and demand become more equal.

That's stupid. Why should actors get paid more because food is more common even though food is also far more important?

Supply and demand can actually result in some weird results. If most people in one country are poor and there are more rich people in another country, a corporation would be likely to sell food to the richer country because that would be most profitable. The end result is that the poor people starve because it isn't profitable to sell food there.

It is perfectly reasonable that actors are paid more than farmers based on the fact that anyone can be a farmer while only a select few people can be famous actors.

You're right that supply and demand can create situations in which countries are forced, for instance to raise cash crops to sell over seas while their people are starving. Really, though, that's the result of extreme poverty more than the market economy. Poverty in that degree causes people to be forced to do things which would otherwise seem completely illogical to survive.

It is perfectly reasonable that actors are paid more than farmers based on the fact that anyone can be a farmer while only a select few people can be famous actors.



If Vin Diesel can be a successful actor, than anyone can be an actor. Or Keanu Reeves for that matter.

No one ever said it did, to the best of my knowledge. Also, Communism doesn't reward hard work any more than Capitalism. One of the primarly principles of Communism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is fundamentally a statement against rewarding people based on their effort and ability.

So? That doesn't make capitalism pro-hard work.

It is perfectly reasonable that actors are paid more than farmers based on the fact that anyone can be a farmer while only a select few people can be famous actors.

That's because the criteria are stupid. You have to conform to a narrow standard of attractiveness, which is why celebrities have small hips, etc.

You're right that supply and demand can create situations in which countries are forced, for instance to raise cash crops to sell over seas while their people are starving. Really, though, that's the result of extreme poverty more than the market economy. Poverty in that degree causes people to be forced to do things which would otherwise seem completely illogical to survive.

Poverty is a social class and wouldn't exist in a classless society.

Communism is not the way either, as it takes too much freedom from the people if the state decides what should people produce or consume.

Except that the state isn't present in anarcho-communism.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Once again, you must concede that capitalism doesn't reward hard work. Ever heard the phrase "from rags to riches?" Regardless of where you stand in society, you can go up. Even if you must work multiple jobs, (here you are hard working) to afford college, etc. etc. it will pay off. You have much higher chances of getting employed and/or getting a better paying job if you are well educated.


That's stupid. Why should actors get paid more because food is more common even though food is also far more important? Almost anyone can do manual labor, but how many people do you know who are great actors? Also, not every actor is a mega bajillionaire. For example, here in Alabama we have something called the "Alabama Shapespeare Festival" where many plays are shown. It is from my understanding that the actors seen are not exactly rich.


-----------------------------------------
I'm not stealing Letila's siggy!
Capitalism! (http://capitalism.org/faq/government.htm)
I like big breasts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I'm really sleepy as I make these arguements, so don't be bothered if they are well...sleepy sounding :wink:

Once again, you must concede that capitalism doesn't reward hard work.
I DON'T CARE.

If people can find an easier way to get reward, I say go for it. Sometimes hard work is rewarded, sometimes it isn't.

The only criteria is that there is a buyer and a seller, and they make a deal by consent where both profit. The only fair price is the one they both agree on.

No one ever said it did, to the best of my knowledge. Also, Communism doesn't reward hard work any more than Capitalism. One of the primarly principles of Communism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is fundamentally a statement against rewarding people based on their effort and ability.


Anarcho-communism DOES reward people for hard work.

Your statements clearly represent the brainwashing of your social circumstance in that you see the only possible means of reward as material. Yes, capitalism does tend to 'reward' people quite well with money and with goods and services. In doing so, however, capitalism produces extremely negative consequences for our social well being such as inequality (see http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=155027 for stats). Traditional economic models are based on the idea that more money/goods/possesions is directly related to utility or to overall wellbeing. The rewards of socially oriented ideologies such as communism and anarchism also include love, respect, friendship and equality. Capitalism is extremely unsuited to the provision of sociall goods as it is biased in favour of individualism and competition rather than cooperation.

The only criteria is that there is a buyer and a seller, and they make a deal by consent where both profit. The only fair price is the one they both agree on.

But the worker doesn't consent. I've explained it many times, but you still don't get it.

Ever heard the phrase "from rags to riches?" Regardless of where you stand in society, you can go up. Even if you must work multiple jobs, (here you are hard working) to afford college, etc. etc. it will pay off. You have much higher chances of getting employed and/or getting a better paying job if you are well educated.

I suppose you subscribe to the myth of equal opportunity. As long as there are people in poor nations suffering from malnutrition in the same world as people born into families with billions of dollars, there can never be equal opportunity.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

First off, to whoever made the comment about Facism being an alternative to Capitalism...Facism is a form of totalitarianism based off Capitalism.
Now, for my opinions:
Communism is not the real goal that you "communists" are seeking. Sorry, but if you say it is, you're wrong. What communists really seek is socialism, but communism is the step that has to come between. And by the time socialism roles around, there is no economy and no government. It's basically anarchy, but not chaotic. Granted, not organized, but peaceful. Now, that is the farfetched goal of communists world-wide, whether they know it or not. IF they don't they should read up on Marx and others. The problem with communism is that it requires everything to fit into place and it ignores human pride and self-worth. Living in a communist state would be like working fast food when the guy who does a sloppy job on everything gets the same raise as you do after 90 days when the whole time you've been cleaning up after him and making sure his work gets done. Also, for communism to really work, the entire world would have to be in control of one communist state (why was USSR expansionist? this is why, oh and Stalin was power hungry...but yea...). Any way, it's a nice dream, but you are going to have to convince 100% of the population of the world. And my final argument against communism is that it does provide for a means of advancement. People don't really get any benefit out of being better than anyone else, there is no compitition, and therefore, progress is not important.
Now, capitalism... well, capitalism is based off the idea that if a company has competitors, then the company that can offer the best product at the best price will survive. Capitalism can be highly successful in nations of any size, population, and economic base. The fact that capitalism is based of making a profit and using that profit to get what you need means that one nation could have every one of its citizens making shoes for Nike, and the nation won't go hungry because they'll have enough profits to purchase what they need, and almost more importantly, what they want. And there will be companies to provide these people with what they need and want. Hopefully, there will be multiple companies for each product that way they have to try outdoiing each other. Take the recent internet happenings for instance. This is a great example of the advantage of capitalism. I don't know how many of you people use Yahoo email or Yahoo messenger, but if you've noticed, in the past week or so they have started doing major upgrades. The email upgrade was minor, but the messenger got completely redone and is extremely awesome now. Why did they do this? Capitalism. The people who put adds on their site were threatening to switch over to google as google's email service is clearly better than any other free web-based email service thus far. Yahoo, in an attempt to keep their advertisers, their source of income, started improving their service so they could continue to see their profits...now, any communist who can post here and say that (if they used yahoo before the upgrade) they didn't enjoy the Yahoo upgrade, then they are a true communist. However, any communist that enjoyed the Yahoo upgrade, or even the new Google service, is in fact, a capitalist.

I suppose you subscribe to the myth of equal opportunity. As long as there are people in poor nations suffering from malnutrition in the same world as people born into families with billions of dollars, there can never be equal opportunity. The rifts between rich and poor can be closed, and the means are rather simple: education. THere is a link between the average IQ of a nation of its GDP per capita, so if one can get to work and increasing the IQ of a nation (I assume someone with no education would do worse than someone with education), they can easily increase the standing of the nation.

Interestingly enough, the poorest nations appear to be the more corrupt ones that have maniacal dictatorships, and the richer ones appear to be capitalistic democracies. This could be an arguement for anarcho-individualism.

Farmers make less because we are no longer at a subsistence level. We are at a conspicuous consumption level. An actors product can be seen by everybody worldwide where as farmers products are relatively restricted in customers. They don’t have the mass production capability as the entertainment business. Farmers also have more competitors to deal with than the entertainment industry. There are probably more competing farmers in New York state alone than there are movie companies in the entire county. Also because we are in a conspicuous consumption level people want to throw their leftover money away at whatever useless crap they can get their hands on. Many people like to be entertained and movies make great entertainment for most people. But don’t forget about the massive markup that food gets at entertainment centers. Theaters probably spend fifteen cents for popcorn that they charge three - four dollars for. And people will pay for it because they are willing to pay that much for it so long as they get their entertainment fix.

Work is not about how much effort is being put into a system. Work is actually how much is accomplished. Sure farmers put in a lot of effort, but they produce a relatively small about of goods and therefore contribute only a little bit of work. A very important little bit, but still very small. Where as actors, albeit not personally, are able to mass produce their product to a point where their product sells much more than any one farm ever could. So the actor actually does contribute more and does more work than the farmer does.

Interestingly enough, the poorest nations appear to be the more corrupt ones that have maniacal dictatorships, and the richer ones appear to be capitalistic democracies. This could be an arguement for anarcho-individualism.

What they don't tell you is that the poor countries are usually exploited by the rich countries. Haven't you heard about how child labor exists in other countries.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The rifts between rich and poor can be closed, and the means are rather simple: education. THere is a link between the average IQ of a nation of its GDP per capita, so if one can get to work and increasing the IQ of a nation (I assume someone with no education would do worse than someone with education), they can easily increase the standing of the nation.

Interestingly enough, the poorest nations appear to be the more corrupt ones that have maniacal dictatorships, and the richer ones appear to be capitalistic democracies. This could be an arguement for anarcho-individualism.

IQ has less to do with a person's knowledge than their ability to learn....however, with education people can have higher tech jobs which pay more, but you'll still always need those people at the bottom of the ladder doing whatever it is that needs to be done. Additionally, if everyone was more responsible, janitors would be unnecessary.

-----------------------------------

By the way, just in a little bit of defense, concessions at movie theatres are significantly marked up because that is the only real source of income for a movie theatre. In the first two weeks of a movie being out, the movie theatre earns only 2% of what they sell in tickets. The rest goes to the movie distributor and sales tax. So, that makes the price of concessions some what understandable, eh? I mean, we wouldn't have movie theatres if the concessions weren't so expensive.

[quote]The fact remains that capitalism doesn't reward hard work at all.

I disagree with that. From my short working expirience, I have not only realised, but expirienced that the ones who work hardest, get more rewards.

Last summer I worked as a temporarely worker at a brewery. I dare say I was the one who worked hardest of all the temporarely workers, and I also was theone who made most money of the temporarely workers. The boss noticed I worked more than the others, so I were given first right to every overtime job. Wich meant, more money for me.

Last summer I worked as a temporarely worker at a brewery. I dare say I was the one who worked hardest of all the temporarely workers, and I also was theone who made most money of the temporarely workers. The boss noticed I worked more than the others, so I were given first right to every overtime job. Wich meant, more money for me.

Sorry, but that doesn't really matter when you consider that there are people who inherit millions of dollars. Yeah, they really worked hard to get born into the right family.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Communism is not the way either, as it takes too much freedom from the people if the state decides what should people produce or consume.


Except that the state isn't present in anarcho-communism.



So you concede that orthodox communism is an inadecuate economic policy.

But, could you please explain what is this "anarcho-communism" that you refer to? And, how would it work with actual humans?



Now, capitalism... well, capitalism is based off the idea that if a company has competitors, then the company that can offer the best product at the best price will survive. Capitalism can be highly successful in nations of any size, population, and economic base. The fact that capitalism is based of making a profit and using that profit to get what you need means that one nation could have every one of its citizens making shoes for Nike, and the nation won't go hungry because they'll have enough profits to purchase what they need, and almost more importantly, what they want. And there will be companies to provide these people with what they need and want. Hopefully, there will be multiple companies for each product that way they have to try outdoiing each other.



But, what if the company sweeps all competence in the market it's raching for?


Capitalism can be highly successful in nations of any size, population, and economic base.


Key word: Can.

Free market policies can be succesful economically and socially, but they don't succeed all the time.

Just look at Russia, where the social disparities and poverty did nothing but increase after becoming a capitalist country, and South American countries whose neoliberal economic policies just opened the path for big transnational corporations to loot their land even more (you know, exploiting natural resources).


And by the way, a diploma does not assure you a decent job, or a job at all.

Sorry, but that doesn't really matter when you consider that there are people who inherit millions of dollars. Yeah, they really worked hard to get born into the right family.
There’s an old saying that people find immortality through their offspring. Although a person dies their legacy lives on. And logically they’re going to want to give themselves their own money after they die :P

Proponents of capitalism make numerous contradictions. For example, they say that the rich get paid the most because they contribute the most. If that's true, then what about actors vs. farmers? We can live without entertainment, but not without food. So why are actors paid more than farmers?


a good capitalist wouldn't claim that. actors get paid more than farmers when they have something people are willing to pay for; most actors make far less than farmers because nobody is willing to pay much to see them, but famous actors are something people will pay more to see. a person should be paid whatever others are willing to pay them; it's a free exchange, and since people will pay actors more they should get more. why force people to pay more or less than they chose to pay?


Capitalists also claim that capitalism is voluntary and that workers choose to work. They then say that anarcho-communism would suffer from rampant laziness. How does that work? Why will workers work in capitalism but not anarcho-communism if both are voluntary?


because capitalism provides reasons for people to make the choice to support themselves. in anarcho-communism there is no reason for anybody to work, since they will be supported regardless (according to your system, anyway), or at least no reason to work very hard because they will never be allowed to get ahead of anybody else. in capitalism there is motivation to work because one can benefit from it, but in communism or your anarcho-communism there is no personal property and therefore little incentive to work. it's not that people think human nature is different under the two systems, but rather that the constant human nature will respond differently to the alternative motivations.

because capitalism provides reasons for people to make the choice to support themselves. in anarcho-communism there is no reason for anybody to work, since they will be supported regardless (according to your system, anyway), or at least no reason to work very hard because they will never be allowed to get ahead of anybody else. in capitalism there is motivation to work because one can benefit from it, but in communism or your anarcho-communism there is no personal property and therefore little incentive to work. it's not that people think human nature is different under the two systems, but rather that the constant human nature will respond differently to the alternative motivations.

Have you actually read anything about anarcho-communism? I'm begining to think everything you know about it is from anarchists mentioning it in debates. Do you really think that arguing that no one would work would matter? Do you know how many times we've seen this argument.

The short answer is that work in anarchism would be much more enjoyable because it is self-managed. You are correct in stating that no one would work for 8 hours taking orders for free. Also, don't you realize that people do things for reasons other than money?

There’s an old saying that people find immortality through their offspring. Although a person dies their legacy lives on. And logically they’re going to want to give themselves their own money after they die

If you want to view it that way, fine, but don't claim that capitalism rewards hard work or anything like that because inheritance shows it to be false.

So you concede that orthodox communism is an inadecuate economic policy.

What you call communism has little to do with real communism. It is called Marxism or Marxism-Leninism and its authoritarian nature means that it fails in its goals.

But, could you please explain what is this "anarcho-communism" that you refer to? And, how would it work with actual humans?

That question would take a huge amount of space to answer, certainly more than would fit here, at least if you want it answered addiquately. I can give you the long explaination if you want. Just TG me and I'd be glad to.

The short answer is that it is a political theory that advocates the abolition of all authority and using communal ownership and management of the means of production instead of markets and money.


-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

because capitalism provides reasons for people to make the choice to support themselves. in anarcho-communism there is no reason for anybody to work, since they will be supported regardless (according to your system, anyway), or at least no reason to work very hard because they will never be allowed to get ahead of anybody else. in capitalism there is motivation to work because one can benefit from it, but in communism or your anarcho-communism there is no personal property and therefore little incentive to work. it's not that people think human nature is different under the two systems, but rather that the constant human nature will respond differently to the alternative motivations.

Bottle you seem to have a very negative perception of human behaviour. Do you really think that people only work so they can be 'better' that their neighbour? Do you think that greed is an acceptable trait? Do you think people are inherently lazy? Do you think that winning is everything? Do you think that a beautifull landscape becomes more beautifull when you put up fences to exlude people from it? Do you think that having employees makes you a better person than having friends?

If you answer yes to any of these questions and your posts indicate that you would, then I feel truly sorry for you.

Proponents of capitalism make numerous contradictions.

And let's see these alleged "contradictions"

For example, they say that the rich get paid the most because they contribute the most.

What capitalist says that? I want to know before I answer so we can determine if you've committed a strawman fallacy or not. Name the "capitalists" who say that. Now.

If that's true, then what about actors vs. farmers? We can live without entertainment, but not without food. So why are actors paid more than farmers?

Simple: subjective value preference. You can read all about it in Mises and Rothbard's books.

Oh wait. You don't like them. Oh well. Your loss.

Capitalists also claim that capitalism is voluntary and that workers choose to work. They then say that anarcho-communism would suffer from rampant laziness.

No, they say that anarchocommunism is a contradiction in terms. Communism requires a government.

because capitalism provides reasons for people to make the choice to support themselves. in anarcho-communism there is no reason for anybody to work, since they will be supported regardless (according to your system, anyway), or at least no reason to work very hard because they will never be allowed to get ahead of anybody else. in capitalism there is motivation to work because one can benefit from it, but in communism or your anarcho-communism there is no personal property and therefore little incentive to work. it's not that people think human nature is different under the two systems, but rather that the constant human nature will respond differently to the alternative motivations.

Bottle you seem to have a very negative perception of human behaviour. Do you really think that people only work so they can be 'better' that their neighbour? Do you think that greed is an acceptable trait? Do you think people are inherently lazy? Do you think that winning is everything? Do you think that a beautifull landscape becomes more beautifull when you put up fences to exlude people from it? Do you think that having employees makes you a better person than having friends?

If you answer yes to any of these questions and your posts indicate that you would, then I feel truly sorry for you.

i certainly think that people work best when they know they will benefit from it. sometimes that has to do with competition with neighbors, other times merely with self-satisfaction. i don't see that as negative in the slightest, since it is an evolutionarily valid instinct. i don't think greed is wrong unless it consumes a person; the only time it is a bad thing is when a person is so fixated on getting things that they actually can't be happy. there's nothing wrong with wanting things or with seeking to fill your desires, provided that you don't directly injure another in the process. simply being more successful than somebody else doesn't constitute injury.

i don't think any of the things you said are universally true; it always depends on context. yes, there are many times when growing your business is more important than making friends, but there are also times when the reverse is true. yes, there are times when a landscape is more beautiful because it is kept private, but there are also beautiful stretches of public land that can be treasures for everyone.

i don't think people are inherantly lazy, just that nobody WANTS to work all the time. we like to work a bit because we feel satisfaction in our acheivement and our ability to support ourselves, but we would love to maximize our leisure time. if somebody forces us to do a job through which we don't get satisfaction, or if we don't see anything to gain from working, we will chose not to work. if somebody knows that they are going to get the same pay regardless of how hard they work then there is no satisfaction in working especially hard, since they will watch others reap the same benefits while enjoying greater leisure. i don't see that disappointment as laziness, but rather as pragmatism. and i don't think anything is wrong with it.

IQ has less to do with a person's knowledge than their ability to learn....however, with education people can have higher tech jobs which pay more, but you'll still always need those people at the bottom of the ladder doing whatever it is that needs to be done. Additionally, if everyone was more responsible, janitors would be unnecessary.

Show me where in there I said a diploma garuntees anything? I didn't even say anything about school. I said education. Education could be on the job training even. There are just certain jobs that require a certain level of knowledge to be done. How many high school drop outs with average IQs could do programming for Microsoft? Well, probably some of the more recent high school drop outs maybe, but I hope you get the point. It's not that diplomas or education garuntee anything to any one, it's just that there are something that you can be garunteed you won't get without the proper education.

Bottle you seem to have a very negative perception of human behaviour. Do you really think that people only work so they can be 'better' that their neighbour? Do you think that greed is an acceptable trait? Do you think people are inherently lazy? Do you think that winning is everything? Do you think that a beautifull landscape becomes more beautifull when you put up fences to exlude people from it? Do you think that having employees makes you a better person than having friends?

Yes, lots of people strive to be better than others. Greed may not be acceptable, but it is undeniable. Yes, people are inherently lazy. Winning is most of everything to lots of people. Not sure what your talking about with the landscape junk. And not sure when beautiful got a second L. Employers have friends too. Thanks for playing.

because capitalism provides reasons for people to make the choice to support themselves. in anarcho-communism there is no reason for anybody to work, since they will be supported regardless (according to your system, anyway), or at least no reason to work very hard because they will never be allowed to get ahead of anybody else. in capitalism there is motivation to work because one can benefit from it, but in communism or your anarcho-communism there is no personal property and therefore little incentive to work. it's not that people think human nature is different under the two systems, but rather that the constant human nature will respond differently to the alternative motivations.

Have you actually read anything about anarcho-communism? I'm begining to think everything you know about it is from anarchists mentioning it in debates. Do you really think that arguing that no one would work would matter? Do you know how many times we've seen this argument.

The short answer is that work in anarchism would be much more enjoyable because it is self-managed. You are correct in stating that no one would work for 8 hours taking orders for free. Also, don't you realize that people do things for reasons other than money?


um, i don't think you are reading what i write anymore (if you ever did). i was responding to your post, to a question that you had posed. that's the capitalist argument.

my work right now is self-managed. and i do my work for other reasons than money. so why would i want to change to a system where i would be paid less for my work and others would be paid more to do less work than i?

i certainly think that people work best when they know they will benefit from it. sometimes that has to do with competition with neighbors, other times merely with self-satisfaction. i don't see that as negative in the slightest, since it is an evolutionarily valid instinct. i don't think greed is wrong unless it consumes a person; the only time it is a bad thing is when a person is so fixated on getting things that they actually can't be happy. there's nothing wrong with wanting things or with seeking to fill your desires, provided that you don't directly injure another in the process. simply being more successful than somebody else doesn't constitute injury.

i don't think any of the things you said are universally true; it always depends on context. yes, there are many times when growing your business is more important than making friends, but there are also times when the reverse is true. yes, there are times when a landscape is more beautiful because it is kept private, but there are also beautiful stretches of public land that can be treasures for everyone.

i don't think people are inherantly lazy, just that nobody WANTS to work all the time. we like to work a bit because we feel satisfaction in our acheivement and our ability to support ourselves, but we would love to maximize our leisure time. if somebody forces us to do a job through which we don't get satisfaction, or if we don't see anything to gain from working, we will chose not to work. if somebody knows that they are going to get the same pay regardless of how hard they work then there is no satisfaction in working especially hard, since they will watch others reap the same benefits while enjoying greater leisure. i don't see that disappointment as laziness, but rather as pragmatism. and i don't think anything is wrong with it.

Yes people work because they benefit from it but they also work so their family can benefit from it and so their community can benefit from it. The benefits of working are not merely the acquisition of private property as I was getting at in my last posts. Nobody wants to work but most people are willing to work, you havent suggested any reason why this would not be the case in an anarchist society. Similarly the leisure time/work tradeoff will always apply in an anarchist society as work and i do not see this as contradictory with the goals of equality and public ownership of goods. In fact it is capitalism that produces a system whereby some people can work very hard and see their products of their labour enjoyed by other people. Marx was correct in that capitalism produces alienation in workers because they have no interest in the product of their labour. This is why the unfortunate people that work in mcdonalds need constant supervision (coercion would be another word) in order to motivate themselves.

my work right now is self-managed. and i do my work for other reasons than money. so why would i want to change to a system where i would be paid less for my work and others would be paid more to do less work than i?

because lower pay would be offset by lower prices.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I work for a newspaper manufacturer as a mailer. We assemble the papers for delivery, and from working this job it is quite apparent why capitalism is a superior economic system to any type of socialist, communist, or anarcho-communist system for one reason, there is very little incentive to work. The harder you work, the more work you are given; the sloppy and lazy workers do less work, and therefore the mailers who work harder end up doing the work instead. Many nights has my table finished our workload early, only to be given the work of others to do. By now us hard workers have learned and adapted to this work environment, by working slower, so we won't have to do extra work, only to get paid the same as the others who do less. So instead of finishing production runs early, the whole plant must remain open longer to finish the run.

I work for a newspaper manufacturer as a mailer. We assemble the papers for delivery, and from working this job it is quite apparent why capitalism is a superior economic system to any type of socialist, communist, or anarcho-communist system for one reason, there is very little incentive to work. The harder you work, the more work you are given; the sloppy and lazy workers do less work, and therefore the mailers who work harder end up doing the work instead. Many nights has my table finished our workload early, only to be given the work of others to do. By now us hard workers have learned and adapted to this work environment, by working slower, so we won't have to do extra work, only to get paid the same as the others who do less. So instead of finishing production runs early, the whole plant must remain open longer to finish the run.

That's easy for you to say. Look at the people who inherit money. Capitalism does not reward hard work.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I work for a newspaper manufacturer as a mailer. We assemble the papers for delivery, and from working this job it is quite apparent why capitalism is a superior economic system to any type of socialist, communist, or anarcho-communist system for one reason, there is very little incentive to work. The harder you work, the more work you are given; the sloppy and lazy workers do less work, and therefore the mailers who work harder end up doing the work instead. Many nights has my table finished our workload early, only to be given the work of others to do. By now us hard workers have learned and adapted to this work environment, by working slower, so we won't have to do extra work, only to get paid the same as the others who do less. So instead of finishing production runs early, the whole plant must remain open longer to finish the run.

Its not always quite so simple.

I work in a call centre where i manage about 10 staff. They work much harder than i do and they earn less. They stay only because they are paid to, they odnt love their work or feel any personal commitment to it (not that i blame them, neither do i). The end result is that I have to spend my time 'encouraging' them to perform and to keep an eye on them. Where is the efficiency in that?

Its not always quite so simple.

I work in a call centre where i manage about 10 staff. They work much harder than i do and they earn less. They stay only because they are paid to, they odnt love their work or feel any personal commitment to it (not that i blame them, neither do i). The end result is that I have to spend my time 'encouraging' them to perform and to keep an eye on them. Where is the efficiency in that?

That's why you are in charge of them and why you get paid more than them. If you were properly doing their job, it'd be quite efficient. Did you ever think that part of your job is to ensure the efficiency of the people you are in charge of?

That's why you are in charge of them and why you get paid more than them. If you were properly doing their job, it'd be quite efficient. Did you ever think that part of your job is to ensure the efficiency of the people you are in charge of?

Actually, what it demonstrates is that people higher up in the hierarchy often have it easier and usually get paid more, showing that payment is more often connected to rank rather than work.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Actually, what it demonstrates is that people higher up in the hierarchy often have it easier and usually get paid more, showing that payment is more often connected to rank rather than work.

Actually, it demonstrates that people are inherently lazy. People don't get paid to have a rank. You think the Generals in the American military are paid lots more money just because they have stars on their shoulders? I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate. It's because they've survived social Darwinism and proven they are the most capable to be in charge of people. Labor is not the only form of work. The president doesn't get paid just because the electoral college likes him better than someone else. He is in charge of people. He manages things. Management is a job that requires special people with special qualities, qualities like leadership, a quality that communists look down upon...I actually think that the guy in charge of these lazy people that he thinks does more work than him should be fired. He clearly isn't doing what his superior paid him to do.

(the thing says there are 4 pages and trotterstan made the last post, but it appears that there are 3 and I made the last post...)